DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendment filed on 2/2/2026. Claims 1-32 are pending and have been examined. Claims 1-4, 8-12, 17-19 and 24-26 have been amended.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 19 and 24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 19, amend the limitation to state “…modified based on the arrangement in memory” as to correct a grammatical issue.
In regards to claim 24, amend the limitation to state “…modified based on the arrangement in memory” as to correct a grammatical issue.
Applicant is advised that should claim 19 be found allowable, claim 24 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In regards to claim 1, the limitation stating “…predict one or more mappings of an arrangement in memory from reshaping or transposing one or more tensors…use the one or more predicted mappings…” fails to comply with the written description requirement because the original disclosure does not properly describe predicting one or more mappings of an arrangement of memory nor using any predicted mappings in sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, while paragraph [0081] and Fig. 7 discloses generating mappings by remapping strides and dimensions of how a tensor is stored in memory using lists or tables, the paragraphs do not disclose “predicting” any mappings (e.g. estimate or guess mappings based on observation, experience or scientific reason). Rather, paragraph [0081] and Fig. 7 states that one or more mappings are generated (e.g. created) by remapping strides and dimensions. While, the disclosure does mention throughout the specification in various paragraphs such as [0145, 0147 and 0157] using machine learning models and inference logic to infer and predict information as known in the art, none of the citations discuss predicting or inferring one or mappings of an arrangement in memory from reshaping or transposing one or more tensors. Thus, the specification does not provide sufficient support for predicting one or more mappings or using predicted mappings as claimed above.
Claims 9, 17 and 25 are similarly rejected on the same basis as claim 1 above.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-24 and 26-32 are dependent upon claims 1, 9, 17 and 25 above and are similarly rejected on the same basis as claims 1, 9, 17 and 25 above for including the deficiencies of the claims above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In regards to claim 1, the limitations stating “predict one or more mappings of an arrangement in memory from reshaping or transposing one or more tensors…to cause the one or more tensors to be used as one or more operands of one or more operations as if the one or more tensors were reshaped or transposed” lacks clarity. The claim lacks clarity because it is unclear what the latter limitation is implying as it states “if the one or more tensors were reshaped or transposed”, however the limitation is preceded by the limitation “from reshaping or transposing one or more tensors” which explicitly indicates that the one or more tensors are reshaped or transposed. Said another way, the predicting of the mappings is from reshaping or transposing of one or more tensors, thus it is unclear what the latter limitation means by “if the one or more tensors were reshaped or transposed” because a reshape or transpose operation is occurring.
Furthermore, the above limitations lack clarity because the claim limitations appear to be inconsistent with the specification causing the claim to be indefinite (MPEP 2173.03). For example, the claim limitations above make it unclear as to whether a reshape or transpose operation is to occur or not because the claims use language such as “…predict one or more mappings of an arrangement in memory from reshaping or transposing one or more tensors…to cause the one or more tensors to be used as one or more operands of one or more operations as if the one or more tensors were reshaped or transposed. However, paragraph [0081] and Fig. 7 state “a system remaps strides and dimensions of how a tensor is stored in memory as described above, effectively moving data by changing a definition of an underlying data structure without actually moving data in memory.” Thus, the examiner suggests the applicant use language from the disclosure in the claim to detail how the one or mappings are generated to reshape or transpose data by changing an underlying data structure without moving data in memory as to clarify the claim.
Claims 9, 17 and 25 are similarly rejected on the same basis as claim 1 above.
For purposes of examination the examiner will interpret the claim such that there are reshaped or transposed tensors which can be used as operands.
In regards to claim 4, lines 3-4 limitations stating “…an effect of predicting the one or more mappings is accomplished by performing an operation…” lacks clarity. The limitation lacks clarity because it is unclear what is meant by “an effect” of predicting the one or more mappings means; is the applicant attempting to indicate that predicting one or more mappings is accomplished by performing an operation or if merely “an effect” of predicting the mappings accomplished? It appears from claim 1 and based on paragraph [0081] of the specification that one or more mappings are generated and that the mappings are applied to an input to produce an effect of reshaping or transposing one or more tensors, and the examiner suggests the applicant amend the claim accordingly to improve clarity of the claim.
Claims 12 and 28 are similarly rejected on the same basis as claim 4 above.
In regards to claim 4, line 4 each recitation of “the operation” lacks clarity. Each of the recitations lack clarity because it is unclear if each recitation is referring to one of the “one or more operations” of claim 1, line 8 or the “operation” of claim 4, line 3.
