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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 13-32 are pending, amended independent claims 13, 23 and 28 .
Applicant amendment filed on 10/20/2025. Claims 13-32 are pending. independent claims 13, 23 and 28 were amended.
The object to the specification / title as set forth in the previous Office Action has been withdrawn due to Applicant’s Amendment to the Title.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 20, 2025 (hereinafter “Remarks”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. § 101:
Remarks, pp. 10-11. Applicant argues with respect to amended claims 13, 23, and 28 that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for improving medical data processing technology. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not reflect any sort of medical data processing and subsequently do not integrate into a practical application for improving medica processing data.
Remarks, pp. 11-14, Applicant further argues with respect to amended claims 13, 23, and 28 that the claims represent an improvement to training machine learning models and an improvement in the functioning of a computer for training machine learning models. In particular, Applicant argues an improvement to cross-replica sum (CRS) operations, citing the specification at paras. [0004]-[0005]. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not reflect the improvements described by the specification. As an example, para. [0004] describes the issue of a suboptimal configuration in which not all router links are utilized between nodes of a topology, and para. [0005] further describes the router links between nodes of the topology being more fully utilized. The claims do not reflect an improvement to router link utilization between nodes of a topology. The claims merely recite training of replica machine learning models on each node of a plurality of nodes in a multi-dimensional topology, performing the circle algorithm, and parallel/concurrent operations. For at least these reasons, the claims remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because they do not represent an improvement to training machine learning models nor an improvement in the functioning of a computer for training machine learning models.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 13-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Independent claims 13, 23 and 28 recite” "while performing the first phase of the circle algorithm...concurrently performing ... a second portion of the first phase of the circle algorithm." The amendment essentially claims “performing a first phase of a circle algorithm while concurrently performing a "second portion" of the first phase. That is an indefiniteness issue as how the claim concurrently performing the first phase at the same time as the first phase.
Claims 14-22, 24-27 and 29-32 are rejected for being directly or indirectly dependent up rejection claims 13, 23 and 28.
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 13-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea, one of the judicial exceptions, without significantly more.
Claim 13
Step 1: Claim 13 recites a method for processing training data using processing hardware, thus a process and one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 13 further recites the following limitations, each of which recites a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)—
“performing, by code executing on the nodes, a first portion of a first phase of a circle algorithm for each of the rows of the multi-dimensional topology in parallel to generate in each node of the row different combined data for a portion of the final gradient vector”; while performing the first phase of the circle algorithm for each of the rows of the multi-dimensional topology in parallel, concurrently”
“performing, by code executing on the nodes, a second portion of the first phase of the circle algorithm for each of the columns of the multi-dimensional topology in parallel to generate in each node of the column a different column result comprising a portion of the combined data from each of the rows”;
“performing, by code executing on the nodes, a first portion of a second phase of the circle algorithm for each of the columns of the multi-dimensional topology in parallel to generate in each column a portion of the final gradient vector comprising each column result”; and
“performing, by code executing on the nodes, a second portion of the second phase of the circle algorithm for each of the rows of the multi-dimensional topology in parallel to generate in each row the final gradient vector comprising each portion of the final gradient vector from each of the columns”.
Paragraph 4 of the specification states that a circle algorithm “executes a global summing operation over a 1D configuration of the nodes of the topology.” This addition process directs these limitations to a mental process as addition of values can reasonably be performed in the human mind and with the aid of pen and paper. Claim 13, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 13 recites the additional elements of—
“training a respective replica of a machine learning model on each node of a plurality of nodes organized in a multi-dimensional topology comprising rows and columns of nodes, wherein each node is trained on a respective batch of training data in parallel”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer; and
“whereby after the training each node holds a respective gradient vector resulting from the training”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The training step is recited generically and not in a detailed manner (i.e. the type of model being trained, hyperparameters used, etc.). Each of the nodes may be interpreted as being a processor or chip, causing the training to take place on a generic computer. The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 13, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more:
“training a respective replica of a machine learning model on each node of a plurality of nodes organized in a multi-dimensional topology comprising rows and columns of nodes, wherein each node is trained on a respective batch of training data in parallel”, is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception in this manner cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
“whereby after the training each node holds a respective gradient vector resulting from the training” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). Upon further analysis, it is similar to “storing and retrieving information in memory” which is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(d). Insignificant extra-solution activity considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claim 13 is ineligible.
Claim 14
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 14 further recites the following limitations, each of which recites a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)—
“determining a type of the multi-dimensional topology of the plurality of nodes”;
“based on the type, mapping the first portion of the first phase to a first set of nodes and a first set of links between the first set of nodes”; and
“mapping the second portion of the first phase to a second set of nodes and a second set of links between the nodes, the first set of links being different from the second set of links”.
Determining a type of topology can be performed by observing an arrangement of nodes. The mapping limitation is not detailed and may constitute associating nodes and links with a particular phase of the circle algorithm. Claim 14, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 and step 2B: Claim 14 does not recite any additional limitations.
Therefore, claim 14 is ineligible.
Claim 15
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 15 further recites—
“determining that the multi-dimensional topology of the plurality of nodes comprises wrap-around links”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process.
Determining the presence of wrap-around links can be performed by observing the behavior of the nodes and links. This is a process that can be performed mentally. Claim 15, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 15 recites the additional elements of—
“configuring each row and column of the multi-dimensional topology to execute the circle algorithm using the wrap-around links”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer.
The configuration step is seen as a means of enabling the nodes within the topology to execute the steps of the abstract idea. The nodes are still interpreted as machine learning models or hardware capable of executing machine learning models which then implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 15, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more:
As discussed above, “configuring each row and column of the multi-dimensional topology to execute the circle algorithm using the wrap-around links” is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claim 15 is ineligible.
Claim 16
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 16 recites the additional elements of—
“wherein each node of the multi-dimensional topology comprises at least two sub-nodes”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer.
The additional element adds further limitation to the claim 13 element of the multi-dimensional topology comprising rows and columns of nodes, where the claim 13 element was found to fall under mere instructions to apply an exception under MPEP 2106.05(f). The sub-nodes are presented generically as well. Claim 16, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more:
As discussed above, “wherein each node of the multi-dimensional topology comprises at least two sub-nodes” is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception in this manner cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claim 16 is ineligible.
Claim 17
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 17 recites the additional elements of—
“wherein the multi-dimensional topology comprises a torus topology”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer; and
“wherein the sub-nodes of each node are configured to be neighboring nodes of the circle algorithm for each row and for each column”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer.
The “torus topology” element serves to add further limitation to the claim 13 element of the nodes arranged in a multi-dimensional topology, where the claim 13 limitation was identified as mere instructions to apply an exception. Meanwhile, the “sub-nodes” element serves to add further limitation to the claim 16 element of each node of the topology comprising at least two sub-nodes, where the claim 16 limitation was recognized as mere instructions to apply an exception. The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 17, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more:
The aforementioned elements identified in the claim 17 limitation “wherein the multi-dimensional topology comprises a torus topology, and wherein the sub-nodes of each node are configured to be neighboring nodes of the circle algorithm for each row and for each column” were found to recite mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f), which cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claim 17 is ineligible.
Claim 18
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 18 recites the additional elements of—
“wherein the multi-dimensional topology comprises a mesh topology”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer; and
“wherein the sub-nodes of edge nodes of the mesh are configured to be neighboring nodes of the circle algorithm for each row and for each column”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer.
The “mesh topology” element serves to add further limitation to the claim 13 element of the nodes arranged in a multi-dimensional topology, where the claim 13 limitation was identified as mere instructions to apply an exception. Meanwhile, the “sub-nodes” element serves to add further limitation to the claim 16 element of each node of the topology comprising at least two sub-nodes, where the claim 16 limitation was recognized as mere instructions to apply an exception. The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 18, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more:
The aforementioned elements identified in the claim 18 limitation “wherein the multi-dimensional topology comprises a mesh topology, and wherein the sub-nodes of edge nodes of the mesh are configured to be neighboring nodes of the circle algorithm for each row and for each column” were found to recite mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer under MPEP 2106.05(f), which cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claim 18 is ineligible.
Claim 19
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 19 further recites—
“performing, by code executing on the set of nodes in the third dimension, a third portion of the first phase of the circle algorithm in parallel to generate in each node of the column a different third dimensional result comprising a portion of the column result from each of the columns”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process; and
“performing, by code executing on the set of nodes in the third dimension, a third portion of the first phase of the circle algorithm in parallel to generate the final gradient vector from each of the columns in each node of the set of the nodes in the third dimension”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process.
Paragraph 4 of the specification states that a circle algorithm “executes a global summing operation over a 1D configuration of the nodes of the topology.” This addition process directs these limitations to a mental process as addition of values can reasonably be performed in the human mind and with the aid of pen and paper. Claim 19, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 19 recites the additional elements of—
“wherein the multi-dimensional topology includes a set of nodes in a third dimension in addition to the rows and the columns”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer.
Each of the nodes in the third dimension of the topology may be interpreted as being a processor or chip, causing the training to take place on a generic computer. The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 19, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more:
“wherein the multi-dimensional topology includes a set of nodes in a third dimension in addition to the rows and the columns” is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception in this manner cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claim 19 is ineligible.
Claim 20
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 20 recites the additional elements of—
“pipelining data transfer between each of the nodes with the execution of the code on each of the nodes during performing of the first phase of the circle algorithm and performing the second phase of the circle algorithm”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The element of pipelining data transfer does not add meaningful limitations to the independent claim. The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 20, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more:
“pipelining data transfer between each of the nodes with the execution of the code on each of the nodes during performing of the first phase of the circle algorithm and performing the second phase of the circle algorithm” is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity. Upon further analysis, it is similar to “receiving and transmitting data over a network” which is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity as detailed in MPEP 2106.05(d). Insignificant extra-solution activity considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claim 20 is ineligible.
Claim 21
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 21 further recites—
“wherein the circle algorithm comprises a rotated pincer algorithm, wherein the first phase comprises a reduce-scatter phase of the rotated pincer algorithm, and wherein the second phase comprises a global gather phase of the rotated pincer algorithm”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process.
The claim 21 limitation adds further context to the claim 13 limitation that describes performing a circle algorithm, but instead using a rotated pincer algorithm, described to be a type of circle algorithm. Claim 21, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2 and step 2B: Claim 21 does not recite any additional elements.
Therefore, claim 21 is ineligible.
Claim 22
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 22 further recites—
“wherein the combined data for the portion of the final gradient vector comprises summed data from two or more nodes of the row, and wherein the portion of the combined data from each of the rows comprises summed data comprises the combined data from two or more nodes of the column”, recognized by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) as a mental process.
The claim places further limitation on the claim 13 limitation of generating a final gradient vector from summed data, where the summing was considered a mental process. The claim 22 limitation again recites the vector being comprised of summed data; combined with the previous analysis, this claim is found to recite an abstract idea as well.
Step 2A, prong 2 and step 2B: Claim 22 does not recite any additional elements.
Therefore, claim 22 is ineligible.
Claim 23
Step 1: Claim 23 recites a data processing apparatus, thus a machine and one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 23 further recites the following limitations, each of which recites a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)—
“performing, by code executing on the nodes, a first node of a first phase of a circle algorithm for each of the rows of the multi-dimensional topology in parallel to generate in each node of the row different combined data for a portion of the final gradient vector; while performing the first phase of the circle algorithm for each of the rows of the multi-dimensional topology in parallel, concurrently “
“performing, by code executing on the nodes, a second portion of the first phase of the circle algorithm for each of the columns of the multi-dimensional topology in parallel to generate in each node of the column a different column result comprising a portion of the combined data from each of the rows”;
“performing, by code executing on the nodes, a first portion of a second phase of the circle algorithm for each of the columns of the multi-dimensional topology in parallel to generate in each column a portion of the final gradient vector comprising each column result”; and
“performing, by code executing on the nodes, a second portion of the second phase of the circle algorithm for each of the rows of the multi-dimensional topology in parallel to generate in each row the final gradient vector comprising each portion of the final gradient vector from each of the columns”.
Paragraph 4 of the specification states that a circle algorithm “executes a global summing operation over a 1D configuration of the nodes of the topology.” This addition process directs these limitations to a mental process as addition of values can reasonably be performed in the human mind and with the aid of pen and paper. Claim 23, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 23 recites the additional elements of—
“a plurality of processing units, each processing unit corresponding to a respective node”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as generic computer components that are utilized to apply the elements of the abstract idea;
“wherein the data processing apparatus is configured to perform operations”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer;
“training a respective replica of a machine learning model on each node of a plurality of nodes organized in a multi-dimensional topology comprising rows and columns of nodes, wherein each node is trained on a respective batch of training data in parallel”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer; and
“whereby after the training each node holds a respective gradient vector resulting from the training”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The training step is recited generically and not in a detailed manner (i.e. the type of model being trained, hyperparameters used, etc.). Each of the nodes may be interpreted as being a processor or chip, and the processing units themselves are recited generically, causing the training to take place on a generic computer. The configuration of the data processing apparatus is seen as a means of enabling the apparatus to execute the steps of the abstract idea. The nodes are still interpreted as machine learning models or hardware capable of executing machine learning models which then implement the abstract idea. The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 23, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more:
“a plurality of processing units, each processing unit corresponding to a respective node” is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as generic computer components that are utilized to apply the elements of the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
“wherein the data processing apparatus is configured to perform operations” is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer, which cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
“training a respective replica of a machine learning model on each node of a plurality of nodes organized in a multi-dimensional topology comprising rows and columns of nodes, wherein each node is trained on a respective batch of training data in parallel”, is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception in this manner cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
“whereby after the training each node holds a respective gradient vector resulting from the training” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). Upon further analysis, it is similar to “storing and retrieving information in memory” which is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(d). Insignificant extra-solution activity considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claim 23 is ineligible.
Claims 24-27
Claims 24, 25, 26, and 27 recite the same matter as claims 14, 15, 19, and 20. As such, for brevity, claim limitations for claims 24, 25, 26, and 27 are to have the same analysis applied to them as the respective limitations of claims 14, 15, 19, and 20.
Claim 28
Step 1: Claim 28 recites one or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media, directing the claim to an article of manufacture, one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter.
Step 2A, prong 1: Claim 28 further recites the following limitations, each of which recites a mental process under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)—
“performing, by code executing on the nodes, a first portion of a first phase of a circle algorithm for each of the rows of the multi-dimensional topology in parallel to generate in each node of the row different combined data for a portion of the final gradient vector; while performing the first phase of the circle algorithm for each of the rows of the multi-dimensional topology in parallel, concurrently”
“performing, by code executing on the nodes, a second portion of the first phase of the circle algorithm for each of the columns of the multi-dimensional topology in parallel to generate in each node of the column a different column result comprising a portion of the combined data from each of the rows”;
“performing, by code executing on the nodes, a first portion of a second phase of the circle algorithm for each of the columns of the multi-dimensional topology in parallel to generate in each column a portion of the final gradient vector comprising each column result”; and
“performing, by code executing on the nodes, a second portion of the second phase of the circle algorithm for each of the rows of the multi-dimensional topology in parallel to generate in each row the final gradient vector comprising each portion of the final gradient vector from each of the columns”.
Paragraph 4 of the specification states that a circle algorithm “executes a global summing operation over a 1D configuration of the nodes of the topology.” This addition process directs these limitations to a mental process as addition of values can reasonably be performed in the human mind and with the aid of pen and paper. Claim 28, therefore, recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, prong 2: Claim 28 recites the additional elements of—
“processing hardware”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as a generic computer component utilized to perform the operations of the abstract idea;
“training a respective replica of a machine learning model on each node of a plurality of nodes organized in a multi-dimensional topology comprising rows and columns of nodes, wherein each node is trained on a respective batch of training data in parallel”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer; and
“whereby after the training each node holds a respective gradient vector resulting from the training”, recognized by MPEP 2106.05(g) as insignificant extra-solution activity.
The processing hardware and training step are recited generically and not in a detailed manner (i.e. the type of model being trained, hyperparameters used, etc.). Each of the nodes may be interpreted as being a processor or chip, causing the training to take place on a generic computer. The additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 28, therefore, is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B: The additional elements, taken individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept or significantly more:
“processing hardware” is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as a generic computer component utilized to perform the operations of the abstract idea, which cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
“training a respective replica of a machine learning model on each node of a plurality of nodes organized in a multi-dimensional topology comprising rows and columns of nodes, wherein each node is trained on a respective batch of training data in parallel”, is recognized by MPEP 2106.05(f) as mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception in this manner cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
“whereby after the training each node holds a respective gradient vector resulting from the training” is seen as insignificant extra-solution activity under MPEP 2106.05(g). Upon further analysis, it is similar to “storing and retrieving information in memory” which is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity as described in MPEP 2106.05(d). Insignificant extra-solution activity considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept or significantly more.
Therefore, claim 28 is ineligible.
Claims 29-32
Claims 29, 30, 31, and 32 recite the similar limitations as claims 14, 15, 19, and 20. Therefore, claims 29, 30, 31, and 32 are rejected using the same rationale as claim 14, 15, 19, and 20 respectively.
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 KAMRAN AFSHAR whose telephone number is 571-272-7796. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday: 9:00AM-4:00PM ET.
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.
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.
/KAMRAN AFSHAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2125
Prosecution Insights