DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment filed 04/28/2026 has been received and considered. Claim 21 is canceled. Claim 23 and 24 are new. Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20, and 22-24 are presented for examination.
Claim Objections
Claim 24, line 4 includes the typo “is shorted than”. Examiner interprets as “is shorter than" for examination purposes.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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, 17-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes).
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong One: The claim recites:
analyzing, by the task simulation device, attributes of the tasks; generating, by the task simulation device, feature data regarding features of the tasks, wherein the features relate to the attributes of the tasks that can be varied… (mental concepts)
performing, by the task simulation device, a computational comparison of values of a plurality of the sets of factors (mathematical concepts)
generating, by the task simulation device, based on results of the computational comparison and result of the simulation, revised targets, wherein the revised targets relate to a revision of specific values for a third set of factors for the first time period…
identifying, by the task simulation device, from the simulation, a set of values for the features (mental concepts)
The independent claim is substantially drawn to mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, calculations and mental processes: observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions; but for the recitation of generic computer components. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”.
As to the limitations “generating, by the task simulation device, based on results of the computational comparison and result of the simulation, revised targets, wherein the revised targets relate to a revision of specific values for a third set of factors for the first time period”, they are substantially drawn to mental concepts. The limitations encompass a user simply creating data (data processing) in his/her mind. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
"[0018]… processor may generate revised targets… revised targets may relate to a revision of specific values for a third set of factors for the first time period… revised targets may include a revision to the values for any factor related to the performance of the tasks, including any or all factors in the first set of factors… the values for the revised targets may be percentage variations from the values of the initial goals".
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Independent claim 1 Step 2A Prong two: The claim recites the limitations computer-implemented and a task simulation device, they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer.
As to the limitations “receiving, by a task simulation device, target data regarding initial targets, wherein the initial targets relate to specific values for a first set of factors regarding performance of tasks for a first time period, wherein the first set of factors are related to resources, wherein the resources include an amount of work performed by a first computing device and a second computing device communicating within a network, wherein the initial targets include a first amount of work being performed by the first computing device and the second computing device communicating within the network”, “receiving, by the task simulation device, from memory, task data regarding the performance of the tasks, wherein the task data is associated with values for a second set of factors over a second time period previous to the first time period, wherein the second set of factors are related to the resources”, and "monitoring usage of the resources by the first consumer during the leveraging of the metering capability"; they describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. As to the limitations "reporting the usage, at least one of the sets of values, and at least one of the sets of factors to the first consumer Electric Power.
As to the limitations "a user portal of a device application", they are recited as a GUI performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
As to the limitations "generating and running, by the task simulation device, a simulation of the performance of the tasks using the task data and the feature data", they appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations “performing, by the task simulation device, a first of the tasks during the first time period according to the identified set of values of values for the features, wherein the performing the first of the tasks during the first time period according to the identified set of values of values for the features includes: using a cloud system to leverage a metering capability to control the resources as a provider of a service for a first user account of a first consumer of the service, wherein the leveraging causes a second amount of work, that is greater than the first amount of work being performed by the first computing device and the second computing device communicating within the network during the second time period, to be performed during the first time period", the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because these claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or outcome.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1 Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim recites the limitations computer-implemented and a task simulation device at a high level of generality and 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. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical or mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The implementation on a computing system is described in the specification (underline emphasis added):
'[0016]… processor may generate a simulation of the performance of the tasks using the task data and the feature data… [0027]… a task simulation device 108. The cooperative driving system 108 is configured to receive the target data 102 and task data 104. The task simulation device 108 includes revised targets 110 and a simulation 112. [0028] The task simulation device 108 analyzes attributes of the tasks and generates feature data regarding features of the task based on the analysis. The task simulation device 108 includes simulation 112 that is a simulation of the tasks created using the task data and the feature data… [0057] The computer system 401 may contain one or more general-purpose programmable central processing units (CPUs) 402A, 402B, 402C, and 402D… computer system 401 may contain multiple processors typical of a relatively large system… may alternatively be a single CPU system… [0061]… computer system 401 may be implemented as a desktop computer, portable computer, laptop or notebook computer, tablet computer, pocket computer, telephone, smartphone, network switches or routers, or any other appropriate type of electronic device‘.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claim 1 recites data gathering and displaying, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration. As to the limitations "reporting the usage", see for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
"[0028]… The first value 116 and the fourth set of factors 118 are output to a user device (not shown) where they are utilized by the user to optimize performance of the tasks".
