DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . The amendment filed 09/24/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-22 are presented for examination.
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 5-8, 13-16, and 20 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the random states" in line(s) 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
As to claim(s) 13, 20, the same deficiency applies.
As to claim 5, the limitation “to determine whether a probability that the qubit is positive is less than or greater than a probability that the qubit is negative” in lines 13-15 renders the claim indefinite, because the limitation "is less than or greater than" is contradictory. Examiner interprets as “equal" for examination purposes. The limitation contradicts the specification, which reads: "[0025… Applying a Hadamard transformation to each of the random quantum states may generate a resulting qubit… that may include a dot product… [0026]… Based on the measurement of the resulting qubit and the related probability of the dot product being positive or negative, a final quantum state corresponding to the quadratic form may be set".
As to claim(s) 13, 20, the same deficiency applies.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the one or more solutions" in line(s) 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The anteceding limitation was amended out.
As to claim(s) 7, 8, 14-16, the same deficiency applies.
As to claim 20, the limitation "to determine whether a probability that the qubit positive is less than or greater than a probability that the qubit is negative" in lines 13-15 is a run–on sentence.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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, 3-9, and 11-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claim 1, Step 1: a method (process = 2019 PEG Step 1 = yes)
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One: claim recites:
determining a quadratic form corresponding to the optimization problem; identifying a plurality of vectors that represents the quadratic form; (mathematical concepts)
setting a dimensionality of each vector included in the plurality of vectors, each dimensionality indicating a number of terms included in each vector, wherein setting each dimensionality includes: (mental concepts)
computing a square of each term included in each vector; computing a sum of the square of each term; and computing a square root of the sum; generating a first set of unit vectors based on each dimensionality and a coefficient corresponding to each vector (mathematical concepts)
setting a first quantum register and a second quantum register as zeroes, the first quantum register representing a quantum state index and the second quantum register representing the first set of unit vectors… (mental concepts)
amplifying amplitudes corresponding to each coefficient to a threshold amplitude to produce the quantum state index; creating random quantum states that correspond to each quantum state in the quantum state index; and applying a Hadamard transformation to each of the random quantum states to generate a qubit, (mathematical concepts)
wherein a final quantum state corresponding to the quadratic form is set based on a value of the qubit (mental concepts)
These limitations are substantially drawn to mathematical concepts: mathematical relationships, formulas or equations, and calculations and mental concepts: observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion; but for the recitation of generic computer components. Information and/or data also fall within the realm of abstract ideas because information and data are intangible. See Electric Power Group1 (Electric Power hereinafter): “Information… is an intangible”.
As to the limitations "determining a quadratic form corresponding to the optimization problem”, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they are mathematical concepts. See for example in the Specification:
"[0035]… the quadratic form may be represented by a matrix of coefficients and one or more vectors that correspond to the matrix of coefficients as described above in relation to Equations (1)-(3)".
As to the limitations "identifying a plurality of vectors that represents the quadratic form”, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they are mathematical concepts. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
PNG
media_image1.png
265
758
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to the limitations "generating a first set of unit vectors based on each dimensionality and a coefficient corresponding to each vector”, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they are mathematical concepts. See for example in the Specification:
PNG
media_image2.png
609
917
media_image2.png
Greyscale
As to the limitations "setting a dimensionality of each vector included in the plurality of vectors, each dimensionality indicating a number of terms included in each vector", the term "setting" is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description. "Setting" a value of a mathematical term is mental in nature (mental processes including a judgment, opinion).
As to the limitations "setting a first quantum register and a second quantum register as zeroes, the first quantum register representing a quantum state index and the second quantum register representing the first set of unit vectors", they are substantially drawn to mental concepts. These activities can be characterized as entailing a user zeroing and "setting" a value (judgment, opinion) that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper; but for the recitation of generic computer components. As to the setting quantum registers, the setting terms are not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
'[0023]… a number of quantum registers may be initialized in a zero state, |0)…
[0043] The method 300 may begin at block 302, where a first quantum register and a second quantum register are each set to include initial values of zero'
As to the limitations "creating random quantum states that correspond to each quantum state in the quantum state index", as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they are mathematical concepts. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added): "[0050] At block 404, a random quantum state, lλk>, may be set for each generated copy".
