DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 06 February 2026 for application 17/453,121 filed 01 November 2021.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 15 is/are currently amended.
Claim(s) 2, 9, 16 is/are cancelled.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 is/are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 is/are rejected.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
Claim 15 recites program instructions to integrate physical knowledge data associated with a dataset, based on a given knowledge base of known physics, into one or more automated feature engineering models (Claims, p. 6 of 16) with underline the limitation as amended. Claim 15 repeats the same limitation (Claims, p. 7 of 16), but the limitation has been deleted the second time. In light of the amendments to independent claims 1 and 8, and the lack of underlining, this will be interpreted as a typographical error and the claim will be interpreted as if the recited limitation has been deleted from the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims are based on the newly amended subject matter. All arguments are addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of the claims below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims are based on the newly amended subject matter. All arguments are addressed in the 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of the claims below.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 are 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.
Claim 1 recites based on an output of the validated one or more automated feature engineering models, causing an actuator to perform a control action that adjusts a physical parameter of a monitored process. However, the specification does not provide support for an actuator adjusting physical parameters of a process. The specification discloses various physical devices transmitting data (Specification [0054]-[0055]), but does not provide support for the transmitted data including control actions to adjust physical parameters. Correction or clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites based on an output of the validated one or more automated feature engineering models, cause an actuator to perform a control action that adjusts a physical parameter of a monitored process. However, the specification does not provide support for an actuator adjusting physical parameters of a process. The specification discloses various physical devices transmitting data (Specification [0054]-[0055]), but does not provide support for the transmitted data including control actions to adjust physical parameters. Correction or clarification is required.
Claim 15 recites based on an output of the validated one or more automated feature engineering models, program instructions to cause an actuator to perform a control action that adjusts a physical parameter of a monitored process. However, the specification does not provide support for an actuator adjusting physical parameters of a process. The specification discloses various physical devices transmitting data (Specification [0054]-[0055]), but does not provide support for the transmitted data including control actions to adjust physical parameters. Correction or clarification is required.
Claim(s) 3-7, 10-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly, on claims 1, 8, 15.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al., 573 US 208 (2014).
Regarding claim 1, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method ... for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of learning, from a dataset, physical knowledge data comprising one or more governing equations characterizing behavior of the dataset, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of translating time series data of the dataset into the one or more governing equations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generating, based on the one or more governing equations, a plurality of features for one or more automated feature engineering models to guide machine learning model prediction and monitoring operations, wherein the plurality of features represents relationships specified by the one or more governing equations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of assigning, for each of the generated plurality of features, a feature-importance score and retaining for use those features having an importance greater than a feature-importance threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of validating the one or more automated feature engineering models that incorporate the one or more governing equations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – processor, computing environment, actuator. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – feature engineering, one or more automated feature engineering models, machine learning model prediction and monitoring operations. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites based on an output of the validated one or more automated feature engineering models, causing an actuator to perform a control action that adjusts a physical parameter of a monitored process which is simply applying components to generate values recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
processor, computing environment, actuator amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
feature engineering, one or more automated feature engineering models, machine learning model prediction and monitoring operations amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 3, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method ... for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of representing the physical knowledge data as temporal and spectral features using one or more feature vectors, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method ... for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of identifying one or more patterns that match one or more equations describing behavior of the physical knowledge data and the dataset, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 5, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method ... for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of assigning a degree of importance to features in the plurality of features, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 6, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method ... for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of retaining those of the features in the plurality of features identified as having a degree of importance greater than a feature importance threshold for the one or more automated feature engineering models, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 7, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method ... for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of validating the one or more automated feature engineering models having one or more equations representing and describing behavior of the physical knowledge data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 8, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a system with a computer, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of learn, from a dataset, physical knowledge data comprising one or more governing equations characterizing behavior of the dataset, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of translate time series data of the dataset into the one or more governing equations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generate, based on the one or more governing equations, a plurality of features for one or more automated feature engineering models to guide machine learning model prediction and monitoring operations, wherein the plurality of features represents relationships specified by the one or more governing equations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of assign, for each of the generated plurality of features, a feature-importance score and retaining for use those features having an importance greater than a feature-importance threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of validate the one or more automated feature engineering models that incorporate the one or more governing equations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – system, computing environment, one or more computers, executable instructions, actuator. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – feature engineering, one or more automated feature engineering models, machine learning model prediction and monitoring operations. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites based on an output of the validated one or more automated feature engineering models, cause an actuator to perform a control action that adjusts a physical parameter of a monitored process which is simply applying components to generate values recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