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the GUI limitations have been found by the courts as not adding an inventive component/concept to claims to render them patentable. A GUI is a well-known graphical modeling means, and it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. A GUI is a well-known graphical modeling means, and it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), 2106.05(a), 2106.05(f). The GUI is described in the specification:
"[0054]… User portal 346 provides access to the cloud computing environment for consumers and system administrators".
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations – simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). These limitations amount to computer implementation of mental concepts. As to the limitations "generating and running… a simulation…" See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
"[0016]… processor may generate a simulation of the performance of the tasks using the task data and the feature data… processor may identify each task in a set of tasks… processor may identify features of each task that can be varied during the performance of the task… computer simulation may include values for features (e.g., number of iterations for each model in the set of tasks) and values for factors (e.g., quantity, quality, resources, time) over the first time period… simulation may be able to identify the features of the tasks that may be optimized or compromised as the simulation obtains different permutations or combinations of values for features and values for factors… [0023]… processor may run the simulation“.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). These limitations are so broad that nothing is known about how the claimed "using a cloud system… to control the resources as a provider of a service” is performed. About these limitations, the specification merely reads (underline emphasis added):
"[0013]… initial targets may relate to specific values for a first set of factors regarding performance of tasks for a first time period… the first set of factors may be key performance indicators for the performance of the tasks. For example, the key performance indicators may include factors such as the quantity of work done, the time taken to perform the work, the quality of the work, or resources utilized to perform the work (e.g., the tasks)… the key performance indicators may be specific values or specific target values for a first set of factors related to quantity, time, quality, or resources (e.g., perform 10% more work each year, improve the accuracy of work by 5% in a year, reduce computing time by 10% during the year, etc.)…
[0032] Cloud computing is a model of service delivery… This cloud model may include at least five characteristics…
[0033] Characteristics are as follows: …
[0038] Measured service: cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service (e.g., storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts). Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported, providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service".
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Claims 8 and 15 recite substantially the same elements as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons above. Further, the additional elements of these claims are rejected below:
Independent claims 8 and 15, Prong Two and Step 2B: The claims recite the limitations a physical memory, a first computing device, a second computing device, a hardware processor in communication with the physical memory, the first computing device and the second computing device, and a computer readable storage medium, they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Dependent claims Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims are substantially drawn to abstract ideas as their independent claims: identifying and selecting values; but for the recitation of generic computer components. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
As to the limitations "3/10/17… for the first consumer to optimize performance of the tasks over a subsequent time period", user choices are mental in nature.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Dependent claims Step 2A Prong two: As to the limitations "3/10/17… outputting, by the task simulation device/(hardware) processor, the first value and the values for the fourth set of factors that result from performance of the tasks over the first time period using the first value, wherein the performing the first of the tasks during the first time period according to the identified set of values of values for the features further includes reporting the identified set of values and the fourth set of factors to Electric Power.
As to the limitations "3/10/17… the user portal of the device application", they are recited as a GUI performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
As to the limitations “4/11/18… wherein the using the cloud system to leverage the metering capability to control the resources comprises executing, on an operating system, a program stored in the memory, wherein the program includes a hypervisor that controls the resources", "23… wherein the service delivery of the cloud system utilizes less resources for the second amount of work compared to the first amount of work performed by the first computing device"; the limitations appear to be just “apply it” limitations, because these claim limitations recite only the idea of a solution or outcome.
As to the limitations "7/14… wherein the first computing device is a computer" and "22… wherein the first consumer does not control the leveraging of the metering capability to control the resources", they are interpreted as drawn to generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications and merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
As to the limitations "7/14… wherein… the second computing device is an automobile computer system", they are interpreted as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception.
As to the limitations “24… wherein the resources further include at least accuracy and runtime, and wherein a simulation accuracy of the second amount of work is greater than the simulation accuracy of the first amount of work, and wherein a simulation runtime of the second amount of work is shorted than the simulation runtime of the first amount of work", they further the data gathering of its independent claim. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong two above).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claims reciting displaying are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the GUI limitations have been found by the courts as not adding an inventive component/concept to claims to render them patentable. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations reciting only the idea of a solution or outcome are just “apply it” limitations, because they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(1). As to the limitations “4/11/18… wherein the using the cloud system to leverage the metering capability to control the resources comprises executing, on an operating system, a program stored in the memory, wherein the program includes a hypervisor that controls the resources", they are so broad that nothing is known about how the claimed "hypervisor that controls the resources” is performed. Examiner notes that both the claimed invention and the specification are mute about how the hypervisor controls resources. About these limitations, the specification merely reads (underline emphasis added):
"[0059] One or more programs/utilities 428, each having at least one set of program modules 430 may be stored in memory 404. The programs/utilities 428 may include a hypervisor (also referred to as a virtual machine monitor), one or more operating systems, one or more application programs, other program modules, and program data".
As to the limitations "23… wherein the service delivery of the cloud system utilizes less resources for the second amount of work compared to the first amount of work performed by the first computing device", the specification merely reads (underline emphasis added):
"[0032] Cloud computing is a model of service delivery for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage, applications, virtual machines, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or interaction with a provider of the service…"
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claims recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications, their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above). As to the limitations "22… wherein the first consumer does not control the leveraging of the metering capability to control the resources", the specification reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0040] Software as a Service (SaaS): the capability provided to the consumer is to use the provider's applications running on a cloud infrastructure. The applications are accessible from various client devices through a thin client interface such as a web browser (e.g., web-based e-mail). The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure including network, servers, operating systems, storage, or even individual application capabilities, with the possible exception of limited user-specific application configuration settings.
[0041] Platform as a Service (PaaS): the capability provided to the consumer is to deploy onto the cloud infrastructure consumer-created or acquired applications created using programming languages and tools supported by the provider. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure including networks, servers, operating systems, or storage, but has control over the deployed applications and possibly application hosting environment configurations.
[0042] Infrastructure as a Service (IaaS): the capability provided to the consumer is to provision processing, storage, networks, and other fundamental computing resources where the consumer is able to deploy and run arbitrary software, which can include operating systems and applications. The consumer does not manage or control the underlying cloud infrastructure but has control over operating systems, storage, deployed applications, and possibly limited control of select networking components (e.g., host firewalls)'.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the limitations amounting to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception remain as merely indicating a field of use or technological environment even upon reconsideration. As to the limitations "7/14… wherein… the second computing device is an automobile computer system", the specification reads (underline emphasis added):
"[0032] Cloud computing is a model of service delivery for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage, applications, virtual machines, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or interaction with a provider of the service…
[0049] FIG. 3A, illustrated is a cloud computing environment 310 is depicted. As shown, cloud computing environment 310 includes one or more cloud computing nodes 300 with which local computing devices used by cloud consumers, such as, for example, personal digital assistant (PDA) or cellular telephone 300A, desktop computer 300B, laptop computer 300C, and/or automobile computer system 300N may communicate".
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, claim 24 furthers the data gathering of its independent claim, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20, and 22-24 are allowable over prior art of record. They will be allowed once all outstanding rejections/objections are traversed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No reference taken either alone or in combination and with the prior art of record discloses claims 1, 8, and 15,
"… initial targets relate to specific values for a first set of factors regarding performance of tasks for a first time period… related to resources, wherein the resources include an amount of work performed by a first computing device and a second computing device communicating within a network, wherein the initial targets include a first amount of work being performed by the first computing device and the second computing device communicating within the network…
analyzing… attributes of the tasks…
a simulation of the performance of the tasks using the task data and the feature data… wherein the revised targets relate to a revision of specific values… for the first time period;
identifying… from the simulation… values for the features,
performing… a first of the tasks during the first time period according to the identified… values…
using a cloud system to leverage a metering capability to control the resources as a provider of a service for a first user account of a first consumer of the service, wherein the leveraging causes a second amount of work, that is greater than the first amount of work being performed by the first computing device and the second computing device communicating within the network during the second time period, to be performed during the first time period…",
in combination with the remaining steps, elements, and features of the claimed invention. Also, there is no motivation to combine none of these references to meet these limitations. It is for these reasons that It is for these reasons that Applicant's invention defines over the prior art of record.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Regarding the claim objections, the amendment corrected all deficiencies, and those objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, (see page 12, 2nd paragraph to page 15, 2nd paragraph):
‘… As stated in paragraphs [0013], [0014], [0032] and [0038]… invention improves the cloud systems by optimizing the resources utilized for the task simulation performance…
… the "examiner is reminded to consult the specification to determine whether the disclosed invention improves technology or a technical field and evaluate the claim to ensure it reflects the disclosed improvement"…
Applicant has added new claims 23 and 24 that further tie additional limitations to the improvements described throughout the specification. Applicant's claims are a direct improvement to cloud systems in that Applicant's invention specifically optimizes the resources such as, but not limited to, units of work performed, accuracy, run time, amongst other resources which enable an improved cloud system…’
As pointed out by Applicant, the specification reads (underline emphasis added):
'[0013]… initial targets may relate to specific values for a first set of factors regarding performance of tasks for a first time period… the first set of factors may be key performance indicators for the performance of the tasks. For example, the key performance indicators may include factors such as the quantity of work done, the time taken to perform the work, the quality of the work, or resources utilized to perform the work (e.g., the tasks)… the key performance indicators may be specific values or specific target values for a first set of factors related to quantity, time, quality, or resources (e.g., perform 10% more work each year, improve the accuracy of work by 5% in a year, reduce computing time by 10% during the year, etc.)…
[0014]… task data may be values for some of the factors (e.g., quantity of work performed, quality of work performed (e.g., regarding accuracy or other performance metrics), resources utilized to perform the work (e.g., CPU, memory), and time utilized to perform the work) obtained from performance of the tasks on a daily basis… task data may include that over a two-day time period, 10 units of work were done each day, the 10 units of work utilized 32 CPUs and 1 terabit of RAM each day, the 10 units of work were performed with 85% accuracy, and the work took 10 hours of computational time each day to be completed…
[0032] Cloud computing is a model of service delivery for enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, network bandwidth, servers, processing, memory, storage, applications, virtual machines, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or interaction with a provider of the service…
[0033] Characteristics are as follows…
[0038] Measured service: cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service (e.g., storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts). Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported, providing transparency for both the provider and consumer of the utilized service…'
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]… if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea… the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible… the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements… In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception…
analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement…
(f) Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception [R-10.2019]… (3) The particularity or generality of the application of the judicial exception. A claim having broad applicability across many fields of endeavor may not provide meaningful limitations that integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more. For instance, a claim that generically recites an effect of the judicial exception or claims every mode of accomplishing that effect, amounts to a claim that is merely adding the words "apply it" to the judicial exception'
and "2106.04(d)(1) Evaluating Improvements in the Functioning of a Computer, or an Improvement to Any Other Technology or Technical Field in Step 2A Prong Two [R-10.2019]… first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement… Second, if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement. That is, the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. The claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification".
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because the specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing/realizing any improvements to the functioning of a computer itself or any other technology or technical field (underline emphasis added). (See MPEP 2106.05(a) or 2106.04(d)(1) supra). There is no elaboration of any special meanings for the limitations "using a cloud system to leverage a metering capability to control the resources" in the claims and in view of Application description. No technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, as argued. (See specification paragraphs [0013], [0014], [0032], [0033], [0038], MPEP 2106.05(f) supra and Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As to the limitations "using a cloud system to leverage a metering capability to control the resources as a provider of a service for a first user account of a first consumer of the service", they recite only the idea of a solution or outcome, i.e. they fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. These limitations are so broad that nothing is known about how the claimed "using a cloud system… to control the resources as a provider of a service” is performed. (See MPEP 2106.05(f) supra and Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 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.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 8:00 PM.
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, Renee Chavez can be reached on 571-270-1104. 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
Prosecution Insights