DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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
This action is a Final Action on the merits in response to the application filed on 10/16/2025.
Claims 21-40 remain pending in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s made no amendments are acknowledged.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of claims 21-40 in the previous office action has been maintained.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Regarding claims 21-40, under Step 2A claims 21-40 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application.
With respect to claims 21-40, the independent claims (claims 21, 28, and 35) are directed procedure for implementing services on behalf of a provider (e.g. creating services for businesses/clients/entities/users, receiving input, delivering software products) These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to a method of organizing human activity which include commercial interactions such as legal obligations and business relations. The commercial interactions are entered into when creating constraints for one or more software, while implementing and following instructions of obligations for various entities, which is further supported by designating constraints based on input. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers commercial interactions, then it falls within the “method of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites claim 1 recites:
A system, comprising:
one or more computing nodes, each of the computing nodes comprising at least one processor and a memory, wherein the one or more computing nodes implement an enterprise catalog service for managing a enterprise catalog of software products;
a repository for storing a plurality of constraint objects representing constraints comprising rules restricting use of the software products in the enterprise catalog, the constraint objects identified via unique resource identifiers;
a repository for storing objects comprising unique resource identifiers for software products or portfolios of software products;
wherein the enterprise catalog service, implemented by the one or more computing nodes, is configured to:
provide one or more programmatic interfaces to create, remove, list, or describe one or more of the plurality of constraint objects;
create, in response to a request received via the one or more programmatic interfaces, a constraint object, wherein the created constraint object comprises one or more rules, each rule restricting how software products to which the rule is applied are to be used, wherein the created constraint object comprising the one or more rules is external to the software products to which the rule is applied;
designate, based at least in part on input received via the one or more programmatic interfaces, the constraint object as shareable, wherein one or more other constraints are designated as private;
associate the created constraint object to one or more software products via addition of a unique resource identifier of the constraint object to metadata for an object representing the one or more software products, wherein associating the created constraint object to the one or more software products enforceably restricts the use of the one or more software products according to the one or more rules of the created constraint object;
standardize, based at least in part on the unique resource identifier of the constraint object, compliance with the created constraint object across a product delivery platform for the one or more software products and at least another entity, wherein to standardize compliance the enterprise catalog service is configured to:
provide, via a message sent over a network, the unique resource identifier of the created constraint object to the product delivery platform upon the use of at least one of the software products, the product delivery platform configured to enforceably restrict, based on application of the one or more rules of the constraint object, the use of the at least one software products;
receive, via one or more programmatic interfaces to discover shareable constraint objects and to request sharing of shareable constraint objects, a request for the created constraint object;
based at least in part on determining the designation of the created constraint object as shareable as opposed to private, transmit the unique resource identifier of the created constraint object over a network to share the created constraint object with the other entity such that the other entity can add the unique resource identifier of the shared constraint object to metadata for one or more other products, or one or more portfolios, in order to enforceably restrict, based on application of the one or more rules of the shared constraint object, use of the one or more other products, or use of the one or more portfolios.
which are limitations considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting and delivering data; see MPEP 2106.05(g). Additionally, claim 1 recites a processor, a memory, computer node, software products, object, interface at a high-level of generality such that it amount to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea; see MPEP 2106.05(f).. The processor is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of providing and processing information at 0063) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, the additional element (i.e. processor, a memory, computer, computer node, server, software products, object, interface, computer readable storage media) do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. As such, Claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea. The device recited in claim 28 and non-transitory computer-readable medium storing program instructions executed by a processor in claim 35 also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component; see MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the additional elements recited in claims 28 and 35 do not integrate the abstract idea into practical application for similar reasons as claim 1.
The claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se, including processor, a memory, computer, computer node, server, software products, object, interface, computer readable storage media amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer elements utilized to perform generic computer functions, such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); performing repetitive calculations, Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims."); electronic recordkeeping, Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log) and storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). (see at least Specification ([0224]) “an enterprise catalog service as described herein may include a general-purpose computer system that includes or is configured to access a non-transitory computer-accessible (e.g., computer-readable) media, such as computer system 1500 illustrated in FIG. 15.” [0032] “applications (e.g., desktop applications) may be delivered to various end users' virtual desktop instances using an application virtualization technology that encapsulates and isolates applications in dedicated containers. For example, a packaging service implemented on the application fulfillment platform may be configured to transform applications into virtualized application packages and to deliver them to virtual desktop instances or physical desktops running over an operating system on an end user's machine” ). Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, since there are no limitations in the claim that transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 26, 33, and 40 directed to iteratively implementing services on behalf of a provider. This process is similar to the abstract idea noted in the independent claims because they further the limitations of the independent claim which are directed to a method of organizing human activity which include commercial interactions such as legal obligations and business relations. Accordingly, these claim elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the claims since they are directed to abstract ideas.
Dependent claims 22-25, 27, 29-32, 34, and 36-39 are not directed towards any additional abstract ideas and, are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as by describing the nature and content of the data that is received/sent. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed hereinbelow in the order in which they appear in the response filed 10/16/2025.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, at pg. 16-28 Applicant argues with respect to claims at issue are not directed to an abstract idea
In response to the 35 USC § 101 claim rejection argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner did consider each claim and every limitation both individually and as a whole, since the grounds of rejection clearly indicates that an abstract idea has been identified from elements recited in the claims. Using the two-part analysis, the Office has determined there are no elements, in the claim sufficient enough to ensure that the claims amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. As recited, the claims are directed towards:
Claim 21, A system, comprising:
one or more computing nodes, each of the computing nodes comprising at least one processor and a memory, wherein the one or more computing nodes implement an enterprise catalog service for managing a enterprise catalog of software products;
a repository for storing a plurality of constraint objects representing constraints comprising rules restricting use of the software products in the enterprise catalog, the constraint objects identified via unique resource identifiers;
a repository for storing objects comprising unique resource identifiers for software products or portfolios of software products;
wherein the enterprise catalog service, implemented by the one or more computing nodes, is configured to:
provide one or more programmatic interfaces to create, remove, list, or describe one or more of the plurality of constraint objects;
create, in response to a request received via the one or more programmatic interfaces, a constraint object, wherein the created constraint object comprises one or more rules, each rule restricting how software products to which the rule is applied are to be used, wherein the created constraint object comprising the one or more rules is external to the software products to which the rule is applied;
designate, based at least in part on input received via the one or more programmatic interfaces, the constraint object as shareable, wherein one or more other constraints are designated as private;
associate the created constraint object to one or more software products via addition of a unique resource identifier of the constraint object to metadata for an object representing the one or more software products, wherein associating the created constraint object to the one or more software products enforceably restricts the use of the one or more software products according to the one or more rules of the created constraint object;
standardize, based at least in part on the unique resource identifier of the constraint object, compliance with the created constraint object across a product delivery platform for the one or more software products and at least another entity, wherein to standardize compliance the enterprise catalog service is configured to:
provide, via a message sent over a network, the unique resource identifier of the created constraint object to the product delivery platform upon the use of at least one of the software products, the product delivery platform configured to enforceably restrict, based on application of the one or more rules of the constraint object, the use of the at least one software products;
receive, via one or more programmatic interfaces to discover shareable constraint objects and to request sharing of shareable constraint objects, a request for the created constraint object;
based at least in part on determining the designation of the created constraint object as shareable as opposed to private, transmit the unique resource identifier of the created constraint object over a network to share the created constraint object with the other entity such that the other entity can add the unique resource identifier of the shared constraint object to metadata for one or more other products, or one or more portfolios, in order to enforceably restrict, based on application of the one or more rules of the shared constraint object, use of the one or more other products, or use of the one or more portfolios.
The claim(s) does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the computer as recited is a generic computer component that performs functions, which is further supported above in the 101, As such this is not merely a conclusory statement as the Applicant has seem to argue at pg. 19.
In regards to the Applicant’s reference to 2025 update and September 26, 2026, Appeals Review Panel Decision Ex Parte Desjardins, the instant claims are not similar to Ex Parte Desjardins, Examiner finds the Board determined the improvements in Desjardins to be directed to addressing problems arising in the context of a technical improvements to machine learning systems, which overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of AI and machine learning inventions. There is no similar technological problem or solution here and the Examiner did not oversimplify the claim limitations.
Examiner finds the claim recite concepts which are now described in the 2019 PEG as certain methods of organizing human activity. In particular the claims recites limitations for implementing services on behalf of a provider, which constitutes methods related to commercial or legal interactions relating behaviors and business relations which are still considered an abstract idea under the 2019 PEG. The interfaces and are comprised of generic computer elements to perform an existing business process. Examiner finds the claims recite mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea without reciting any improvements to a technology, technological process or computer-related technology.
Regarding, the arguments for the amendments that provide additional technical features for practical application at pg. 27, 28 :
“the claims in this case specify interactions with the computer that yield an unconventional result. The claimed solution is different from the traditional frameworks for provisioning, administering, and managing physical computing resources, software products, and applications. See id. The claimed solution, in one example, instead comprises, but is not limited to one or more repositories for storing constraint objects and objects comprising unique resource identifiers for software products or portfolios of software products, and one or more programmatic interfaces to create, remove, list, or describe one or more of the plurality of constraint objects as well as one or more programmatic interfaces to discover shareable constraint objects and to request sharing of shareable constraint objects, a request for the created constraint object. Applicant's claim also now recites that the create, and designate are
based on input received via those programmatic interfaces. Applicant's claim also now
recites that the receipt of a request for the created constraint object is based on input
received via one or more programmatic interfaces to discover shareable constraint objects
and to request sharing of shareable constraint objects.,”
These argument are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. Furthermore, the Examiner would like to point out that Applicant’s amendments are directed to improving the user’s experience and not the computer itself, in which “programmatic interfaces” are being interpreted as an API, wherein the API a tool for users to interact and have access, thus enhancing the user’s experience. This is supported by the Applicant specs at the following;
0092: “may be responsible for uploading these documents to system-defined locations through various enterprise catalog service APIs. In this example, the service catalog runtime may pass the location of the documents to the catalog service, and the identity and access management (IAM) role used to upload the documents may be stored by the catalog service.”
0093” “clients of the service provider may access one or more services of the provider network via application programming interfaces (APIs) to the services to obtain and configure resource instances and to establish and manage virtual network configurations that include the resource instances, for example virtualized private networks.”
0100: “client, appliance service provider, or other entity may access a virtualization service from within a respective private network on the provider network 200 via an API 202 to request allocation of one or more resource instances within the private network or within another private network. Note that in some embodiments, the hardware virtualization service 220 may be configured to provide computation resources 224 that have been configured to implement a virtual desktop instance, which may appear to the user as a local desktop (implemented by a virtual computing system”
0194: “This may enable administrators to define products that contain an array of service provider resources without the end user having IAM permissions to the underlying services. In this case, the end user may only need access to the enterprise catalog service APIs.”
Then “unique resource identifier” is not an additional element but just a nomenclature/text string which is being used with tools for giving users access, thus enhancing the user’s experience. This is supported by the Applicant specs at the following;
0150: “In various embodiments, IAM policies may be applied to portfolios, products, computing resource instances (e.g., virtualized computing resource instances) and resource stacks, as well as to individual IAM users, groups, or roles. By using a unique resource identifier (“portfolio key”) and one or more tags, the IT administrator may be able to limit access and/or control the operations that can be performed on individual resources or on sets of portfolios, products, computing resource instances, or stacks.”
0245: “that the unique resource identifier for the constraint may include a unique string that serves as a handle for the constraint for searching, displaying, or providing access for modifying, sharing, or importing the constraint (by authorized IT administrators or other privileged users)”
Regarding, the steps that Applicant points to as practical application are merely narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which has been found to be ineffective to render an abstract idea eligible. Furthermore, the Examiner respectfully disagrees because the steps and arguments at pg. 21, 22 of:
“Applicant's recited subject matter recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by implementing various programmatic interfaces that facilitate creation (and sharing) of a particular type of constraint object on a software product to be shared across a product delivery platform in order to standardize compliance with the created constraint across the product delivery platform. The specific improvement is not a mere narrowing to a particular **environment**, but rather a **particular manner** to standardize compliance with the created constraint across a product delivery platform. For example, the specific functionality of i. create, in response to a request received via the one or more programmatic interfaces, a constraint object, wherein the created constraint object comprises one or more rules (a constraint object that is external to the software product it constrains), ii. designate, based at least in part on input received via the one or more programmatic interfaces, the constraint object as shareable (providing the ability to control which constraints are shareable), iii. associate the created constraint object to one or more software products via addition of a unique resource identifier of the constraint object to metadata for an object representing the one or more software products such that the constraint is enforceable, iv. standardize, based at least in part on the unique resource identifier of the constraint object, compliance with the created constraint object across a product delivery platform for the one or more software products and at least another entity via (a) provide, via a message sent over a network, the unique resource identifier of the created constraint object to the product delivery platform upon the use of at least one of the software products such that the constraint is enforced at the product delivery platform and (b) receive, via one or more programmatic interfaces to discover shareable constraint objects and to request sharing of shareable constraint objects, a request for the created constraint object and (c) transmit the unique resource identifier of the created constraint object over a network to share the created constraint object with the other entity such that the other entity can add the unique resource identifier of the shared constraint object to metadata for one or more other products, or one or more portfolios, in order to enforceably restrict, based on application of the one or more rules of the shared constraint object, use of the one or more other products, or use of the one or more portfolios is a **particular manner* * to standardize compliance with the created constraint across a product delivery platform. ,”
Applicant arguments reading the improvements over prior arts systems, the Examiner wants to note whether or not the claims are novel or obvious is evaluated with respect to satisfying the conditions of 35 USC 102 / 35 USC 103, not necessarily determining whether the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101 Additionally, the Examiner stands by the point that the Applicant seems to be describing a “particular way” of implementing an enterprise catalog service are part of the abstract idea. “ The Applicant is basically relying on the system elements as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application but those system elements aren't really utilized in any particular manner, and the specification indicates that at 0259 " through an enterprise catalog service as described herein may include a general-purpose computer system ", which indicates the lack of particularity in the application to the technological environment. Furthermore, at 0021 the Applicant recites that “ It should be understood, that the drawings and detailed description thereto are not intended to limit embodiments to the particular form disclosed, but on the contrary, the intention is to cover all modifications, equivalents and alternatives falling within the spirit and scope as defined by the appended claims.” These citations are a strong indicator that the technical application or the cited arguments above of i, ii, ii, iv are NOT particular, and furthermore the claim invention does not improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field or clearly integrated into a practical application.
Therefore, the claims are clear steps for sharing digital constraints and not the improvement of the servers, consoles, or even software.
Additionally, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which at pg. 26
transmit the unique resource identifier of the created constraint object over a network to share the created constraint object with the other entity such that the other entity can add the unique resource
identifier of the shared constraint object to metadata for one or more other products, or one or more portfolios, in order to enforceably restrict, based on application of the one or more rules of the shared constraint object, use of the one or more other products, or use of the one or more portfolios, at least because it describes a number of technical features working in coordination (e.g., a unique resource identifier of the constraint object (created by a computing node of an electronic catalog) is electronically transmitted over a network in order to share the created constraint with the other entity such that the other entity can add the unique resource identifier of the shared constraint object to one or more other
products, or one or more portfolios).
And implementing services on behalf of a provider will fall under. The 2019 PEG which states:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
At pg. 22-24 Applicant argues similarity to Example 37, 40, and 42.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicants have not identified any disclosure in the claimed invention that shows or even submits the technology is being improved or there was a problem in the technology that the claimed invention solves. Examiner finds, unlike Example 37 and 40, implementing services on behalf of a provider of the claimed concepts (i.e. " creating services for businesses/clients/entities/users, receiving input, delivering software products) is not an improvement to the functioning of any of the additional elements recited in the claims such as: processor, a memory, computer, computer node, server, software products, computer readable storage media. The additional elements recited in the claim does not perform any unconventional functions that can be considered “significantly more” than the judicial exception. Examiner finds the additional elements are used as a tool to present the analysis of the abstract idea, much like requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer, Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1642 (Fed. Cir. 2015); see MPEP 2106.05(f).similar to Claim 3 of Example 37, which ranks icons based on a determined amount of use. Examiner finds Applicant’s invention aims to solve a business problem— project administrator—rather than a technological one.
Regarding, claims in Example 42 as a whole, integrates the method of organizing human activity into a practical application. Specifically, the additional elements recite a specific improvement over prior art systems by allowing remote users to share information in real time in a standardized format regardless of the format in which the information was input by the user. Examiner finds there are no comparable improvements here and Applicants pending claims recite additional elements at a high-level of generality such that they to no more than generic computer components used as tools to apply the instructions of the abstract idea.
The present invention implements services on behalf of a provider without reciting any improvement to the technology, computer-related technology or technological field. Examiner maintains the claims are directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, these arguments are not persuasive.
At page 26 of the Applicant argues claims are similar to claim example 1.
The Examiner respectfully disagree. In regards to example 1, the inventive concept is found in the unconventional and non-generic combination of known elements, Hypothetical claims 1-2 are directed to an abstract idea and have additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because they show an improvement in the functioning of the computer itself and also show an improvement to another technology/technical field, either of which can show eligibility.
In contrast, Applicant’s claims are simply recite instructions to perform the abstract idea on a generic set of computer components. Claims when viewed as a whole do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself; rather, Applicant’s invention aims to solve a business problem.
At page 26 of the Applicant argues claims are similar to DDR.
In response, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner would like to direct the Applicant to, DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. case; where the DDR invention was necessarily rooted in computer technology. Applicant’s claims are not necessarily rooted in computer technology. Rather, Applicant’s invention aims to solve a business problem—for receiving and managing constraints data—rather than a technological one. Indeed, the computing elements recited in Applicant’s claims are merely generic in nature and are insufficient to shift the focus or thrust of Applicant 's invention. Moreover, Applicant’s claims resemble a web administrator scheme for solving a business solution with merely generic computer implementation. Additionally, the Examiner would like to point the Applicant to the 2019 PEG, in which managing customer experiences in online commerce for cloud services will fall under. Then at pg. 27 the Applicant admission that the application is directed to improving the user’s experience and not the computer itself
(at pg.27 “"deploying and managing applications at scale," deploying updates and patches "without affecting user productivity," deploying "applications on-demand" and deploying a company's "own line of business applications" as some examples of one or more of the problems to be solved,”)
Lastly, the 2019 PEG which states:
Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or 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).
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g)
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h)
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate into a practical application and not similar to DDR.
Lastly, regarding “Applicant submits that the lack of references cited by the Final Office Action indicates the unconventional nature of Applicant's claimed subject matter.” First, note that whether or not the claims are novel or obvious is evaluated with respect to satisfying the conditions of 35 USC 102 / 35 USC 103, not necessarily determining whether the claims are eligible under 35 USC 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Narasimhan et al, U.S. Pub. 2014/0282037, (describing the method for implementing a cloud services catalog).
Iyoob et al, U.S. Pub. 2014/0278808, (describing the method for managing packages for cloud service providers).
Adapalli et al., U.S. Pat. 9,824,390, (describes the brokering and hosting services in a cloud for software and product development tools used by developers).
Rauscheckeret al., Cloud-Based Manufacturing-As-A-Service Environment for Customized Products, eChallenges e-2011 Conference Proceedings. IIMC International Information Management Corporation, ISBN: 978-1-905824-27-4
https://strathprints.strath.ac.uk/38573/1/Cloud_based_Manufacturing_as_a_Service_Environment_for_Customized_Products.pdf (describes customizing cloud base services for products).
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 shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to UCHE BYRD whose telephone number is (571)272-3113. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri..
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at (571) 270-5396. 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.
/UCHE BYRD/ Examiner, Art Unit 3624