system, computing environment, one or more computers, executable instructions, actuator amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
feature engineering, one or more automated feature engineering models, machine learning model prediction and monitoring operations amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 10, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a system with one or more computers, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of represent the physical knowledge data as temporal and spectral features using one or more feature vectors, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 11, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a system with one or more computers, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of identify one or more patterns that match one or more equations describing behavior of the physical knowledge data and the dataset, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a system with one or more computers, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of assign a degree of importance to features in the plurality of features, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a system with one or more computers, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of retain those of the features in the plurality of features identified as having a degree of importance greater than a feature importance threshold for the one or more automated feature engineering models, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a system with one or more computers, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of validate the one or more automated feature engineering models having one or more equations representing and describing behavior of the physical knowledge data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of learn, from a dataset, physical knowledge data comprising one or more governing equations characterizing behavior of the dataset, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of translate time series data of the dataset into the one or more governing equations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of generate, based on the one or more governing equations, a plurality of features for one or more automated feature engineering models to guide machine learning model prediction and monitoring operations, wherein the plurality of features represents relationships specified by the one or more governing equations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of assign, for each of the generated plurality of features, a feature-importance score and retaining for use those features having an importance greater than a feature-importance threshold, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of validate the one or more automated feature engineering models that incorporate the one or more governing equations, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
The claim recites additional element(s) – computer program product, computing environment, one or more computer readable storage media, program instructions, actuator. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)).
The claim recites additional element(s) – feature engineering, one or more automated feature engineering models, machine learning model prediction and monitoring operations. The additional element(s) is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The claim recites based on an output of the validated one or more automated feature engineering models, program instructions to cause an actuator to perform a control action that adjusts a physical parameter of a monitored process which is simply applying components to generate values recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of:
computer program product, computing environment, one or more computer readable storage media, program instructions, actuator amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b))
applying components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f))
feature engineering, one or more automated feature engineering models, machine learning model prediction and monitoring operations amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h))
The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of represent the physical knowledge data as temporal and spectral features using one or more feature vectors, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of identify one or more patterns that match one or more equations describing behavior of the physical knowledge data and the dataset, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of assign a degree of importance to features in the plurality of features, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
The limitation of retain those of the features in the plurality of features identified as having a degree of importance greater than a feature importance threshold for the one or more automated feature engineering models, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 Analysis: Claim 20 is directed to a computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories.
Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product for providing feature engineering in a computing environment.
The limitation of validate the one or more automated feature engineering models having one or more equations representing and describing behavior of the physical knowledge data, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated
into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on
practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the claim does not recite any additional elements which
provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10-15, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lynch et al. (US 2021/0117853 A1 – Methods and Systems for Automated Feature Generation Utilizing Formula Semantification, hereinafter referred to as “Lynch”) in view of Brunton et al. (Discovering Governing Equations from Data: Sparse Identification of Nonlinear Dynamical Systems, hereinafter referred to as “Brunton”) and further in view of Thompson et al. (Physics-Based Featuring Mining for Large Data Exploration, hereinafter referred to as “Thompson”).
Regarding claim 1 (Currently Amended), Lynch teaches a method, by a processor, for providing feature engineering in a computing environment (Lynch, [0023] – teaches automated feature engineering by a processor), comprising:
learning, from a dataset, physical knowledge data comprising one or more governing equations characterizing behavior of the dataset (Lynch, [0017]-[0018] – teaches translating data into formulae for feature generation of an existing dataset and applying automated feature engineering, through the use of formulae);
generating, based on the one or more governing equations, a plurality of features for one or more automated feature engineering models (Lynch, [0017]-[0018] – teaches translating data into formulae for feature generation of an existing dataset and applying automated feature engineering, through the use of formulae; Lynch, [0087]-[0089] – teaches transforming data associated with a ML model into features to be used for feature engineering) to guide machine learning model prediction and monitoring operations (Lynch, [0023] – teaches using the features and ML models to predict performance and optimize a given system), wherein the plurality of features represents relationships specified by the one or more governing equations (Lynch, [0086]-[0089] – teaches the features represent relationships among the data specified by the formulae);
validating the one or more automated feature engineering models that incorporate the one or more governing equations (Lynch, [0023] – teaches investigating how different inputs effect outputs, including with user feedback; see also Lynch, [0016] – teaches selecting formulae [This is a validation as unselected formulae do not represent behavior]); and
based on an output of the validated one or more automated feature engineering models, causing an actuator to perform a control action that adjusts a physical parameter of a monitored process (Lynch, [0059]-[0060] 0 teaches controllable devices such as actuators that perform various tasks in a cloud computing environment).
While Lynch teaches controllable devices such as actuators, Lynch does not explicitly teach adjusting physical parameters in a monitoring process. Further, Lynch does not explicitly teach translating time series data of the dataset into the one or more governing equations; assigning, for each of the generated plurality of features, a feature-importance score and retaining for use those features having an importance greater than a feature-importance threshold.
Brunton teaches
translating time series data of the dataset into the one or more governing equations (Brunton, section 3 – teaches identifying the governing equations of a physical system based on time series data collected in simulations and experiments);
based on an output of the validated one or more automated feature engineering models, causing an actuator to perform a control action that adjusts a physical parameter of a monitored process (Brunton, section 3.3.3 - teaches using the results of the models to adjust parameters of the monitored process; see also Brunton, section 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lynch with the teachings of Brunton in order to balance model complexity with descriptive ability while avoiding overfitting in the field of feature engineering (Brunton, Abstract – “The ability to discover physical laws and governing equations from data is one of humankind’s greatest intellectual achievements. A quantitative understanding of dynamic constraints and balances in nature has facilitated rapid development of knowledge and enabled advanced technological achievements, including aircraft, combustion engines, satellites, and electrical power. In this work, we combine sparsity-promoting techniques and machine learning with nonlinear dynamical systems to discover governing physical equations from measurement data. The only assumption about the structure of the model is that there are only a few important terms that govern the dynamics, so that the equations are sparse in the space of possible functions; this assumption holds for many physical systems. In particular, we use sparse regression to determine the fewest terms in the dynamic governing equations required to accurately represent the data. The resulting models are parsimonious, balancing model complexity with descriptive ability while avoiding overfitting. We demonstrate the algorithm on a wide range of problems, from simple canonical systems, including linear and nonlinear oscillators and the chaotic Lorenz system, to the fluid vortex shedding behind an obstacle. The fluid example illustrates the ability of this method to discover the underlying dynamics of a system that took experts in the community nearly 30 years to resolve. We also show that this method generalizes to parameterized, time-varying, or externally forced systems.”).
However, Lynch in view of Brunton does not explicitly teach assigning, for each of the generated plurality of features, a feature-importance score and retaining for use those features having an importance greater than a feature-importance threshold.
Thompson teaches assigning, for each of the generated plurality of features, a feature-importance score (Thompson, pp. 24-26, Feature detection algorithms section – teaches ranking features based on saliency) and retaining for use those features having an importance greater than a feature-importance threshold (Thompson, p. 27, Wavelet-based denoising section – teaches ignoring features that do not meet criteria and eliminating insignificant features).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lynch in view of Brunton with the teachings of Thompson in order to develop highly discriminating, application-dependent feature detection algorithms in the field of feature engineering (Thompson, Abstract – “We call the process of detecting those significant features feature mining, and in this article, we propose two paradigms for accomplishing this task. Our intent with both approaches is to exploit the physics of the problem at hand to develop highly discriminating, application-dependent feature detection algorithms and then use available data mining algorithms to classify, cluster, and categorize the identified features. We have also developed a technique for denoising feature maps that exploits spatial-scale coherence and uses what we call feature-preserving wavelets.”).
Regarding claim 3 (Original), Lynch in view of Brunton and further in view of Thompson teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Thompson further teaches representing the physical knowledge data as temporal and spectral features using one or more feature vectors (Thompson, p. 23, What is a feature? Section – teaches features data is represented as spatial and temporal vectors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lynch, Brunton and Thompson in order to represent the features to develop highly discriminating, application-dependent feature detection algorithms (Thompson, Abstract).
