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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the supplemental amendment filed 9/2/2021. Applicant has elected Species A-2 on 5/14/2025 without traverse. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-19 and 21 are pending for examination. New grounds of rejections necessitated by applicant’s amendments filed 11/19/2024 (status identifier for claim 21 was incorrect- should be “New” instead of “Original” since it was newly added on 11/19/2024) have been established as set forth in detail below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1-5, 7-11, 13-19 and 21 are directed to the abstract idea of determining probability of occurrence of a loss event to be insured and selecting terms of insurance policy, as explained in detail below. The claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional computer elements, which are recited at a high level of generality, is not integrated into a practical application and only provide conventional computer functions that do not add meaningful limits to practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 15 recite in part, system/method performing the steps of bidirectional communication with at least one external data source; store data related to at least one of planning, monitoring and administering agricultural processes; receive at least one specific designation; determine a probability of occurrence of a loss event to be insured; select and based on the at least one specific designation, the data related to at least one of planning, monitoring and administering agricultural processes, the probability of occurrence of the loss event, and actuarial information, one or more terms of an insurance policy, in order to issue the insurance policy, performing the agricultural processes, generate data indicative of the agricultural processes and determine, based on the data, the loss event, which recites abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity (Fundamental Economic principles or practices: insurance/mitigating risk & commercial or legal interactions). As such, the description in claims 1 and 15 of determining probability of occurrence of a loss event to be insured and selecting terms of insurance policy is an abstract idea. Claims 2-14 and 16-20 are dependent on claims 1 and 15 and include all the limitations of claims 1 and 15. Therefore, claims 2-14 and 16-20 recite the same abstract idea of “determining probability of occurrence of a loss event to be insured and selecting terms of insurance policy.” The limitations recited in the depending claims (For example, the specific types designation and data used and the receiving, evaluating, comparing, transmitting, requesting, querying steps) are further details of the abstract idea and not significantly more. The concept described in claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-19 and 21 is not meaningfully different than those concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas. As such, the description in claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-19 and 21 of determining probability of occurrence of a loss event to be insured and selecting terms of insurance policy is an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements – “automatically”, “server platform including at least one data based and at least one interface”, “computer-assisted”, “machine assistance system”, “via the input unit (resident in the agricultural work machine)” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the claimed “automatically control operations of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly”, “automatically generate data…being automatically performed by the agricultural work machine and the agricultural work assembly” and “automatically generate data indicative of whether there is the technical failure of the one or both of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly” (claim 7) and “automatically controlling at least one of a drive device, chassis, steering system, transfer system or lane guidance system (claim 21)” limitations described only the result but not how the controlling and generating is performed. Therefore, these functionalities are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) and do not provide a practical application. Further, as the additional elements do not provide a practical application, they do not improve computer functionality and do not improve another technology or technical field.
When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)).
Claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-19 and 21 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 8-11, 13-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AVEY et al. US 2009/0112637 A1 in view of Crabtree et al. (US 2018/0322584 A1) and Bruns et al. (US 10,426,087 B2).
As per Claims 1, 15
AVEY (‘637) discloses
a server platform including at least one database and at least one interface for bidirectional communication with at least one external data source, see at least paragraph 0047 (database; collected and entered into data set), paragraph 0083 (a processor accesses information; Database may be accessible over a network, including a wide-area network such as the Internet), paragraph 0087 (user interface)
wherein the at least one database is configured to store data related to at least one of planning, monitoring and administering agricultural processes, see at least paragraph 0047 (the environmental information collected may be used to develop an environmental database for research seed product locations or grower commodity production locations), paragraph 0111 (crop insurance; databases), paragraph 0002 (computer-implemented ….use of environmental classifications in making agricultural production decisions)
a machine assistance system including an input unit, see at least paragraph 0083 (processor; input device; output)
wherein the machine assistance system is configured to: receive, via the input unit, at least one specific designation, see at least paragraph 0083 (processor; input device; output), and paragraph 0057 (designates a unique site or location by year), paragraph 0048 (performance data collected for other crops; factors)
determine, by the machine assistance system, a probability of occurrence of a loss event (risk of product failure) to be insured, see at least paragraph 0074 (probability based analysis to quantity the risk of product success/failure), paragraph 0083 (processor; input device; output), paragraph 0002 (computer-implemented methods), paragraph 0016 (providing a crop and/or revenue insurance policy to a producer; determining one or more terms of the crop insurance policy at least partially based on the step of evaluating use of agricultural inputs and providing the crop insurance policy to the producer; take into account the risk associated with particular product decisions or with the user of particular agricultural inputs)
AVEY (‘637) discloses select, by the machine assistance system, and based on the at least one specific designation, the data related to at least one of planning, monitoring and administering agricultural processes, the probability of occurrence of the loss event, and actuarial information, one or more terms of an insurance policy, in order to issue the insurance policy, see at least paragraph 0074 (probability based analysis to quantity the risk of product success/failure), paragraph 0083 (processor; input device; output), paragraph 0002 (computer-implemented methods), paragraph 0016 (providing a crop and/or revenue insurance policy to a producer; determining one or more terms of the crop insurance policy at least partially based on the step of evaluating use of agricultural inputs and providing the crop insurance policy to the producer; take into account the risk associated with particular product decisions or with the user of particular agricultural inputs), see at least paragraph 01111 (making crop insurance recommendations; actuarial database), but fails to explicitly disclose the determining and selecting steps are performed automatically in order to automatically issue the insurance policy. Crabtree (‘584) discloses performing determining and selecting automatically and issue insurance policy automatically, see at least paragraph 0004 (autonomous issuance and management of insurance policies), paragraph 0009 (automatically gather and access near real-time information regarding the risks associated with insurance policies… and issue policies), paragraph 0011 (gathers a variety of near real-time information from a plurality of online sources…performs assessments using machine learning algorithms to assess risks), and paragraph 0059 (automated planning service module). Both AVEY and Crabtree are directed toward issuing insurance policy. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify AVEY’s invention to include the determining and selecting steps are performed automatically in order to automatically issue the insurance policy. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of speeding up issuing process.
AVEY (‘637) discloses a machine assistance system including an input unit, see at least paragraph 0083 (processor; input device; output), but fails to explicitly disclose the machine assistance system is resident in the agricultural work machine, automatically control operations of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly thereby performing the agricultural processes, automatically generate data indicative of the agricultural processes being automatically performed by the agricultural work machine and the agricultural work assembly and automatically determine, based on the data, the loss event. Brun (‘087) teaches machine assistance system resident in agricultural work machine, automatically control operations of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly thereby performing the agricultural processes, automatically generate data indicative of the agricultural processes being automatically performed by the agricultural work machine and the agricultural work assembly and automatically determine, based on the data, the loss event, see at least claim 1 of Brun (automatically generating a control signal that controls operation of the agricultural machine, with a corresponding adjustment that is automatically applied to one or more settings of a controlled system to maintain a desired level of operating performance, based on a determination that at least one of the productivity performance metric values deviates outside of the range of productivity threshold value), claim 8 or Bran (a computing system on an agricultural machine comprising…at least one of a loss sensor; automatically generates a control signal that controls operation of the agricultural machine with a corresponding adjustment that is automatically applied to one or more settings of a controlled system to meet a particular level of operating performance of the agricultural machine). Both AVEY and Brun are directed toward collecting performance data for agricultural process. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify AVEY’s invention to include machine assistance system resident in agricultural work machine, automatically control operations of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly thereby performing the agricultural processes, automatically generate data indicative of the agricultural processes being automatically performed by the agricultural work machine and the agricultural work assembly and automatically determine, based on the data, the loss event. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of reducing risk.
As per Claims 2, 16
AVEY (‘637) discloses wherein the at least one specific designation comprises one or more of a time-related designation, a location-related designation, a machine-specific designation, a plant-specific designation, or a loss-type-specific designation, see at least paragraph 0083 (processor; input device; output), and paragraph 0057 (designates a unique site or location by year), paragraph 0048 (performance data collected for other crops; factors)
As per Claims 3, 17
AVEY (‘637) discloses wherein the machine assistance system is configured to receive the actuarial information from at least one external data source, see at least paragraph 0083 (processor; input device; output), paragraph 01111 (actuarial database; the databases may be…accessible over a network, such as a wide area network)
AVEY (‘637) discloses wherein the at least one specific designation comprises the time-related designation, see at least paragraph 0083 (processor; input device; output), and paragraph 0057 (designates a unique site or location by year), paragraph 0048 (performance data collected for other crops; factors)
AVEY (‘637) discloses wherein the machine assistance system is configured to select, based on the actuarial information, a policy term of the insurance policy based on the time-related designation, the time- related designation being determined based on the actuarial information, see at least paragraph 0083 (processor; input device; output), paragraph 01111 (actuarial database), paragraph 0016 (determining one or more terms of the crop insurance policy at least partially based on the step of evaluating use of agricultural inputs; the terms of the crop or revenue insurance policy may take into account the risk), paragraph 0100 (determining more appropriate scenarios of crop performance which can then in turn be used to selected an appropriate crop insurance plan; statistical likelihood of better performance in a properly classified land base in a given year)
AVEY (‘637) discloses a machine assistance system, see at least paragraph 0083 (processor; input device; output), but fails to explicitly disclose the machine assistance system is resident in the agricultural work machine. Brun (‘087) teaches machine assistance system resident in agricultural work machine, automatically control operations of the agricultural work machine or the, see at least claim 8 or Bran (a computing system on an agricultural machine comprising…at least one of a loss sensor; automatically generates a control signal that controls operation of the agricultural machine with a corresponding adjustment that is automatically applied to one or more settings of a controlled system to meet a particular level of operating performance of the agricultural machine). Both AVEY and Brun are directed toward collecting performance data for agricultural process. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify AVEY’s invention to include the machine assistance system is resident in the agricultural work machine. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of reducing risk
As per Claims 4, 18
AVEY (‘637) discloses wherein the at least one specific designation further comprises a location-related designation wherein the location-related designation comprises one or more of a geographic specification of a position of one or more crops, part or all of a business premises, or routes between the one or more crops and the business premises wherein the machine assistance system is configured to select, based on the location-related designation, a defined area for the insurance policy, see at least paragraph 0044 (positioning and planning… grow the selected products and measure the performance results), paragraph 0096 (product positioning), paragraph 0010 (select seeds products for particular location), paragraph 0088 (location; number of acres to plant for each product….crop insurance)
As per Claim 8
AVEY (‘637) discloses wherein the actuarial information comprises one or more of external influences, yield data, planning data, statistical data, cultivation information, geographic data, propensity to risk or crop properties, see at least paragraph 0111 (actuarial database), paragraph 0012 (yield), paragraph 0044 (positioning and planning), paragraph 0060 (statistical analysis), Abstract of AVEY (crop production risks)
As per Claim 9
AVEY (‘637) discloses wherein the server platform includes: an input unit configured to receive the at least one specific designation and third-party data for a policy for a unit to be insured and an evaluation unit configured to: evaluate the at least one specific designation and the actuarial information, see at least paragraph 0083 (input device; output; processor) and claim 1 of AVEY (providing a crop insurance policy…. evaluation of use of agricultural inputs… determining one or more terms of the crop insurance policy at least partially based on the steps of evaluating use of agricultural inputs) and paragraph 0111 (actuarial database) and Fig 19 (producer database; government database; genotype-by-environment database => input device => crop insurance plan algorithm module), but fails to explicitly disclose compare evaluation with the offer data in order to select an optimized policy offer. Crabtree (‘584) discloses compare evaluation with offer data in order to select an optimized policy offer, see at least paragraph 0074 (automated planning service module; refines the offerings based on historical underwriting from one or more organizations or one or more underwriters; optimization of future requests), paragraph 0089 (optimized results; final round of refinement before the offers are presented). Both AVEY and Crabtree are directed toward issuing insurance policy. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify AVEY’s invention to include compare evaluation with offer data in order to select an optimized policy offer. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of reducing risk.
As per Claim 10
AVEY (‘637) discloses wherein the one or more terms of the insurance policy comprise at least one specifiable risk threshold indicative of a condition under which to pay a claim; determine whether the at least one specifiable risk threshold has been met; and responsive determining that the at least one specifiable risk threshold has been met, see at least claim 1 of AVEY (providing a crop insurance policy…. evaluation of use of agricultural inputs… determining one or more terms of the crop insurance policy at least partially based on the steps of evaluating use of agricultural inputs), paragraph 0082 (inputs such as risk tolerance; insurance/risk), paragraph 0107 (crop insurance; covers losses; qualifying claims reimburse lost bushels at an elected price per bushel), but fails to explicitly disclose automatically determining and automatically send one or more communications in order to cause payment of the claim. Crabtree (‘584) discloses automatically determining and automatically send one or more communications in order to cause payment of the claim, see at least paragraph 0004 (autonomous issuance and management of insurance policies), paragraph 0009 (automatically gather and access near real-time information), paragraph 0011 (gathers a variety of near real-time information from a plurality of online sources…performs assessments using machine learning algorithms to assess risks), paragraph 0064 (automatically processing payouts when certain conditions or triggers occur), paragraph 0080 (automated payouts to insureds). Both AVEY and Crabtree are directed toward issuing insurance policy. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify AVEY’s invention to include compare evaluation with offer data in order to select an optimized policy offer. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of speeding up process.
As per Claim 11
AVEY (‘637) discloses wherein the machine assistance system is configured to transmit a manually or automatically recorded loss event to the server platform, see at least paragraph 0044 (performance results; output of records of product use), paragraph 0084 (records output; processor/ computer/Internet), paragraph 0107 (losses due to adverse weather, insects, wildlife, diseases …etc.)
As per Claim 13
AVEY (‘637) discloses wherein the machine assistance system is configured to: independently query specific designations in order to obtain query results, determine, using the query results, specification parameters and criteria and automatically transmit the specification parameters and the criteria to the server platform, see at least Fig 15 (data collection *site specific* 300 => environmental classification 302), paragraph 0011 (data collected from a plurality of locations) over a number of years to provide information regarding the frequency of particular environmental classifications at various locations), paragraph 0084 (accessible over a network including a wide-area network such as the Internet)
As per Claim 14
AVEY (‘637) discloses wherein the machine assistance system is configured to: independently request one or more risk thresholds and automatically transmit the one or more risk thresholds to the server platform, see at least paragraph 0082 (producer profile is based on one or more inputs such as risk tolerance), paragraph 0088 (set risk levels), paragraph 0084 (accessible over a network including a wide-area network such as the Internet) and paragraph 0002 (computer-implemented methods)
Claims 5 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AVEY et al. US 2009/0112637 A1 in view of Crabtree et al. (US 2018/0322584 A1) and Bruns et al. (US 10,426,087 B2), as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Official Notice.
As per Claims 5, 19
AVEY (‘637) discloses wherein the at least one specific designation comprises a machine-specific designation wherein the machine-specific designation comprises one or both of a type of an agricultural work machine or a type of an agricultural work assembly, see at least paragraph 0050 (typical performance data for sunflower includes ….hullability; hulling machine to remove seed hulls from kernel), but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the machine assistance system is configured to select, based on the machine- specific designation, the one or more terms of the insurance policy. Official Notice is taken that it was old and well known in the art to select one or more terms of insurance policy based on machine-specific designation (For example, insurance for repairing agricultural machine). Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify AVEY’s invention to include wherein the machine assistance system is configured to select, based on the machine- specific designation, the one or more terms of the insurance policy. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of reducing risk.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AVEY et al. US 2009/0112637 A1 in view of Crabtree et al. (US 2018/0322584 A1) and Bruns et al. (US 10,426,087 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bruns et al. (US 2017/0118914 A1).