Claims 12, 20 and 28 are similarly rejected on the same basis as claim 4 above.
In regards to claim 5, line 2 a recitation of “the operation” lacks clarity. The recitation lacks clarity because it is unclear if the recitation is referring to one of the “one or more operations” of claim 1, line 8 or the “operation” of claim 4, line 3.
Claims 13, 21 and 29 are similarly rejected on the same basis as claim 5 above.
In regards to claim 6, line 2 a recitation of “the operation” lacks clarity. The recitation lacks clarity because it is unclear if the recitation is referring to one of the “one or more operations” of claim 1, line 8or the “operation” of claim 4, line 3.
Claims 14, 22 and 30 are similarly rejected on the same basis as claim 6 above.
In regards to claim 7, line 2 a recitation of “the operation” lacks clarity. The recitation lacks clarity because it is unclear if the recitation is referring to one of the “one or more operations” of claim 1, line 8 or the “operation” of claim 4, line 3.
Claims 15, 23 and 31 are similarly rejected on the same basis as claim 7 above.
Claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-24 and 26-32 are dependent upon one or more claims above and therefore are similarly rejected for including the deficiencies of one or more claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., abstract idea) without significantly more.
10. Regarding claim 1:
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 1:
Claim 1 recites “One or more processors” and thus a machine, one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1 recites “predict one or more mappings of an arrangement [[in memory]] from reshaping or transposing one or more tensors…as if the one or more tensors were reshaped or transposed”, which describes a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers a mathematical relationship. For example, the claim encompasses predicting mappings that indicate an organization and manipulation of tensor data from reshaping or transposing tensor data (e.g. a mapping indicates an arrangement of reshaped or transposed tensor data which are mathematical operations comprising mathematical correlations) (see paragraphs [0081, 0094, 0098 and 0105] of instant application wherein mapping table discloses a relationship between elements of a tensor data structure and memory, as to indicate a relationship as if a reshape or transpose were to be performed in memory). If a claim, limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a mathematical operation/relationship or mental process in the mind or with the aid of pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” and/or Mental processes grouping of abstract ideas. (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) (I and III); see organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014))
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1 further recites additional elements of
circuitry …memory… in order to cause the one or more tensors to be used as one or more operands of one or more operations
use the [[one or more predicted mappings]] to access elements of the one or more tensors from the memory
These additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because (a) recites at a high-level of generality using a generic processor to apply the exception using generic processor circuits and memory (“apply it”), 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)) and (b) recites insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Therefore, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis Step 2B:
The additional elements of claim 1 do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination, because (a) recites at a high-level of generality using a generic processor to apply the exception using generic processor circuits (“apply it”), or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (b) recites insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering (See MPEP 2106.05 (g)). Furthermore, (b) recites limitations which the courts have deemed to be well-understood, routine and conventional activities that do not provide significantly more (MPEP 2106.05(d)); the courts have recognized that receiving or transmitting data over a network ((Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362), as well as storing and retrieving information in memory are well‐understood, routine, and conventional functionalities (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)).
Therefore, based on the discussion of the additional elements above, the claims are not patent eligible.
11. Claim 2, dependent upon claim 1, further recites “…wherein one or more mappings are to indicate where the one or more reshaped or transposed tensors are to be stored”, which recite further aspects of the mappings generated as a part of the abstract idea, and thus recites details of the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
12. Claim 3, dependent upon claim 1, further recites “…wherein the one or more tensors to be reshaped or transposed are modified based on the arrangement in memory”, which recites details of a processor modifying one or more tensors which apply the exception using generic processor circuits (“apply it”), or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
13. Claim 4, dependent upon claim 1, further recites “…an effect of predicting the one or more mappings is accomplished by performing an operation; and an input to the operation is modified to cause the operation to produce the effect of reshaping or transposing the one or more tensors”, which recites details of performing the abstract idea using operations performed on the processors which apply the exception using generic processor circuits (“apply it”), or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
14. Claim 5, dependent upon claim 4, further recites “…wherein the operation is an array multiplication operation” which recites a mathematical operation which is an abstract idea. Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
15. Claim 6, dependent upon claim 4, further recites “…wherein the input to the operation is an array with three or more dimensions; and a representation of the array is changed by modifying a definition of a stride for at least one dimension of the array” which recites a particular type of data (e.g. array data) used in operations performed on the processors which applies the exception using generic processor circuits (“apply it”), or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). In addition, the particular type of data recited can be viewed as an attempt to tie the abstract idea to a particular field of use (i.e. array processing) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
16. Claim 7, dependent upon claim 4, further recites “…wherein: the input to the operation is a multi-dimensional array; and the multi-dimensional array is changed by remapping memory locations of individual elements of the multi-dimensional array without moving the individual elements in memory” which recites a particular type of data (e.g. multi-dimensional array data) used in operations performed on the processors which applies the exception using generic processor circuits (“apply it”), or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea which cannot provide significantly more (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). In addition, the particular type of data recited can be viewed as an attempt to tie the abstract idea to a particular field of use (i.e. array processing) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
17. Claim 8, dependent upon claim 1, further recites “…wherein causing the one or more tensors to be reshaped or transposed includes at least one reshape operation.” which recites a mathematical operation which is an abstract idea. Therefore, the claim recites no additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
18. Claims 9-15, 17-26 and 28-31 are similarly rejected on the same basis as claims 1-7 above. Therefore, claims 9-15, 17-26 and 28-31 are not patent eligible.
19. Claim 16, dependent upon claim 9, further recites “…wherein the one or more processors includes a graphics processing unit” which recites a type of processor used in implementing the abstract idea which can be seen as implementing the abstract idea by 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); as well as reciting a particular field of use in which the abstract idea is to be performed (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the additional limitations cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more that the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination.
20. Claim 27, dependent upon claim 25, further recites “…wherein the neural network is a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers network” which recites a type of neural network used in implementing the abstract idea which can be seen as implementing the abstract idea by 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); as well as reciting a particular field of use in which the abstract idea is to be performed (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the additional limitations cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more that the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination.
21. Claim 32, dependent upon claim 25, further recites “…wherein the neural network performs natural-language processing” which recites a type of neural network used in implementing the abstract idea which can be seen as implementing the abstract idea by 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 using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)); as well as reciting a particular field of use in which the abstract idea is to be performed (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the additional limitations cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more that the abstract idea itself, taken alone and in combination.
Prior Art Considerations
22. The claims are currently subject to 35 USC 112(a) and (b) rejections because the scope of the claims is unclear and lack support and thus prior art rejections have not been applied. However, the examiner notes that amendments made to overcome the 35 USC 112(a) and (b) rejections will likely change the scope of the claims such that new grounds of prior art rejections may be made.
Response to Arguments
23. Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-9 of the remarks filed on 2/2/2026, regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections of claim 1-32 which have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been maintained.
24. Applicant first argues the 35 USC 101 rejections, on pages 8-9 of the remarks, in the substance that:
“Applicant respectfully submits that the claims recite patent eligible subject matter as the claims do no recite a mental process, since predicting a mapping of an arrangement of in memory from reshaping or transposing tensors exceeds what can be accomplished with the human mind.” Further, amended claim 1 recites additional elements that integrate it into a practical application…. Furthermore, the predicted mappings enable the processors to more efficiently access elements of a tensor, which demonstrates an improvement of a computer (i.e., the predicted mapping can be used to locate the values of the operand in memory without actually transposing the operand by moving all the values of the operand in memory).”
It first appears that the applicant argues that the predicting a mapping of an arrangement of memory from reshaping or transposing of tensors exceeds what can be performed in the human mind. The examiner first notes that the step 2A prong 1 of the 101 analysis is used to identify whether the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. mental process, mathematical concept) which can be performed in the human mind (and/or with the aid of pen and paper). The examiner asserts that predicting one or more mappings of an arrangement from reshaping or transposing one or more tensors can be considered a mental process and a mathematical concept as the mappings indicate an organization or manipulation of the one or more tensors through a mathematical correlation (e.g. a reshape or transpose is a mathematical operation used to organize tensor data via the mappings) and a prediction can be performed in the human mind, thus predicting a mapping from a reshape or transpose of one or more tensors can be performed in the human mind and with the aid of pen and paper. (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(2)(I)(A)(iv) organizing information and manipulating information through mathematical correlations, Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The patentee in Digitech claimed methods of generating first and second data by taking existing information, manipulating the data using mathematical functions, and organizing this information into a new form. The court explained that such claims were directed to an abstract idea because they described a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations, like Flook's method of calculating using a mathematical formula. 758 F.3d at 1350, 111 USPQ2d at 1721)
Furthermore, the examiner notes that a tensor is a mathematical object that generalizes scalars, vectors, and matrices to higher dimensions. For example, a scalar is a rank 0 tensor (0D tensor), a vector is a rank 1 tensor (1D tensor), a matrix is a rank 2 tensor (2D tensor), a rank 3 tensor (3D tensor), etc. The claim requires predicting one mapping indicating of an arrangement of one tensor from reshaping or transposing the tensor. The examiner asserts that the human mind with the aid of pen and paper could perform such an abstract idea. For example, given a rank 1 tensor (i.e. a vector of 4 elements) written in row 0 such as [1 2 3 4], wherein [1 2 3 4] are located at respective columns [0 1 2 3], a mapping indicating an arrangement of the data values being transposed into a column would indicate that elements 1, 2, 3, 4 could all be stored at column 0, but now only element 1 would be stored at row 0 (e.g. element 2 would be stored at row 1, column 0; element 3 would be stored at row 2, column 0; and element 4 would be stored at row 3, column 0). Thus, predicting a mapping of an arrangement of a transposed tensor can be performed in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Furthermore, the use of the “memory” is recited at a high-level of generality, i.e. which can be seen as implementing the abstract idea by adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer using generic computing components (i.e. memory), or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Thus, it appears the applicant is merely tying the abstract idea to use on a computer using memory, which cannot integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more.
The applicant additionally states “Furthermore, the predicted mappings enable the processors to more efficiently access elements of a tensor, which demonstrates an improvement of a computer (i.e., the predicted mapping can be used to locate the values of the operand in memory without actually transposing the operand by moving all the values of the operand in memory)”, and argues that this provides an improvement to a computer.
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees because this is not reflected in the current claim language (See MPEP 2106.05(a) which states “…the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement…”). The claims state “…mappings of arrangement in memory from reshaping or transposing one or more tensors…use the …mappings to access elements of the one or more tensors”, and therefore the mappings are from reshaping or transposing one or more tensors, and thus the accessed tensors are reshaped and transposed; therefore, there is no improvement as argued related to locating operands without actually transposing the operand. Said another way, the applicant is arguing tensors are not reshaped or transposed in memory, however the tensors are reshaped or transposed based on the claim language and applicant’s arguments above which explicitly state “without actually having to reshape or transpose the tensor” are not reflected in the claim. Thus, the claim itself does not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer.
25. Applicant's arguments regarding 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-32, on page 9 of the remarks filed on 2/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Thus, the rejections have been maintained
26. Applicant argues the 35 USC 112 rejections, on page 9 of the remarks, in the substance that:
“The Office rejects claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) "as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention." See Office Action at 3. Specifically, the Office alleges that the use of limitation "the one or more reshaped or transposed tensors" created ambiguity because of using of conditional statement about reshaping or transposing the tensors and assuming the reshaping or transposing occurred in the remainder of the claim. See Id. at 4.
Without conceding to the appropriateness of the rejection, Applicant submits that claims 1-4, 8-12, 17-19, and 24-26 have been amended and render the rejection moot. Further, because of this reason, the rejection of claims 5-7, 13-16, 20-23, and 27-32 are rendered moot due to their dependency to one of the amended independent claims 1, 9, or 25. Withdrawal of the rejection to these claims is respectfully requested.”
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the current amended claim 1 states “…predict one or more mappings of an arrangement in memory from reshaping or transposing one or more tensors; and use the one or more predicted mappings to access elements of the one or more tensors from memory…as if the one or more tensors were reshaped or transposed” which lacks clarity because it remains unclear if a reshape or transpose of a tensor is occurring or not. The limitation is unclear because it first states “from reshaping or transposing one or more tensors” which explicitly indicates that the mappings that are predicted are from reshaping or transposing tensors, but then the claim later states “if the one or more tensors were reshaped or transposed” which implies the tensors are not reshaped or transposed. Thus, the claims remain unclear (e.g. it appears based on claims that the predicted mappings are a result of performing a reshape or transpose of the one or more tensors).
Conclusion
27. 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.
28. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COURTNEY P SPANN whose telephone number is (571)431-0692. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9am-6pm, 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, Jyoti Mehta can be reached at 571-270-3995. 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.
/COURTNEY P SPANN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2183