Regarding claim 4 (Original), Lynch in view of Brunton and further in view of Thompson teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Lynch further teaches identifying one or more patterns that match one or more equations describing behavior of the physical knowledge data and the dataset (Lynch, [0019] – teaches identifying patterns in documents that match related equations; see also Lynch, Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lynch, Brunton and Thompson for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 5 (Original), Lynch in view of Brunton and further in view of Thompson teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Thompson further teaches assigning a degree of importance to features in the plurality of features (Thompson, pp. 24-26, Feature detection algorithms section – teaches ranking features based on saliency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lynch, Brunton and Thompson in order to assign importance to features to develop highly discriminating, application-dependent feature detection algorithms (Thompson, Abstract).
Regarding claim 6 (Original), Lynch in view of Brunton and further in view of Thompson teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 4 as noted above. Thompson further teaches retaining those of the features in the plurality of features identified as having a degree of importance greater than a feature importance threshold for the one or more automated feature engineering models (Thompson, p. 27, Wavelet-based denoising section – teaches ignoring features that do not meet criteria and eliminating insignificant features).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lynch, Brunton and Thompson in order to retain important features to develop highly discriminating, application-dependent feature detection algorithms (Thompson, Abstract).
Regarding claim 7 (Original), Lynch in view of Brunton and further in view of Thompson teaches all of the limitations of the method of claim 1 as noted above. Lynch further teaches validating the one or more automated feature engineering models having one or more equations representing and describing behavior of the physical knowledge data (Lynch, [0023] – teaches investigating how different inputs effect outputs, including with user feedback; see also Lynch, [0016] – teaches selecting formulae [This is a validation as unselected formulae do not represent behavior]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lynch, Brunton and Thompson for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8 (Currently Amended), it is the system embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Lynch further teaches a system for providing feature engineering in a computing environment (Lynch, [0023] – teaches automated feature engineering by a processor), comprising:
one or more computers with executable instructions that when executed cause the system to (Lynch, [0091] – teaches memory having instructions executed by a processor) …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lynch, Brunton and Thompson for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10 (Original), the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Lynch in view of Brunton and further in view of Thompson for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 11 (Original), the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Lynch in view of Brunton and further in view of Thompson for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 12 (Original), the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Lynch in view of Brunton and further in view of Thompson for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
Regarding claim 13 (Original), the rejection of claim 12 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Lynch in view of Brunton and further in view of Thompson for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 6.
Regarding claim 14 (Original), the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Lynch in view of Brunton and further in view of Thompson for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
Regarding claim 15 (Currently Amended), it is the computer program product embodiment of claim 1 with similar limitations to claim 1 and is rejected using the same reasoning found in claim 1. Lynch further teaches a computer program product (Lynch, [0091] – teaches computer program product with memory having instructions executed by a processor) for providing feature engineering in a computing environment (Lynch, [0023] – teaches automated feature engineering by a processor), the computer program product comprising:
one or more computer readable storage media, and program instructions collectively stored on the one or more computer readable storage media, the program instruction (Lynch, [0091] – teaches computer program product with memory having instructions executed by a processor) comprising …
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing data of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lynch, Brunton and Thompson for the same reasons as disclosed in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 17 (Original), the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Lynch in view of Brunton and further in view of Thompson for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 18 (Original), the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Lynch in view of Brunton and further in view of Thompson for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Regarding claim 19 (Original), Lynch in view of Brunton and further in view of Thompson teaches all of the limitations of the computer program product of claim 15 as noted above. Thompson further teaches
assign a degree of importance to features in the plurality of features (Thompson, pp. 24-26, Feature detection algorithms section – teaches ranking features based on saliency); and
retain those of the features in the plurality of features identified as having a degree of importance greater than a feature importance threshold for the one or more automated feature engineering models (Thompson, p. 27, Wavelet-based denoising section – teaches ignoring features that do not meet criteria and eliminating insignificant features).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Lynch, Brunton and Thompson in order to retain important features to develop highly discriminating, application-dependent feature detection algorithms (Thompson, Abstract).
Regarding claim 20 (Original), the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated herein. Further, the limitations in this claim are taught by Lynch in view of Brunton and further in view of Thompson for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 7.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to MARSHALL WERNER whose telephone number is (469) 295-9143. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday – Thursday 7:30 AM – 4:30 PM ET.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamran Afshar, can be reached at (571) 272-7796. The fax 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.
/MARSHALL L WERNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights