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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/09/2025 was filed before the mailing of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 5, 6, 11, and 16 have been amended. Claims 20 and 21 have been canceled. Claims 1-19 and 22 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the limitations "update the dewar failure model in real-time based on the comparison" and "update the machine learning algorithm in real-time based on the comparison" do not recite judicial exceptions. Examiner disagrees. The dewar failure model (which is an algorithm) and machine learning algorithm directly corresponds to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations). Further, claim 1 also recites limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations such as detecting or measuring first sensor data; storing the first sensor data collected during transit of [the dewar]; storing a dewar failure model, the dewar failure model configured to model a failure of various shippers given one or more constraints; estimating or predicting a probability or a likelihood that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during a subsequent shipment of [the dewar] based on the first sensor data and the dewar failure model, output a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the plurality of shippers will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]; compare a particular probability or likelihood associated with [a specific shipper of the plurality of shippers] to post-delivery status information associated with [the specific shipper], and updating the dewar failure model in real-time based on the comparison. Claim 11 recites similar limitations. Applicant should keep in mind that claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. If the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept, the claim is considered to recite a mental process. This is the case in the applicant’s invention. The computer components such as the first non-transitory machine-readable memory and non-transitory machine-readable memory that stores the dewar failure model, a network access device, one or more computing devices, and one or more processors, are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Applicant further argues that their claim is similar to that of Example 39 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Examiner disagrees. In Example 39, the claim gave details of training for the purpose of robustly detecting human faces in images where there are shifts, distortions, and variations in scale and rotation of the face pattern in the image, which is technical in nature. Example 39 did not merely recite a business method or process in which steps may be implemented via a machine learning algorithm like the applicant’s invention. Additionally, in light of the recent updates to the subject matter eligibility examples (July 2024) and the recent federal circuit decision Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2025)), applicant’s use of a machine learning algorithm (or dewar failure model) to implement the limitations that correspond to mental processes will not remove the claims out of the mental processes grouping. "[P]atents that do no more than claim the application of generic machine learning to new data environments, without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models to be applied, are patent ineligible under § 101." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025) (slip op. at 18). Additionally, "The requirements that the machine learning model be 'iteratively trained' or dynamically adjusted in the Machine Learning Training patents do not represent a technological improvement." Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox. Corp., Fed Cir. No. 2023-2437 (Apr. 18, 2025), slip op. at 12.
Under Step 2A Prong Two, applicant argues that the claims are eligible and integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application because the plurality of shippers, the dewar, and the sensor, as claimed, are not computer components at all. Examiner disagrees. The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application: merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea; generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The shippers/dewar(s), the first sensor, and monitoring device amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to particular field of use (predicting the failure of shippers/dewars). The limitations involving these additional elements merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (predicting the failure of shippers/dewars) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims and fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Employing generic computer functions to execute an abstract idea, even when limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment, does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor add significantly more, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Parker v. Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 12, filed 12/23/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 1-19 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-19 and 22 recite a system (i.e. machine). Therefore, claims 1-19 and 22 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations of detecting or measuring first sensor data; storing the first sensor data collected during transit of [the dewar]; communicating with the [one or more computing devices]; storing a dewar failure model, the dewar failure model configured to model a failure of various shippers given one or more constraints; estimating or predicting a probability or a likelihood that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during a subsequent shipment of [the dewar] based on the first sensor data and the [dewar failure model], output a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the plurality of shippers will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar], compare a particular probability or likelihood associated with a specific shipper of the plurality of shippers to post-delivery status information associated with the specific shipper, and updating the dewar failure model in real-time based on the comparison. The claim limitations are drawn to predicting the failure of a shipper/dewar in a shipping business process and corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., business relations, following rules or instructions), as evidenced by limitations such as storing a dewar failure model, the dewar failure model configured to model a failure of various shippers given one or more constraints; estimating or predicting a probability or a likelihood that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during a subsequent shipment of [the dewar] based on the first sensor data and the [dewar failure model], and output a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the plurality of shippers will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]. The claim also recites limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations such as detecting or measuring first sensor data; storing the first sensor data collected during transit of [the dewar]; storing a dewar failure model, the dewar failure model configured to model a failure of various shippers given one or more constraints; estimating or predicting a probability or a likelihood that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during a subsequent shipment of [the dewar] based on the first sensor data and the dewar failure model, output a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the plurality of shippers will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]; compare a particular probability or likelihood associated with [a specific shipper of the plurality of shippers] to post-delivery status information associated with [the specific shipper], and updating the dewar failure model in real-time based on the comparison. Lastly, the claim also recites limitations that correspond to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), as evidenced by limitations reciting the dewar failure model which appears to be an algorithm. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Note: the claim features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claim recites the additional elements of: a plurality of shippers comprising a dewar, a monitoring device, a first sensor, a first non-transitory machine-readable memory, a network access device, a non-transitory machine-readable memory that stores a dewar failure model, one or more computing devices, and one or more processors. The additional elements of the first non-transitory machine-readable memory and non-transitory machine-readable memory that stores the dewar failure model, a network access device, one or more computing devices, and one or more processors, are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, shippers/dewar(s), the first sensor, and monitoring device amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to particular field of use (predicting the failure of shippers/dewars). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 2 recites the limitation(s) of outputting the list of probabilities or likelihoods that [the dewar] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]. The claim recites limitation(s) further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of a display and the dewar. The display is a computer component recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The dewar amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 3 recites the limitation(s) of a [user interface] configured to receive user inputs that indicates whether [the dewar] failed before, during or after the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]; wherein the [one or more processors] is configured to: update [the dewar failure model] based on a user input and the first sensor data in real-time. The claim recites limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of a user interface, one or more processors, and the dewar failure model. The additional elements of the user interface, dewar failure model, and one or more processors amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. The additional element of the dewar failure model additionally amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 4 recites the limitation(s) that the first sensor includes at least one of a temperature sensor, a shock or vibration sensor, or a pressure sensor and the first sensor data includes at least one of a temperature within the dewar, shocks or vibrations to the dewar or a pressure within the dewar. The claim limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites that the additional element of the first sensor includes at least one of a temperature sensor, a shock or vibration sensor, or a pressure sensor. The additional element(s) amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the limitation of estimating or predicting the probability or the likelihood that [the dewar] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of the dewar using a boosted decision tree algorithm. The claim limitation is further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The boosted tree algorithm amounts to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas, equations, calculations). The additional element of the dewar amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 8 recites the limitations of measuring or detecting second sensor data, and that the first sensor data is a temperature within the dewar and the second sensor is a pressure sensor and the second sensor data is a pressure within the dewar. The claim limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of the dewar, a second sensor being a pressure sensor, and first sensor being a temperature sensor. The additional elements amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 5, 7, 9, and 10 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 5, 7, 9, and 10 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Independent claim 11 recites the limitations of detecting or measuring sensor data; storing the sensor data collected during transit of [the dewar]; communicating with the [one or more computing devices]; obtaining at least one of maintenance information or the sensor data in real-time; estimating or predicting a probability or a likelihood that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during a subsequent shipment of [the dewar] based on the at least one of the maintenance information or the sensor data and using a machine learning algorithm; outputting a list to a user of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]; comparing a particular probability or likelihood associated with [a specific shipper of the plurality of shippers] to post-delivery status information associated with [the specific shipper], and update the machine learning algorithm in real-time based on the comparison; [a display] configured to output to the user a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of the dewar. The claim limitations are drawn to predicting the failure of a shipper/dewar in a shipping business process and corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., business relations, following rules or instructions), as evidenced by limitations such as storing the sensor data collected during transit of [the dewar]; communicating with the [one or more computing devices]; obtaining at least one of maintenance information or the sensor data; estimating or predicting a probability or a likelihood that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during a subsequent shipment of [the dewar] based on the at least one of the maintenance information or the sensor data and using a machine learning algorithm; and outputting a list to a user of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]; and a [display] configured to output to the user a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]. The claim also recites limitations that correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) as evidenced by limitations such as detecting or measuring sensor data; storing the sensor data collected during transit of [the dewar]; communicating with the [one or more computing devices]; obtaining at least one of maintenance information or the sensor data; estimating or predicting a probability or a likelihood that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during a subsequent shipment of [the dewar] based on the at least one of the maintenance information or the sensor data and using a machine learning algorithm; outputting a list to a user of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]; comparing a particular probability or likelihood associated with [a specific shipper of the plurality of shippers] to post-delivery status information associated with [the specific shipper; updating the machine learning algorithm in real-time based on the comparison; and a [display] configured to output to the user a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the [plurality of shippers] will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]. Lastly, the claim also recites limitations that correspond to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations), as evidenced by limitations reciting the machine learning algorithm used to perform the estimation or prediction of the probability of failure. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Note: the claim features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claim recites the additional elements of: a plurality of shippers comprising a dewar, a monitoring device, a sensor, a first non-transitory machine-readable memory, a network access device, one or more computing devices, one or more processors, and a display. The additional elements of the first memory, a network access device, one or more computing devices, and one or more processors, monitoring device, and display are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of these additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, shippers/dewar(s), the first sensor, and monitoring device amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to particular field of use (predicting the failure of shippers/dewars). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 12 recites the limitations of storing a dewar failure model; estimating or predicting the probability or the likelihood that the dewar will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of the dewar further based on the [dewar failure model. The claim recites limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The dewar failure model appears to be an algorithm and amounts to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas, equations, calculations). The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 13 recites the limitations of receiving user input that indicates whether [the dewar] failed before during the subsequent shipment of [the dewar]; and updating the dewar failure model based on the user input in real-time and the at least one of the maintenance information or the sensor data in real-time. The claim recites limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of a user interface, the one or more processors, and the dewar. The additional elements of a user interface and the one or more processors amount to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. Additionally, the dewar amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 14 recites the limitation(s) of measuring or detecting the sensor data, and the sensor data includes at least one of a temperature within the shipper, shocks or vibrations to the shipper or a pressure within the shipper. The limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional element of a sensor including at least one of a temperature sensor, a shock or vibration sensor, or a pressure sensor. The additional elements amount to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 16 recites the limitations that updating the machine learning algorithm in real-time based on the comparison includes training a boosted decision tree algorithm for [the specific shipper] independently from [another shipper of the plurality of shippers], and wherein the operations further comprise: determine a shipper-specific threshold probability or likelihood that the specific shipper of the plurality of shippers will fail in a second subsequent shipment based on the trained boosted decision tree algorithm, and compare the shipper-specific predicted probability or likelihood of the specific shipper to the threshold probability or likelihood of the specific shipper. The claim limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The boosted tree algorithm amounts to mathematical concepts (mathematical formulas, equations, calculations). The additional element of the shippers amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Accordingly, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 15, 17-19, and 22 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 15, 17-19, and 22 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action.
The closest patent or patent application prior art reference found that is relevant to the applicant’s invention includes Jurich (2020/0042933) and Kriss (2010/0299278). Jurich discloses the use of mortality models to predict item mortality, such as failure rates and expected remaining lifespan, may be determined based on tracked environmental conditions during transit, such as vibration, temperature, and other conditions. Kriss discloses a shipping container with methods for controlling shipment of a temperature controlled material so that once a customer order is initiated with a customer origin point and a customer destination the shipping container with a phase change material maintaining a sample chamber within the shipping container within a desired temperature range is shipped to the customer origin point where a temperature controlled material is loaded into the sample chamber and then the shipping container is shipped to the customer destination and then returned to a repurposing site and periodic location of the shipping container is tracked by use of a wireless location sensor associated with the shipping container during its shipment. The health of the shipping container, as well as the temperature of its sample chamber, can also be monitored, tracked, recorded and retrieved either during shipment or at the conclusion of a shipping cycle. Neither reference, individually nor in combination, explicitly discloses the amended limitations: estimate or predict a probability or a likelihood that each of the plurality of shippers will fail before or during a subsequent shipment of the dewar based on the first sensor data and the dewar failure model, output a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the plurality of shippers will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of the dewar, compare a particular probability or likelihood associated with a specific shipper of the plurality of shippers to post-delivery status information associated with the specific shipper, and update the dear failure model in real-time based on the comparison. The claims overcome the prior art.
The closest non-patent literature prior art reference(s) found that is/are relevant to the applicant’s invention includes the publication “Increasing Complexity of Cold Chain Logistics in Clinical Trials and Medicine” (Randall; 2017) which discusses choosing a partner for cryogenic shipments to determine how they test and verify that the dewar will perform for each individual shipment. The publication mentions that to ensure performance, a cryogenic shipper should be requalified after each use, and to ensure a certain level of performance, a dewar fleet should be serialized for individual use tracking. This allows each shipper to be tested and individual performance tracked over time. This serialization and subsequent performance tracking allows shippers with declining or failing hold times to be repaired or retired if needed to best protect those shipments where the payload can easily reach tens of thousands of dollars in catalog value. Another reference found includes the publication “Predictive Monitoring of Heterogeneous Service-Oriented Business Networks: The Transport and Logistics Case” (Metzger, et, al.; 2012) which discloses a cloud- and services-based collaboration and integration platform developing short-term prediction capabilities allowing to proactively manage and mitigate the identified issues in the transport & logistics industry. The references do not explicitly disclose the amended limitations: estimate or predict a probability or a likelihood that each of the plurality of shippers will fail before or during a subsequent shipment of the dewar based on the first sensor data and the dewar failure model, output a list of probabilities or likelihoods that each of the plurality of shippers will fail before or during the subsequent shipment of the dewar, compare a particular probability or likelihood associated with a specific shipper of the plurality of shippers to post-delivery status information associated with the specific shipper, and update the dear failure model in real-time based on the comparison. The claims overcome the prior art.
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628