DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 01/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 5 and 9 have been amended.
Claims 1-12 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 1, 5 and 9.
Previous rejections to claims 1, 5 and 9 regarding “correlating observed performance data” are withdrawn.
Previous rejections to claims 1, 5 and 9 regarding “computing a new state” are maintained.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. See Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 section below.
Applicant's arguments [Pg.18 III.] filed 1/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 1, Applicant amended “computing a new state” with “determining a new state”, however fails to specifically disclose how a new state is determined. Applicant also failed to address Ln.38 “computing a new state”.
Regarding independent claims 5 and 9, Applicant failed to address “computing a new state” rejections disclosed in Office Action dated 6/18/2025. Thus, rejections to independent claims 1, 5, and 9 are maintained. The dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended independent claims 1, 5 and 9. Applicants arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Rejections to claims 1-12 are maintained.
Applicant argues, [Pg.18-19 IV.], that the claimed invention is integrated into a
practical application, therefore the claims should be found patent-eligible under 35 USC 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The steps of the subject matter eligibility analysis for products and processes that are to be used during examination for evaluating whether a claim is drawn to patent-eligible subject matter is the following:
Step 1: Determine if the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claims 1-4 are directed towards a method, therefore fall within the statutory category of a process. Claims 5-8 are directed towards a system, therefore fall within the statutory category of a machine. Claims 9-12 are directed towards a CRM, therefore fall within the statutory category of a manufacture.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Determine if the claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature), or an abstract idea. Independent claims 1, 5 and 9 are all directed towards an abstract idea (mental processes) – see 35 USC §101 analysis below.
Step 2A (Prong 2)/Step 2B: Determine if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As shown in 35 USC §101 analysis section below, the additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (pre/post solution) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception and/or Field of Use and Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g)/(h). The additional claim limitations identified (e.g. Claim 1) can be summarized as receiving data, constructing a digital twin, and computing a new state.
Receiving data amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g).
Constructing a digital twin and computing a new state amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, these limitations invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Per MPEP 2106.05(d), another consideration when determining whether a claim recites significantly more than a judicial exception is whether the additional element(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry. The courts have recognized the following relevant computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
Since the additional elements of receiving data, constructing a digital twin, and computing a new state are directed towards Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (pre/post solution) and/or Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception, and have been determined to be well understood, routine, conventional activity per MPEP 2106.05(d), claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and is rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Similar rationale for rejection is provided for claims 2-12 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1, 5, and 9 recite “communicatively coupling different Internet of Things (IoT) devices to a computer from over a data communications network through a network interface and receiving sensor data in the computer through the network interface, from the IoT devices, for respective CI elements amongst a heterogeneous collection of CI elements associated with respectively different services provided to a common community”. Applicant’s Specification disclosure fails to explain, specifically, how a heterogeneous collection of CI elements associated with respectively different services are coupled. Applicant discloses the following CI element examples, “public water supply and distribution network, elements of the cellular telephonic communications network, elements of the electric power distribution network, elements of the natural gas distribution network, roadways, waterways, airports, railways, bridges and tunnels and so forth” Spec. [P.0004]. Applicant fails to describe how each of the various CI element examples are integrated together, i.e. communicatively coupled. Per MPEP 2161.01, the specification must describe the claimed invention in a manner understandable to a person of ordinary skill in the art in a way that shows that the inventor actually invented the claimed invention at the time of filing. For instance, generic claim language in the original disclosure does not satisfy the written description requirement if it fails to support the scope of the genus claimed. Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. Thus, “communicatively coupling” a plurality of different “heterogeneous” devices over an undefined data communications network through an undefined “network interface” is not enough detail required to satisfy the written description requirement.
Claims 1-12 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.
Claim 1 (Ln.31), recites “determining a new state in the digital twin”. The use of “determining” is unclear. Applicant’s “determining” throughout Specification provides no meaningful interpretation. How is a “new state” determined? Proper description is necessary to enable one skilled in the art to determine a new state of the CI elements.
Claim 1 (Ln.38), claim 5 (Ln.41 and 48), and claim 9 (Ln.34 and 41) recite “computing a new state”. The use of “computing” is unclear. Applicant’s “computing” throughout Specification provides no meaningful interpretation. How is a “new state” computed? Proper description is necessary to enable one skilled in the art to determine a new state of the CI elements.
The dependent claims 2-4, 6-8, and 10-12, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of their parent claim and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception (an abstract idea), as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claim(s) further do/does not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. Examiner has evaluated the claim(s) under the framework provided in MPEP 2106 and has provided such analysis below.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court
has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
Step 1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category of a Process, Machine, Manufacture, or a Composition of Matter (see MPEP 2106.03);
Step 2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea (MPEP 2106.04);
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Under the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
The second prong is an inquiry into whether the claim integrates a judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (See MPEP 2106).