As to the limitations "applying a Hadamard transformation to each of the random quantum states to generate a qubit”, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they are mathematical concepts. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
PNG
media_image3.png
336
750
media_image3.png
Greyscale
As to the limitations "wherein a final quantum state corresponding to the quadratic form is set based on a value of the qubit", the term "set" is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description. Setting a value of a mathematical term is mental in nature (mental processes including a judgment, opinion). See for example in the Specification:
[0026]… Based on the measurement of the resulting qubit and the related probability of the dot product being positive or negative, a final quantum state corresponding to the quadratic form may be set…
[0039]… setting the final quantum state may be facilitated by a quantum rounding process…
[0053] At block 412, a final quantum state may be set based on whether the resulting qubit is more likely to be positive or more likely to be negative'
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the additional elements quantum registers, they are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications.
As to the limitations “obtaining an optimization problem that includes a plurality of discrete variable choices", they describe the concept of “mere data gathering”, which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. These limitations are not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. Data gathering has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. They are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. See Electric Power.
As to the limitations "performing, iteratively up to a normalization factor, first unitary operations on the first quantum register and second unitary operations on the second quantum register"; they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
As to the limitations "amplifying amplitudes corresponding to each coefficient to a threshold amplitude to produce the quantum state index”, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they are mathematical concepts. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
'[0024]… amplitudes corresponding to the coefficients represented in Equation (9) may be amplified to a threshold amplitude to increase the probability that the first quantum register has an outcome of zero'
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Independent claim 1, Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the claim recites the additional elements quantum registers, they are recited at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a mathematical or mental algorithm has not been held by the courts to be enough to qualify as “significantly more”. The implementation on a computing system is described in the specification (underline emphasis added):
"[0021]… system 100 may include the vector module 120, a quantum module 130, and/or an optimization module 140. Elements of the system 100, including, for example, the vector module 120, the quantum module 130, and/or the optimization module 140 (collectively referred to as "computing modules"), may include code and routines configured to enable a computing system to perform one or more operations. Additionally or alternatively, the computing modules may be implemented using hardware including a processor, a microprocessor (e.g., to perform or control performance of one or more operations), a field-programmable gate array (FPGA), or an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC)…
[0056] Generally, the processor 510 may include any suitable special-purpose or general purpose computer, computing entity, or processing device".
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, claim 1 recites data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations – simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05 Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022] (d)(II): 'Performing repetitive calculations, Flook2… (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values)'.
Thus, taken alone the individual additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the additional elements as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the additional elements taken individually. There is no indication that their combination improves the functioning of a computer itself or improves any other technology (underline emphasis added). Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Claims 9 and 17 recite substantially the same elements as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons above.
Independent claims 9 and 17, Step 2A Prong two and 2B: As to the further additional elements computer-readable storage media and a system comprising processors, they are recited at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Dependent claims, Step 2A, Prong One: The claim limitations further the abstract ideas concepts of their independent claims. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
As to the limitations "3/11/18… each coefficient represents an intersection between a matrix row and a matrix column in a coefficient matrix; and the first unitary operations correspond to each matrix row and the second unitary operations correspond to each matrix column”, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they are mathematical concepts. See for example in the Specification:
PNG
media_image4.png
561
837
media_image4.png
Greyscale
As to the unitary operations limitations, as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they are mathematical concepts. See for example in the Specification:
[0023]… Unitary operations, Ui and/or Vj, corresponding to each row and/or each column of a vector coefficient matrix, A, may be applied to the quantum registers according to the following relationships:
PNG
media_image5.png
228
565
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
314
726
media_image6.png
Greyscale
As to the limitations "5/13/20… generating one or more copies of each quantum state in the quantum state index, wherein creating the random quantum states comprises creating the random quantum states corresponding to each of the one or more copies, wherein applying the Hadamard transformation to each of the random quantum states comprises applying the Hadamard transformation to each of the random states corresponding to each of the one or more copies… to determine whether a probability that the qubit is positive is less than or greater than a probability that the qubit is negative; and setting the final quantum state as -1 responsive to the probability that the qubit is positive being less than the probability that the qubit is negative", as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they are mathematical concepts. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above). As to the limitations "generating one or more copies of each quantum state in the quantum state index", the term "generating… copies" is not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description.
As to the limitations "7/15… wherein the optimization problem is a correlation clustering problem involving a plurality of data points and wherein each of the one or more solutions to the optimization problem includes partitioning one or more of the data points of the plurality into one or more groups" and "8/16… wherein the optimization problem is a maximum cut problem involving a graph dataset including a plurality of nodes and a plurality of edges connecting each node of the plurality of nodes wherein each of the one or more solutions to the optimization problem includes a division of the graph dataset into a first set of nodes and a second set of nodes that maximizes a number of edges between nodes included in the first set of nodes and nodes included in the second set of nodes", they are substantially drawn to mental concepts. As to the limitations partitioning data points into groups, they are mental in nature. These limitations can be characterized as entailing a user judging, i.e. processing, information and/or data, that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. As to the graphs and divisions of graph dataset into nodes limitations, they are mental in nature. These activities can be characterized as entailing a user performing graph operations that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper.
As to the limitations "21… wherein amplifying the amplitudes corresponding to each coefficient to the threshold amplitude comprises increasing a first amplitude of the first quantum register and a second amplitude of the second quantum register to increase a probability that the first quantum register has an outcome of zero", as drafted and under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they are mathematical concepts. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers abstract ideas, then it falls within groupings of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes).
Dependent claims, Step 2A Prong two: The claims recite the additional elements quantum registers.
As to the limitations “5/13/20… measuring the qubit", they describe the concept of “mere data gathering”. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A Prong two above).
As to the limitations "6/14… wherein the optimization problem is a community detection problem relating to users on a social media network and wherein each of the one or more solutions to the optimization problem includes one or more groups of users on the social media network", they amount to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
As to the limitations "22… wherein performing, iteratively up to the normalization factor, the first unitary operations on the first quantum register and the second unitary operations on the second quantum register comprises preserving a length of each vector"; they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application of the exception (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong Two: Additional elements that integrate the Judicial exception/Abstract idea into a practical application? = NO).
Dependent claims Step 2B: As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the claims recite the additional elements quantum registers at a high level of generality and as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the claims recite data gathering, these limitations are recited at a high level of generality; and therefore, remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration.
As to the limitations identified as generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. see MPEP 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment [R-10.2019], 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations [R-10.2019].
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, limitations invoking computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process are just “apply it” limitations – simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05 Well-Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity [R-07.2022] (d)(II): 'Performing repetitive calculations, Flook (supra)… (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values)'.
Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, 3-9, and 11-22 are allowable over prior art of record. They will be allowed once all outstanding rejections/objections are traversed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
No reference cited taken either alone or in combination and with the prior art of record discloses
claims 1, 9, and 17, "… the first quantum register representing a quantum state index and the second quantum register representing the first set of unit vectors;
performing, iteratively up to a normalization factor, first unitary operations on the first quantum register and second unitary operations on the second quantum register;
amplifying amplitudes corresponding to each coefficient to a threshold amplitude to produce the quantum state index; creating random quantum states that correspond to each quantum state in the quantum state index; and applying a Hadamard transformation to each of the random quantum states to generate a qubit, wherein a final quantum state corresponding to the quadratic form is set based on a value of the qubit",
in combination with the remaining steps, elements, and features of the claimed invention. Also, there is no motivation to combine any references to meet these limitations. It is for these reasons that Applicant's invention defines over the prior art of record.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Response to Arguments
Examiner invites Applicant to use the Specification of record in the present Application and not any other publication. The MPEP reads "evaluating the specification… if the specification sets forth… described in the specification", see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) or 2106.05(a), and does not read the U.S. Pre–Grant publication or any other publication.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, (see page 12, 6th paragraph to page 15, next to last paragraph):
‘… claim 1 is clearly a practical application, in that claim 1 generates and produces a tangible result that provides a meaningful improvement over existing technology as recognized by the specification.3
The Present Application recognizes that existing methods of solving optimization problems are either mathematically efficient or time efficient, but not both. For example, the Present Application discloses
Solving the optimization problem may be difficult because the time required to determine a feasible solution to the optimization problem, and the time needed to determine a feasible solution may increase exponentially depending on the number of variables that must be optimized.4
To address this time inefficiency, "[q]uadratic forms may be used to represent various different optimization problems."5 "However, identifying an optimized solution to a particular quadratic form may be a difficult computational problem to solve because variables associated with the particular quadratic form may be constrained to the discrete choices."6 That is, solving quadratic forms can be mathematically inefficient. This mathematical inefficiency is addressed by using semidefinite programming,7 but "semidefinite programming may still be computationally intensive and require a large amount of computation resources and/or time because computation of the vectors may involve a complicated matrix decomposition process."8
The method recited in independent claim 1 achieves both mathematical and time efficiency by quantizing a concept known as the mixing method. For example, the Present Application discloses "the vector module 120 may use a semidefinite programming relaxation approach called the mixing method to specify a dimensionality of each of the vectors."9…