As per Claim 7
AVEY (‘637) discloses wherein the at least one specific designation comprises a loss-type-specific designation wherein the loss-type-specific designation comprises a loss due to one or more of weather influences, pest attack, wild animal influences, a failure of one or both of work machines or work assembly while driving in public street traffic, or a technical failure of the one or both of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly during the agricultural processes, see at least paragraph 0107 (covers losses due to adverse weather, insects, wildlife, diseases, replanting, prevented planting, poor quality and even earthquake and volcanic eruption), paragraph 0074 (probability based analysis to quantity the risk of product success/failure), paragraph 0016 (providing a crop and/or revenue insurance policy to a producer; determining one or more terms of the crop insurance policy at least partially based on the step of evaluating use of agricultural inputs and providing the crop insurance policy to the producer; take into account the risk associated with particular product decisions or with the user of particular agricultural inputs)
AVEY (‘637) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the machine assistance system is configured to automatically generate data indicative of whether there is the technical failure of the one or both of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly during the agricultural processes wherein the machine assistance system is configured to automatically determine whether the loss event has occurred based on the data indicative of the technical failure of the one or both of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly during the agricultural processes. Bruns (‘914) teaches machine assistance system is configured to automatically generate data indicative of whether there is technical failure of the one or both of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly during the agricultural processes wherein the machine assistance system is configured to automatically determine whether the loss event has occurred based on the data indicative of the technical failure of the one or both of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly during the agricultural processes, see at least paragraph 0031 (automatically control operation of equipment; computing device automatically triggers other sensors on harvester to allow the device to determine whether a malfunction exists…resulting in the drop in mass flow rate and/or corresponding yield). Both AVEY and Bruns are directed toward collecting performance data for agricultural process. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify AVEY’s invention to wherein the machine assistance system is configured to automatically generate data indicative of whether there is the technical failure of the one or both of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly during the agricultural processes wherein the machine assistance system is configured to automatically determine whether the loss event has occurred based on the data indicative of the technical failure of the one or both of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly during the agricultural processes. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of reducing risk.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over AVEY et al. US 2009/0112637 A1 in view of Crabtree et al. (US 2018/0322584 A1) and Bruns et al. (US 10,426,087 B2), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brunnert et al. US 2005/0090960 A1).
As per Claim 21
AVEY (‘637) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the machine assistance system is configured to automatically control the operations of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly by automatically controllingly at least one of a drive device, chassis, steering system, transfer system or lane guidance system. Brunnert (‘960) teaches machine assistance system is configured to automatically control the operations of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly by automatically controllingly at least one of a drive device, chassis, steering system, transfer system or lane guidance system, see at least paragraph 00017 (automatically controlling steering device of an agricultural working machine). Both AVEY and Brunnert are directed toward performing agricultural process. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify AVEY’s invention to include wherein the machine assistance system is configured to automatically control the operations of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly by automatically controllingly at least one of a drive device, chassis, steering system, transfer system or lane guidance system. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of reducing risk.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/19/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that he claims are statutory under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the automatic actions are performed by the machine assistance system that is resident in and centered on the agricultural work machine. The Examiner disagrees. The claimed “automatically control operations of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly”, “automatically generate data…being automatically performed by the agricultural work machine and the agricultural work assembly” and “automatically generate data indicative of whether there is the technical failure of the one or both of the agricultural work machine or the agricultural work assembly” (claim 7) limitations described only the result but not how the controlling and generating is performed. Therefore, these functionalities are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)) and do not provide a practical application. Further, as the additional elements do not provide a practical application, they do not improve computer functionality and do not improve another technology or technical field. Therefor, applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s argument that prior arts do not teach or disclose the newly added limitations, it is noted that applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new combinations of references being used in the current rejection.
In response to applicant’s argument that “selecting the terms of insurance policy via the agricultural work machine is not old and well known” and therefore the Official Notice should be withdrawn. Applicant is reminded that the Official Notice only states that it was old and well know to select one or more terms of insurance policy based on machine-specific designation. Since Applicant fails to properly challenge the Examiner’s Office Notice statement and has not state why the noticed fact is not considered to be common knowledge or well-known in the art, the challenge is improper.
Related But Not Relied Upon
Relevant prior art cited but not applied: Strubbe (3,797,208), directed to automatic steering of agricultural machine, especially combines.
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 communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIA-YI LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1573. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9-8 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RYAN DONLON can be reached at (571) 270-3602. 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.
/CHIA-YI LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692