Step 1:
Claims 1-4 are directed to a method, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of a Process.
Claims 5-8 are directed to a system, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of Machine.
Claims 9-12 are directed to a computer readable medium, as such these claims fall within the statutory category of Manufacture.
Step 2A, Prong I:
The examiner submits that the foregoing claim limitations constitute abstract ideas, as the claims cover performance of the limitations in the human mind, given the broadest reasonable interpretation.
In order to apply Step 2A, a recitation of claims is copied below. The limitations of those claims which describe an abstract idea are bolded.
As per independent claims 1, 5, and 9, the claims recite the limitations of:
defining a hierarchy of the CI elements in the collection, associating different ones of the CI elements in the hierarchy with other ones of the CI elements in the hierarchy so as to create a dependency relationship therebetween, (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid (Mental Process – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, “defining”, as used here, is inherent to a mental process as it requires decision-making (i.e. evaluation) and reasoning (i.e. judgement). As an example, the human mind can reasonably define, with or without the aid of pen/paper, a hierarchy of CI elements, associating (i.e. judgement, opinion) the different CI elements in such a way that a dependency relationship is established.)
modeling, for each one of the CI elements in the hierarchy, different states of operation of the one of the CI elements resulting from different conditions reflected by the sensor data including sensed states of operation of dependent ones of the CI elements in the hierarchy; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid (Mental Process – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, the human mind can reasonably create representations (i.e. modeling) , or scenarios, of CI elements based on any criteria, to include data from sensors and/or states of other CI elements with/without the aid of pen/paper.)
determining a new state in the digital twin of each one of the other ones of the CI elements resulting from the hypothetical sensor data and comparing the new state for each one of the other ones of the CI elements to a previous state in the digital twin in order to identify impacted ones of the CI elements; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid (Mental Process – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably evaluate hypothetical sensor data and then determine new states of the CI elements, with/without the aid of pen/paper. Additionally, “comparing”, as it’s used here, is inherent to a mental process as it requires decision-making (i.e. evaluation) and reasoning (i.e. judgement). As an example, the human mind can reasonably evaluate different states of CI elements and identify (i.e. evaluation) which CI elements have been impacted.)
comparing the new state for each further one of the CI elements to a previously computed state in order to identify further impacted ones of the CI elements; (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid (Mental Process – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, “comparing”, as it’s used here, is inherent to a mental process as it requires decision-making (i.e. evaluation) and reasoning (i.e. judgement). As an example, the human mind can reasonably evaluate different states of CI elements and identify (i.e. evaluation) which CI elements have been impacted.)
adding a listing of all impacted ones of the CI elements to a blueprint for the hierarchy in association with the hypothetical sensor data in order to define a cascading effect of the hypothetical sensor data upon the hierarchy within the digital twin. (As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the human mind (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), or by a human using a pen and paper as a physical aid (Mental Process – MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). For instance, a person can reasonably draft/create a blueprint which captures a listing of impacted CI elements which define a cascading effect dependent upon any criteria.)
Step 2A, Prong 2:
As per claims 1, 5, and 9 this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional claim limitations outside the abstract idea only present mere instructions to apply an exception, insignificant extra solution activity, and/or field of use and technological environment. In particular, the claim recites the additional limitations:
communicatively coupling different Internet of Things (IoT) devices to a
computer from over a data communications network through a network interface and receiving sensor data in the computer through the network interface, from the IoT devices, for respective CI elements amongst a heterogeneous collection of CI elements associated with respectively different services provided to a common community (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g). The term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim. Extra-solution activity includes both pre-solution and post-solution activity. An example of pre-solution activity is a step of gathering data for use in a claimed process.);
constructing in memory of a computer, a digital twin of the heterogeneous
collection of the CI elements, (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, this limitation is directed towards mere instructions to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mental process) on a computer, since a person can reasonably define a hierarchy of CI elements.)
receiving sensor data from each of the CI elements in the hierarchy over a defined period of time, (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
subsequent to the construction of the digital twin, specifying in the digital twin hypothetical sensor data for a target one of the CI elements in the hierarchy; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
reading in response to the specification of the hypothetical sensor data, sensor data of the other ones of the CI elements dependent upon the target one of the CI elements in the hierarchy; (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
for each impacted one of the CI elements, additionally reading sensor data of further ones of the CI elements in the hierarchy dependent upon the impacted ones of the CI elements, (The additional element amounts to Insignificant Extra-solution Activity (mere data gathering, pre-solution activity) per MPEP 2106.05(g))
computing a new state in the digital twin of each further one of the CI elements in the hierarchy (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the limitation amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.)
repeating the additional reading, computing and comparing until no additional impacted CI elements are identified; (The additional element amounts to Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception per MPEP 2106.05(f). Specifically, the limitation amounts to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.)
