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. Status of Claims This action is in response to remarks received 01/28/2026. Claim s 1 , 8 and 15 ha ve been amended ; claims 2, 9 & 16 canceled. Claims 1, 8 & 15 being independent and claims 3 -7, 10 -14 & 1 7 -20 being dependent claims. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With respect to Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC § 101, have been fully considered, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues, under Step 2A, Prong One, that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea because the claims recite a particular safe driving evaluation system using telematics data, location data, traffic data, a driving score, rewards, and an interface displaying results for one of a plurality of individuals associated with a vehicle. Applicant further argues that the Office Action overgeneralized the claims and ignores the claimed technological context. This arg ument is not persuasive. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the focus of the claims remains on a set of rules for evaluating driving behavior, calculating a score, determining a reward, and presenting that result to a user, which constitutes a method of organizing human activity and, more particularly, a set of rules for evaluating and incentivizing driver behavior. The additional recitations of telematics data, GPS data, traffic data, and display through an interface do not change the focus of the claims, but instead describe the environment and information used to carry out the abstract idea. The claims do not recite an improvement to the functioning of the telematics device, processor, GPS sensor, external database, or interface itself. Rather, those components are invoked as tools for gathering data, analyzing the data according to claimed rules, and presenting the results. Thus, the claims remain directed to the abstract idea rather than to an improvement in computer functionality or other technology. Applicant also argues under Step 2A, Prong Two, that the claims integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application by reciting a specific arrangement of technical structures, including the mobile telematics device, accelerometer, GPS sensor, external database, interface, driving score, safe driving reward, and driving performance trend that identifies strengths and weaknesses. This argument is not persuasive. The additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, merely use generic computer components to collect data, analyze driving-related information, determine a score/reward, identify an individual, and display results. These are routine computer functions. The claims do not recite any improvement to sensor operation, data transmission, database architecture, interface technology, or any other computer functionality. Instead, the additional elements merely implement the abstract idea in a technological environment. Applicant further argues that the claimed interface display of the safe driving reward, driving score, and driving performance trend for one of a plurality of individuals provides a meaningful limitation and improves the ability of a driver to understand performance and modify behavior. This argument is not persuasive. Displaying information, even if useful or motivating to a user, does not by itself integrate the abstract idea into a practical application where the display merely presents the results of the abstract analysis. Here, the interface is sued only to communicate the outcome of the abstract evaluation of driving behavior and reward determination. The claims do not recite any technological improvement in how the interface operates or any specialized manner of display that improves computer functionality. Applicant also relies on the recitation of identifying one of a plurality of individuals associated with the vehicle and providing the safe driving reward to each individual in proportion to driving time, arguing that this is a meaningful limitation tied to a shared -vehicle setting. This argument is likewise not persuasive. These recitations further define the business logic of how the score and reward are attributed among users and therefore further describe the abstract idea itself. Allocating a score or reward among multiple individuals based on usage time is a rule for administrating the incentive scheme, not a technological improvement. Applicant further argues that the claims use multiple sources of information, real-time telematics data, location data, and real-time traffic data, to identify driving events and determine driving behavior, score, reward and performance trend, and therefore recite more than a mere abstract idea. This argument is not persuasive. Receiving information from multiple sources and analyzing that information according to claimed rules is still data gathering and analysis in support of the abstract idea. The claims do not recite any specialized improvement in how the data is collected, synchronized, processed, or stored; rather, the claims use the gathered information as inputs to perform the abstract evaluation and reward determination. Applicant specifically cites Example 46 of the October 2019 PEG Update and argues that, like the eligible claims discussed there, the present claims use information obtained via the alleged exception to take corrective or meaningful action, and therefore integrate the exception into a practical application. This argument is not persuasive. The present claims are distinguishable from Example 46. In Example 46, the claim used information to control or operate a physical mechanism in a specific manner within an overall control scheme. Here, by contrast, the claimed results are directed to evaluating driving behavior, determining a score/reward, identifying an individual, and displaying the reward, score, and performance trend. The claims do not recite controlling a vehicle, altering vehicle operation, changing sensor behavior, improving telematics functionality, or otherwise imposing a technological control on a physical system in the manner contemplated by Example 46. Instead, the claims merely use information to generate and display evaluative and incentive-related results. Accordingly, the claims do not impose any technological control or transformation of a physical system. Applicant also argues that the claims, considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, recite a particular arrangement of technical structures and should not be stripped down to their economic or behavioral result. The Examiner has considered the claims as a whole. Even so considered, the ordered combination of elements still amounts to receiving data, analyzing the data to identify behaviors/events, calculating a score, determining a reward, associating the results with an individual, and displaying the result. The ordered combination therefore does not integrate the exception into a practical application, but instead merely automates the abstract idea using generic technological components performing their ordinary functions. Applicant further argues that the specification describes an interface for tracking driving performance, safe driving points earned, leaderboard information, strengths, weaknesses, trends, awards, and redemption, and that these disclosures show a practical application. This argument is not persuasive. The cited disclosures describe what information is presented to the suer and how the incentive program may be administered, but they do not demonstrate that the claims improve computer technology or any other technical field, rather, they confirm that the claimed system is directed to presenting driving-performance information and incentive information to users, which remains part of the abstract idea. With respect to independent claims 8 and 15, Applicant argues that those claims should be eligible for the same reasons as claim 1, and further notes that claim 8 recites a redemption mechanism and claim 15 recites weighting safe and unsafe driving behaviors. These arguments are not persuasive. The recited redemption mechanism of claim 8 is part of the reward administration scheme and therefore further defines the abstract idea rather than integrating it into a practical application. Likewise, the recite weighting of safe and unsafe driving behaviors in claim 15 merely further specifies the abstract scoring logic used to calculate the driving score. Neither limitation improves computer technology or transforms the claims into a practical application. Applicant additionally argues Step 2B that the claims amount to significantly more because the ordered combination of telematics data acquisition, event identification, behavior selection, score calculation, reward determination, identification of one of a plurality of individuals, and interface display of results is not well-understood, routine, and conventional. This argument is not persuasive. The additional elements recited in the claims, including; processors, memory, telematics devices, sensors, external data sources, databases, and interfaces; are generic computer components performing their typical functions of receiving processing, analyzing, storing and displaying information. The claims do not recite a non-conventional arrangement that improves computer functionality. Rather, they use known computing technology as tools to automate the abstract idea more efficiently. The ordered combination likewise does not add significantly more. the claimed combination yields no more than the predictable result of using generic computing components to implement the abstract idea of evaluating driver performance and providing a reward. The facet that the claims may be useful in encouraging safer driving or in presenting individualized driving information does not transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter . For the above reasoning, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not persuasive. The claims remain directed to the judicial exception without significantly more , and the rejection under 35 U . S . C . § 101 is maintained. With respect to Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 U . S . C . § 103, have been fully considered, however, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Jordan Peter (JP) expressly teaches determining a driving score based on vehicle telematics data (see, e.g., JP ¶¶ [68, 70 & 128-129]), which corresponds to the claimed “driving score”. JP further teaches analyzing driving behavior and performance characteristics (see, e.g., ¶¶ [89-91, 95-97, 106, 114-116, 121 & 130]) , including identifying patterns indicative of safe and unsafe driving, which reasonably corresponds to the claimed “driving performance trend” including strengths and weaknesses. Additionally, JP discloses providing incentives/rewards based on driving performance (see, e.g., ¶¶ [53, 96, 136-139 & 158], which corresponds to the claimed “safe driving reward”). Regarding the “plurality of individuals” and identifying one individual, JP teaches associating driving data and scores with users/drivers and transmitting results to a user device (see, e.g., ¶ [137] and related disclosers), which corresponds to identifying individual s associated with the vehicle. Further, Bryer explicitly teaches associating telematics data and rewards with multiple individuals and selecting specific individuals, thereby teaching identifying one of a plurality of individuals associated with the vehicle. Further, displaying results (including incentives and scores) via a computing interface is explicitly taught (JP ¶ [137]), which corresponds to the claimed “display, in an interface” ; including outputs derived from driving behavior analysis . Therefore, JP in view of Bryer teaches or renders obvious all limitations of amended claim 1. With respect to amended independent claim 8, the recited “redemption mechanism” for redeeming a safe driving reward constitutes a predictable implementation detail of the reward system taught by JP (see, e.g., JP ¶¶ [53, 96, 136-139 & 158]) , and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. With respect to amended independent claim 15, the recited weighting of safe and unsafe driving behaviors in calculating the driving score constitutes a routine variation of score calculation based on analyzed driving behavior (see, e.g., JP ¶¶ [68, 70, 89-91, 95-97 & 128-129]) , which is taught or suggested by JP. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments for claims 8 and 15 are not persuasive for at least the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 1. Applicant’s argument s with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are not persuasive. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without sig ni ficantly more. Claims 1 , 3 -7 , 15 & 1 7 -20 (system), and Claims 8 & 10 -14 (method) are directed to the abstract idea of rewarding drivers for good behaviors, the invention recites steps of: receiving vehicle telematics data associated with a vehicle, receive traffic data associated with a location of the vehicle , identify the location data and the real-time traffic data, one or more driving events that occurred during operation of the vehicle, select one or more safe driving behaviors, calculate a driving score to assign to an individual associated with the vehicle , determine a safe driving reward , determine a plurality of individuals associated with the vehicle, provide the safe driving reward , identify one of the plurality of individuals, and generate a driving performance trend for the one of the plurality of individuals during operation of the vehicle . The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements: at least one processor, memory storing computer-readable instructions, mobile telematics device and an interface are recited at a high - level of generality, provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea. Claim 1 recites, in part, a system comprising: receive, from a mobile telematics device comprising an accelerometer and a GPS sensor , real-time vehicle telematics data associated with a vehicle, wherein: the mobile telematics device travels within the vehicle and generates at least a portion of the real-time vehicle telematics data , the mobile telematics device measures one or more characteristics of the vehicle during operation of the vehicle , and the one or more characteristics of the vehicle comprise : a speed of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle, a braking of the vehicle, and a cornering of the vehicle; receive location data from the GPS se n sor , the location data indicating a location of the vehicle; receive , from an external database, real-time traffic data associated with the location of the vehicle; identify, by analyzing the real-time vehicle telematics data, the location, and the real-time traffic data, one or more driving events that occurred during operation of the vehicle ; select, based on the one or more driving events, one or more driving behaviors, the one or more driving behaviors including one or more safe driving behaviors and one or more unsafe driving behaviors that occurred during the one or more driving events; calculate , based on at least a comparison of the real-time telematics data and the one or more driving behaviors selected, a driving score to assign to an individual associated with the vehicle , wherein the driving score includes aggerating driving scores for each driving behavior of the one or more driving behaviors selected; determine, based on the driving score , a safe driving reward; determine a plurality of individuals associated with the vehicle; provide the safe driving reward to each individual of the plurality of individuals associated with the vehicle in a proportion based on a driving time of the vehicle of each individual of the plurality of individuals; identify one of the plurality of individuals corresponding to the vehicle telematics data; and display , in an interface and based on the real-time telematics data and the one or more driving behaviors selected ; the safe driving reward provided to the one of the plurality of individuals, wherein the safe driving reward is redeemable via a vehicle service system; the driving score assigned to the one of the plurality of individuals; and a driving performance trend for the one of the plurality of individuals during operation of the vehicle, wherein the driving performance trend identifies strengths and weaknesses of the one of the plurality of individuals . These steps describe the concept of rewarding a driver for good driving behaviors which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts, such as: Alice, Electric Power Group, Fairwarning , Digitech, Intellectual Ventures LLC, v. Capital One Bank, and OIP “The claim limitations identified as abstract ideas need not be an identical to claim limitations identified as the analogous abstract ideas identified by the courts. Judicial precedence for this practice can be found in, BuySafe , Inc. v. Google Inc. 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) where the courts analogized the mitigating of the risk of online purchases to that of hedging financial transactions identified in Alice Corp v. CLS Bank International. …” All of these concepts relate to organizing human activity ( see July 2015 Update: Interim Eligibility Guidance pages 4-7 for abstract idea found by the court) in which a person is able to manage data and manipulate data for end means, which includes managing and rewarding for driver’s behaviors. The concept described in claim 1 is not meaningfully different than those organizing human activity found by the courts to be abstract ideas. (See Alice) the Supreme Court expressly declined to limit the categories of unpatentable abstract ideas as suggested by Patent Owner. As such, the description in claim 1 of rewarding driver for good driving behaviors is an abstract idea. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim recites the additional limitations of the additional computer elements ( s upra) and programmed to perform the method steps (receiving, identifying , providing , determining, displaying , etc.) are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. The use of generic computer components to process rewarding a driver for good driving behaviors does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Considering at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Re garding c laim s 8 & 15 , the claim s are directed to an Abstract idea (supra). See Ultramercial , Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 712 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Federal Circuit has held that an extended claim by claim analysis is not necessary where multiple claims are “substantially similar and linked to the same abstract idea.” Dependent claim s when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the dependent claims are directed to the same abstract idea as independent claim it depends on, and the additional recited limitation s fail to establish that the claim s are not directed to an abstract idea . Regarding the limitations 3- 7 , 10-1 4 and 17-20 as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. 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 ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim s 1, 3-8, 10-15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Julie A. Jordan Peters et al. (US 2016/0086285 A1, herein Jordan Peters) in view of Nathan M. Bryer et al. (US 10,445,758 B1, herein Bryer ) . As per claim 1, Jordan Peters teaches a safe driving evaluation system comprising: at least one processor ( see at least Jordan Peters ¶ [29] ) ; and memory storing computer-readable instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the system to: receive, from a mobile telematics device comprising an accelerometer and a GPS sensor, real-time vehicle telematics data associated with a vehicle ( Jordan Peters ¶¶ [31, 44 & 105] ) , wherein: the mobile telematics device travels within the vehicle and generates at least a portion of the real-time vehicle telematics data, the mobile telematics device measures one or more characteristics of the vehicle during operation of the vehicle ( Jordan Peters ¶¶ [108-109 & 114-115] ) , and the one or more characteristics of the vehicle comprise: a speed of the vehicle, an acceleration of the vehicle, a braking of the vehicle, and a cornering of the vehicle ( Jordan Peters ¶¶ [40, 88-89, 101, 108, 114-115, 115 & 130] ) ; receive location data from the GPS sensor, the location data indicating a location of the vehicle ( Jordan Peters ¶¶ [33-35, 45, 63, 68 & 88] ) ; receive, from an external database, real-time traffic data associated with the location of the vehicle ( Jordan Peters ¶¶ [ 77, 79 & 88 ] ) ; identify, by analyzing the real-time vehicle telematics data, the location, and the real-time traffic data, one or more driving events that occurred during operation of the vehicle ( Jordan Peters ¶¶ [35, 40, 44-45, 63, 108, 121 & 155] ) ; determine, based on the driving score, a safe driving reward ( Jordan Peters ¶¶ [ 53 & 137 ] ) ; display , in an interface based on the real-time telematics data and the one or more driving behaviors selected ( Jordan Peters ¶¶ [78 & 137-138] teach es displaying driving-related information, including outputs derived from driving behavior analysis of driving behavior , which reasonably corresponds to displaying the selected driving behavior s or information representative thereof ) ; the safe driving reward provided to the one of the plurality of individuals, wherein the safe driving reward is redeemable via a vehicle service system ( Jordan Peters ¶¶ [53, 96, 136-139 & 158] ) ; the driving score assigned to the one of the plurality of individuals ( Jordan Peters ¶¶ [68, 70, 128-129 & 132-134] ) ; and a driving performance trend for the one of the plurality of individuals during operation of the vehicle, wherein the driving performance trend identifies strengths and weaknesses of the one of the plurality of individuals ( Jordan Peters ¶¶ [89-91, 95-97, 106, 114-116, 121 & 130] ) . To the extent Jordan Peters does not explicitly teach certain user-specific and multi-user limitations , however, Bryer further teaches: select, based on the one or more driving events, one or more driving behaviors, the one or more driving behaviors including one or more safe driving behaviors and one or more unsafe driving behaviors that occurred during the one or more driving events ( Bryer column 27 lines 6-38 and column 28 lines 1-12] ) ; calculate, based on at least a comparison of the real-time telematics data and the one or more driving behaviors selected, a driving score to assign to an individual associated with the vehicle, wherein the driving score includes aggerating driving scores for each driving behavior of the one or more driving behaviors selected ( Bryer column 27 lines 17-38 and column 28 lines 1-29 ) ; determine a plurality of individuals associated with the vehicle ( Bryer column 7 lines 1-19 & column 34 lines 37-67 teach determining and associating multiple individuals with a vehicle and/or mobile device, including identifying specific individuals corresponding to collected data. Bryer further teaches associated telematics data and rewrds with specific individuals, thereby enabling selection one individual from a plurality. ) ; provide the safe driving reward to each individual of the plurality of individuals associated with the vehicle in a proportion based on a driving time of the vehicle of each individual of the plurality of individuals ( Bryer column 6 lines 58-67, column 7 lines 1-19 & 33-51, column 20 lines 47-61, column 34 lines 37-67, column 47 lines 25-52 & column 48 lines 18-63 ) ; identify one of the plurality of individuals corresponding to the vehicle telematics data ( Bryer column 34 lines 37-67 and column 39 lines 6-38 ) ; It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art , before the effective filing date , to modify the system of Jordan Peters to incorporate the multi-user identification, behavior- baed scoring, and reward allocation features of Bryer , because vehicles are commonly operated by multiple individuals and applying known behavior-based reward systems to multiple users would have yielded predictable results and to authenticate the mobile computing device and the user (see Bryer column 43 lines 37-51 & column 49 lines 8-33). As per claims 8 & 15, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 1 above and rejected under the same premise. As per claim 3, the combination of Jordan Peters and Bryer teach the system of claim 1, Jordan Peters further teaches: wherein the safe driving reward is represented as a QR code ( Bryer column 35 lines 54-67, column 36 lines 1-12, column 43 lines 27-51 & column 49 lines 8-33 ) . The motivation to combine the references is the same as seen above in claim 1. As per claims 10 & 17, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 3 above and rejected under the same premise. As per claim 4 , the combination of Jordan Peters and Bryer teach the system of claim 1, Jordan Peters further teaches: wherein the one or more safe driving behaviors comprise at least one of: (i) a safe driving behavior based, at least in part, on a total number of instances of speed of the vehicle below a first predetermined speed threshold,(ii) a safe driving behavior based, at least in part, on a total number of instances of acceleration of the vehicle below a first predetermined acceleration threshold, or (iii) a safe driving behavior based, at least in part, on a total number of instances of deceleration of the vehicle below a first predetermined deceleration threshold (Jordan Peters ¶¶ [132-133]) . As per claims 11 & 18, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 4 above and rejected under the same premise. As per claim 5 , the combination of Jordan Peters and Bryer teach the system of claim 1, Jordan Peters further teaches: wherein the one or more unsafe driving behaviors comprise at least one of:(i) an unsafe driving behavior based, at least in part, on a total number of instances of speed of the vehicle above a second predetermined speed threshold greater than or equal to a first predetermined speed threshold,(ii) an unsafe driving behavior based, at least in part, on a total number of instances of acceleration of the vehicle above a second predetermined acceleration threshold greater than or equal to a first predetermined acceleration threshold, or (iii) an unsafe driving behavior based, at least in part, on a total number of instances of deceleration of the vehicle above a second predetermined deceleration threshold greater than or equal to a first predetermined deceleration threshold (Jordan Peters ¶¶ [132-133]) . As per claims 12 & 19, the claims recite analogous limitations as claim 5 above and rejected under the same premise. As per claim 7, the combination of Jordan Peters and Bryer teach the system of claim 1, Jordan Peters further teaches: wherein the real-time traffic data indicates one or more of: an amount of traffic associated with the location of the vehicle; a traffic speed distribution associated with the location of the vehicle; or an indication of an accident associated with the location of the vehicle (Jordan Peters ¶¶ [ 118, 122 & 151 ]) . As per claim 14, the claim recite s analogous limitations as claim 7 above and rejected under the same premise. Claim s 6, 13 & 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jordan Peters in view of Bryer and in further view of James Havens (US 2011/0040579 A1, herein Havens) . As per claim 6 , the combination of Jordan Peters and Bryer teach the system of claim 1, It can be ar g ued that the combination of Jordan Peters and Bryer do not explicitly teach, however, Havens further teaches: wherein the safe driving reward is a guaranteed gas price (see Havens ¶ [55]) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combination of Jordan Peters and Bryer with the web-based systems and methods for providing services related to automobile safety and insurance product as taught in as taught in Havens in order to establish incentives or rewards for desirable actions (see Havens ¶ [55]). 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 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 FILLIN "Enter examiner's name" \* MERGEFORMAT TONY P KANAAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2481 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday- Friday 7:30am - 3:30 pm EST . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Matthew Gart can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 5712723955 . 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. /T.P.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 3696 /MATTHEW S GART/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3696