3 See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.05.
4 Present Application, [0002] (emphasis added).
5 Id. at [0013].
6 Id. (emphasis added).
7 See id. at [0018].
8 Id. (emphasis added).
9 Id. at [0024].
… The unitary operations may be performed iteratively up to a normalization factor to preserve a length of each of the vectors to which the quantum states correspond so that each of the unit vectors may be mapped to another unit vector.14
The Present Application explains that "[t]he quantum states 135 may be obtained by the optimization module 140 to determine final quantum states that indicate one or more feasible solutions to the quadratic form 110."15 Additionally, the Present Application provides that "amplitudes corresponding to the coefficients represented in Equation (9) may be amplified to a threshold amplitude to increase the probability that the first quantum register has an outcome of zero."16 Subsequently, "the quantum states 135 represented by the expression in Equation (9) may be simplified as the following Equation (10) in which the coefficients... are generalized as a single coefficient αij"17 Consequently, "optimization of quadratic forms according to the present disclosure may be more applicable to larger matrices corresponding to more complicated quadratic forms."18
…
18 Id. at [0020]’
As pointed out by Applicant, the application description reads:
'[0020]… computer system 100 for determining an optimization solution 145 to an optimization problem having a quadratic form 110 according to the present disclosure. For example, the optimization problem may relate to community detection relating to users of a social network, a maximum cut problem, a correlation clustering problem for data mining, or any other types of optimization problems in which one or more inputs to the optimization problems are adjusted to affect an output to the optimization problem. The quadratic form 110 may be represented by a set that includes one or more vectors. The quadratic form 110 and/or the set of corresponding vectors may be obtained by a vector module 120 to generate a set of unit vectors 125 based on the quadratic form 110'
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]… the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements… In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception'.
OIP Techs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.3 reads (underline emphasis added):
'But relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible. See Alice… (“use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept); Bancorp Servs… (a computer “employed only for its most basic function . . . does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims”'.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because the MPEP reads "the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement". The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing/realizing any improvements to the functioning of a computer itself or any other technology or technical field (underline emphasis added). (See MPEP 2106.05(a) supra).
Applicant's argument is also not persuasive, because it is well established that "relying on a computer to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible." OIP Techs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (supra). A faster abstract idea ("computation of the vectors", as argued) is still an abstract idea.
Contrary to Applicant's argument 'claim 1 generates and produces a tangible result that provides a meaningful improvement over existing technology', the claims do not transform an article, i.e., some type of tangible or physical object, but instead transform an intangible concept, i.e., information, from one form to another.
Applicant further argues, (see page 15, last paragraph to page 16, last paragraph):
‘… disclosure demonstrates that the quantum registers are not "recited as performing generic computer functions,"19 and performing unitary operations on the quantum registers are not "just 'apply it' limitations,"20 as suggested by the Office Action. Independent claim 1, as amended, recites "setting a first quantum register and a second quantum register as zeroes, the first quantum register representing a quantum state index and the second quantum register representing the first set of unit vectors" and "performing, iteratively up to a normalization factor, first unitary operations on the first quantum register and second unitary operations on the second quantum register." These steps "preserve a length of each of the vectors to which the quantum states correspond so that each of the unit vectors may be mapped to another unit vector."21 Consequently, "the quantum states 135 represented by the expression in Equation (9) may be simplified."22 That is, these steps provide a meaningful improvement over existing technology by achieving both mathematical and time efficiency in solving optimization problems…
For at least the reasons provided above with respect to the step 2A, Prong Two analysis, Applicant respectfully submits that the claims, when considered as a whole, recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than a judicial exception… ’
The MPEP reads (underline emphasis added):
‘2106.05(f) [R-10.2019]… (2) Whether the claim invokes 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 provide significantly more'.
Examiner's response: Applicant's argument is not persuasive, because as to the limitations "setting a first quantum register and a second quantum register as zeroes, the first quantum register representing a quantum state index and the second quantum register representing the first set of unit vectors", the setting terms are not elaborated but merely repeated in the Application description. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above). These limitations are substantially drawn to mental concepts. These activities can be characterized as entailing a user zeroing and "setting" a value (judgment, opinion) that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper; but for the recitation of generic computer components.
As to the limitations "performing, iteratively up to a normalization factor, first unitary operations on the first quantum register and second unitary operations on the second quantum register"; they represent no more than just “apply it” limitations, because they invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process (see Independent claim 1, Step 2B above). Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity does not integrate the exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2) supra.
Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Regarding the rejections under 103, the rejections are rendered moot by the amendment.
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 JUAN CARLOS OCHOA whose telephone number is (571)272-2625. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays 9:30AM - 8:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/JUAN C OCHOA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186
1 Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 119 USPQ2d 1739 Fed. Cir. 2016
2 Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199
3 OIP Techs, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Prosecution Insights