Furthermore, the data processing system of independent claim 5 and the computing device of independent claim 9 are both directed towards limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Field of Use and Technological Environment) per MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly, 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 when considered as an ordered combination and as a whole.
Step 2B:
For step 2B of the analysis, the Examiner must consider whether each claim limitation individually or as an ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. This analysis includes determining whether an inventive concept is furnished by an element or a combination of elements that are beyond the judicial exception. For limitations that were categorized as “apply it” or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, the analysis is the same.
The additional elements as described in Step 2A Prong 2 are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional limitations are considered directed towards Mere Instructions To Apply An Exception, Insignificant Extra Solution Activity (referencing MPEP 2106.05(d)), and/or Field Of Use And Technological Environment per MPEP 2106.05(f)/(g)/(h).
Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), the courts have recognized the following relevant computer functions as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, ii. Performing repetitive calculations, iii. Electronic recordkeeping, iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory.
For the foregoing reasons, independent claims 1, 5, and 9 are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are rejected as not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 2, 6, and 10 further recite wherein the hypothetical sensor data is received from over a communications network by an authenticated end user of the digital twin. The additional feature(s) further elaborate pre-solution activity – mere data gathering (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) – MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or limiting the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Field of Use and Technological Environment) per MPEP 2106.05(h). Therefore, the claims are considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 3, 7, and 11 recite wherein the hypothetical sensor data is a collection of sensed data for correspondingly different ones of the CI elements. The additional feature(s) further elaborate pre-solution activity – mere data gathering (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) – MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claims are considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 4, 8, and 12 recite further comprising inserting into the blueprint, at least one configuration parameter for a corresponding one of the impacted CI elements associated with a remediation of the cascading event. The additional feature(s) further elaborate post-solution activity – mere data gathering (Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity) – MPEP 2106.05(g). Therefore, the claims are considered ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(a)/(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Ivanov, Sergey, Ksenia Nikolskaya, Gleb Radchenko, Leonid Sokolinsky, and Mikhail Zymbler. "Digital twin of city: Concept overview." In 2020 Global Smart Industry Conference (GloSIC), pp. 178-186. IEEE, 2020. The purpose of the article is to “study the existing technologies for building digital twins of cities” [Pg.179 P.2]. The article discloses “digital twins support fine-tuning and synchronization with the real state of urban infrastructure through data from various sources in real time [ ] A continuous flow of data generated by different sources in the digital infrastructure of a smart city is the key to the effective functioning of the city digital twin” [Pg.179 Sec. II]. An example of the article’s premise can be seen below in Fig.1.
PNG
media_image1.png
410
480
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the article fails to disclose hypothetical sensor data, computing and comparing new states of CI elements, determining impacted CI elements, and a blueprint.
Brucherseifer, Eva, Hanno Winter, Andrea Mentges, Max Mühlhäuser, and Martin Hellmann. "Digital Twin conceptual framework for improving critical infrastructure resilience." at-Automatisierungstechnik 69, no. 12 (2021): 1062-1080, presents a digital twin conceptual framework for the operation and crisis management of critical infrastructures, as can be seen in Figure 7 below. The article also discloses “hypothetical scenarios” utilizing simulation data and mentions “A highly resilient system will learn from past disruptions and associated system behavior” [Pg. 1066 Col.2 P.2]. However, the article fails to further disclose beyond a “conceptual framework” the claimed limitations.
PNG
media_image2.png
484
478
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Suomi et al. (US Pub No 2020/0134106 A1) discloses engineering drawings related to digital twins but fails to teach adding a listing of all impacted CI elements to a blueprint.
Schmitt et al. (US Pub No 2021/0110262 A1) teaches a computer implemented method for detecting an anomalous operating status of a technical system modeled utilizing a digital twin. However, the publication fails to disclose the claimed limitations.
Deutsch et al (US Pub No 2019/0138970 A1) teaches “systems and methods for managing a contextual digital twin. In one example, the method may include executing a digital twin which includes a virtual representation of an asset, and which is executed based on data associated with the asset, determining an operational event that has occurred with respect to the asset based on the execution of the digital twin, identifying previous operational events that have occurred and that are related to the determined operational event, generating context for the determined operational event based on the previous operational events, and outputting information for display about the generated context of the determined operational event to a display device.” [Abstract], but fails to specifically disclose claimed limitations.
However, the above references do not teach the claims in their entirety.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner' s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights