DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-5, and 7-9 have been presented for examination.
Claim 6 has been cancelled.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
PRIORITY
3. Acknowledgment is made that this application is a 371 of PCT/EP2019/079694 filed 10/30/2019.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 9/24/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i) The previously presented 101 rejection is MAINTAINED. Applicants argue that the claims do not recite a mental process but rather “an improved method for generating design of a product.” However as noted in the previous office action the recited steps in the claims all constitute an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper. As per MPEP 2106.05(a): “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements...” Additionally, as discussed in 2106.05(a)(II) improvements to technology or technical fields, “an improvement in the abstract idea itself … is not an improvement in technology”. Examiners response further addresses Applicants arguments regarding integration into a practical application and the alleged argued improvement. As such the 101 rejection is MAINTAINED.
ii) The previously presented prior art rejection is MAINTAINED. Applicants argue that the prior art Brundage does note teach “a model”, or “simulation”. However the reference clearly recites these limitations in at least Section 2.3.2 reciting the modeling and evaluating of a system. Further Applicants argue that the prior art does not teach “by a life cycle assessment engine configured to obtain parameters defining the environmental sustainability of the product,” however as noted in the previous office action this limitation is taught in at least Page 881, left column, last paragraph, “This method uses two matrices, one that helps practitioners list environmental concerns related to materials, energy, and toxicity while the other qualitatively rates the severity of the identified issues.” as well as “Page 882, left column, 2nd paragraph, “Though a number of eco-design tools are proposed in literature, exactly determining their range of adoption in practice is difficult. Many of these tools simplify or coordinate LCA preparation and accounting. The MECO (Materials, Energy, Chemicals, and Others) method (Volinova, 2011) simplifies listing the relevant inputs and outputs within a given lifecycle inventory. Research suggests that the MECO method is most effective when used as a screening procedure during design before transitioning into a more rigorous LCA.” See also page 881, left column, last paragraph, “This method uses two matrices, one that helps practitioners list environmental concerns related to materials, energy, and toxicity while the other qualitatively rates the severity of the identified issues.” As such the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
iii) Applicants further argue that the prior art does not teach “dynamically update the parameters based on the information received from the one or more knowledge sources”, however Brundage teaches this in at least Page 881, right column, 2nd paragraph, “Catalogs of standardized parts are often used to select those with the lowest cost or highest ease of manufacturability and assembly. Fabricius (2003) identified a set of DfM rules and parameters to help narrow down the design of a system, using objectives, evaluations, design parameters, identification of primary functions, and verification tests. This approach can lead to conceptual designs that are easier to assemble and use economically viable processes and materials (Herbertsson, 1995). Seeing that manufacturing costs are often directly correlated with environmental impacts (e.g., reducing energy consumption benefits both environmental and economic costs), there is an opportunity to leverage existing sustainability standards and best practices with traditional DfM methods for use in the conceptual design phase.” As such the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
iv) Applicants further argue that the prior art does not teach “and perform a life cycle assessment of the product with the updated parameters;” however Brundage teaches in Page 882, left column, 2nd paragraph, “Though a number of eco-design tools are proposed in literature, exactly determining their range of adoption in practice is difficult. Many of these tools simplify or coordinate LCA preparation and accounting. The MECO (Materials, Energy, Chemicals, and Others) method (Volinova, 2011) simplifies listing the relevant inputs and outputs within a given lifecycle inventory. Research suggests that the MECO method is most effective when used as a screening procedure during design before transitioning into a more rigorous LCA.” See also page 881, left column, last paragraph, “This method uses two matrices, one that helps practitioners list environmental concerns related to materials, energy, and toxicity while the other qualitatively rates the severity of the identified issues.” Applicants summarization of the Brundage into only teaching a “matrix based approach” does not accurately convey the citations presented by the Examiner in the previous office action and maintained here. As such the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
V) Further with respect to Applicants arguments regarding “generating a product design” the prior art recites this in at least Page 884, right column, Section 2.3.3. “If problems are discovered during modeling and simulation of the system, designers can change designs earlier, without the need for multiple product design change requests. For example, if a product design requires a process plan that uses machines at opposite ends of a facility, requiring a lot of unnecessary movement, time, and energy moving the part from machine to machine, an alternative design that uses a more efficient layout of the manufacturing system might be possible.” As such the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
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.
5. Claims 1-5 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
i) In view of Step 1 of the analysis, claim(s) 1 is directed to a statutory category as a process, claim 8 is directed to a statutory category as a machine, and claim 9 is directed to an article of manufacture as a computer product, which each represent a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-9 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1, 8 and 9 recite the abstract idea of simulating a design based on certain conditions and evaluations which constitutes an abstract idea based on Mental Processes based on concepts performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
As to claim 1, and similarly presented in claims 8 and 9, the limitation of “simulating the model of the product with respect to an environmental sustainability of the product by a life cycle assessment engine configured to obtain parameters defining the environmental sustainability of the product, dynamically update the parameters based on the information received from the one or more knowledge sources, and perform a life cycle assessment of the product with the updated parameters;” would be analogous to a person evaluating a product design based on certain variables and thus fall under Mental Processes.
As to claim 1, and similarly presented in claims 8 and 9, the limitation of “generating simulation results indicative of behavior of the model with respect to the environmental sustainability, wherein the simulation results comprise an environmental sustainability index of the product by analyzing the results of the life cycle assessment of the product;” would be analogous to a person calculating design values of a product based on certain variables and thus fall under Mental Processes.
As to claim 1, and similarly presented in claims 8 and 9, the limitation of “determining whether the environmental sustainability index of the product satisfies an environmental sustainability threshold value;” would be analogous to a person evaluating a product based on certain variables and thus fall under Mental Processes.
As to claim 1, and similarly presented in claims 8 and 9, the limitation of “generating a design of the product, if the environmental sustainability index of the product satisfies the environmental sustainability threshold value” would be analogous to a person modifying a product design based on certain variables and thus fall under Mental Processes.
Thus, the claims recite the abstract idea of a mental process performed in the human mind, or with the aid of pencil and paper.
Further as to claims 8 and 9, other than reciting “one or more processing units” and “by a processor” respectively, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims.
iii) In view of Step 2A, Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In Claims 8 and 9, the additional elements of “one or more processing units” and “by a processor” respectively, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 8 and 9 of “obtaining a model of the product, wherein the model is associated with a design of the product” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) 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 mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “obtaining a model of the product, wherein the model is associated with a design of the product” in claims 1, 8, and 9, alternatively can be viewed as insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2-5 and 7 further narrow the abstract ideas, identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration beyond those addressed above.
iv) In view of Step 2B, claims 1, 8 and 9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In Claims 8 and 9, the additional elements of “one or more processing units” and “by a processor” respectively, merely uses a computer device as a tool to perform the abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)) The limitation in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 8 and 9 of “obtaining a model of the product, wherein the model is associated with a design of the product” are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a computer in its ordinary capacity, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. See MPEP (2106.05(f)) 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 mental process) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)) Additionally the limitation of “obtaining a model of the product, wherein the model is associated with a design of the product” in claims 1, 8, and 9, alternatively can be viewed as is insignificant extra-solution activity, specifically pertaining to mere data gathering/output necessary to perform the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This is akin to selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, which has been identified as extra solution activity. Therefore, the claim as a whole does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements, when considered alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated in Section I.B. of the December 16, 2014 101 Examination Guidelines, “[t]o be patent-eligible, a claim that is directed to a judicial exception must include additional features to ensure that the claim describes a process or product that applies the exception in a meaningful way, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.”
The dependent claims include the same abstract ideas recited as recited in the independent claims, and merely incorporate additional details that narrow the abstract ideas and fail to add significantly more to the claims.
Dependent claim 2 would be analogous to a person modifying a product design based on certain variables and thus fall under Mental Processes.
Dependent claim 3 would be analogous to a person evaluating a product design based on certain variables and thus fall under Mental Processes.
Dependent claim 4 would be analogous to a person evaluating a product design based on certain variables and thus fall under Mental Processes.
Dependent claim 5 would be analogous to a person evaluating a product design based on certain variables and thus fall under Mental Processes.
Dependent claim 7 would be analogous to a person evaluating a product design based on certain variables and thus fall under Mental Processes.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Appropriate correction is required.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
6. Claims 1-5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Brundage, Michael P., et al. "Analyzing environmental sustainability methods for use earlier in the product lifecycle." Journal of cleaner production 187 (2018): 877-892, hereafter Brundage.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses A method for generating a design of a product, the method comprising:
obtaining a model of the product, wherein the model is associated with a design of the product; (Page 881, left column, top, “The SIMA reference architecture deals with design in two primary activity stages: (1) perform preliminary design and (2) produce detailed design. For simplicity, the authors consider only the conceptual design stage for Perform Preliminary Design.”)
simulating the model of the product with respect to an environmental sustainability of the product; (Page 881, left column, top, “incorporating sustainability-related requirements into design is often referred to as “ecodesign,” and a number of methods and tools have been developed with this objective. Ramani et al. (2010) suggested that most ecodesign tools fall within three high-level categories, based on (1) LCA, (2) checklists, and (3) quality functional deployment (QFD).”) by a life cycle assessment engine configured to obtain parameters defining the environmental sustainability of the product, (Page 881, left column, last paragraph, “This method uses two matrices, one that helps practitioners list environmental concerns related to materials, energy, and toxicity while the other qualitatively rates the severity of the identified issues.”) dynamically update the parameters based on the information received from the one or more knowledge sources, (Page 881, right column, 2nd paragraph, “Catalogs of standardized parts are often used to select those with the lowest cost or highest ease of manufacturability and assembly. Fabricius (2003) identified a set of DfM rules and parameters to help narrow down the design of a system, using objectives, evaluations, design parameters, identification of primary functions, and verification tests. This approach can lead to conceptual designs that are easier to assemble and use economically viable processes and materials (Herbertsson, 1995). Seeing that manufacturing costs are often directly correlated with environmental impacts (e.g., reducing energy consumption benefits both environmental and economic costs), there is an opportunity to leverage existing sustainability standards and best practices with traditional DfM methods for use in the conceptual design phase.”) and perform a life cycle assessment of the product with the updated parameters; (Page 882, left column, 2nd paragraph, “Though a number of eco-design tools are proposed in literature, exactly determining their range of adoption in practice is difficult. Many of these tools simplify or coordinate LCA preparation and accounting. The MECO (Materials, Energy, Chemicals, and Others) method (Volinova, 2011) simplifies listing the relevant inputs and outputs within a given lifecycle inventory. Research suggests that the MECO method is most effective when used as a screening procedure during design before transitioning into a more rigorous LCA.” See also page 881, left column, last paragraph, “This method uses two matrices, one that helps practitioners list environmental concerns related to materials, energy, and toxicity while the other qualitatively rates the severity of the identified issues.”)
generating simulation results indicative of behavior of the model with respect to the environmental sustainability, wherein the simulation results comprise an environmental sustainability index of the product by analyzing the results of the life cycle assessment of the product; (Page 881, left column, last paragraph, “This method uses two matrices, one that helps practitioners list environmental concerns related to materials, energy, and toxicity while the other qualitatively rates the severity of the identified issues.”)
determining whether the environmental sustainability index of the product satisfies an environmental sustainability threshold value; and (Page 881, left column, last paragraph, “This method uses two matrices, one that helps practitioners list environmental concerns related to materials, energy, and toxicity while the other qualitatively rates the severity of the identified issues.”)
generating a design of the product, if the environmental sustainability index of the product satisfies the environmental sustainability threshold value. (Page 881, right column, 2nd paragraph, “Catalogs of standardized parts are often used to select those with the lowest cost or highest ease of manufacturability and assembly. Fabricius (2003) identified a set of DfM rules and parameters to help narrow down the design of a system, using objectives, evaluations, design parameters, identification of primary functions, and verification tests. This approach can lead to conceptual designs that are easier to assemble and use economically viable processes and materials (Herbertsson, 1995). Seeing that manufacturing costs are often directly correlated with environmental impacts (e.g., reducing energy consumption benefits both environmental and economic costs), there is an opportunity to leverage existing sustainability standards and best practices with traditional DfM methods for use in the conceptual design phase.”)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
determining one or more parameters affecting the environmental sustainability of the product based on the model, if the environmental sustainability index fails to satisfy the environmental sustainability threshold value; (Page 881, left column, last paragraph, “This method uses two matrices, one that helps practitioners list environmental concerns related to materials, energy, and toxicity while the other qualitatively rates the severity of the identified issues.”)
computing one or more parameter values such that the environmental sustainability index satisfies the environmental sustainability threshold value; and (Page 881, left column, last paragraph, “This method uses two matrices, one that helps practitioners list environmental concerns related to materials, energy, and toxicity while the other qualitatively rates the severity of the identified issues.”)
optimizing the model of the product based on the one or more parameter values. (Page 881, right column, 2nd paragraph, “Catalogs of standardized parts are often used to select those with the lowest cost or highest ease of manufacturability and assembly. Fabricius (2003) identified a set of DfM rules and parameters to help narrow down the design of a system, using objectives, evaluations, design parameters, identification of primary functions, and verification tests. This approach can lead to conceptual designs that are easier to assemble and use economically viable processes and materials (Herbertsson, 1995). Seeing that manufacturing costs are often directly correlated with environmental impacts (e.g., reducing energy consumption benefits both environmental and economic costs), there is an opportunity to leverage existing sustainability standards and best practices with traditional DfM methods for use in the conceptual design phase.”)
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising generating one or more suggestions related to the parameters based on information received from the one or more knowledge sources, if the environmental sustainability index of the product fails to satisfy the environmental sustainability threshold value. (Page 882, left column, 3rd paragraph, “One such tool, WiseProM (Gupta et al., 2003), uses three databases, available processes, materials, and compatibility between the two. Taking into account the industry, material requirements, and form requirements, WiseProM suggests suitable, low-cost materials and process sequences. The Manufacturing Advisory Service (MAS) (Smith et al., 2003) is a web-based tool that provides a ranked list of material and process options as information about production quantity, tolerances, product size and overall shape, and cost requirements. Another popular tool is the CES, which showcases interactive graphical analyses of various properties, and includes options for eco-design using lightweight, hybrid materials (Ashby et al., 2009; Esawi and Ashby)”)
Regarding Claim 4: The reference discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein the one or more parameters are associated with at least one of material, dimensions, engineering parameters, design parameters and geometric parameters of the product. (Page 882, left column, 3rd paragraph, “One such tool, WiseProM (Gupta et al., 2003), uses three databases, available processes, materials, and compatibility between the two. Taking into account the industry, material requirements, and form requirements, WiseProM suggests suitable, low-cost materials and process sequences. The Manufacturing Advisory Service (MAS) (Smith et al., 2003) is a web-based tool that provides a ranked list of material and process options as information about production quantity, tolerances, product size and overall shape, and cost requirements. Another popular tool is the CES, which showcases interactive graphical analyses of various properties, and includes options for eco-design using lightweight, hybrid materials (Ashby et al., 2009; Esawi and Ashby)”)
Regarding Claim 5: The reference discloses The method according to claim 2, wherein the one or more parameters define environmental sustainability of the product based on an impact of use of the product on the environment. (Page 881, right column, 2nd paragraph, “Seeing that manufacturing costs are often directly correlated with environmental impacts (e.g., reducing energy consumption benefits both environmental and economic costs), there is an opportunity to leverage existing sustainability standards and best practices with traditional DfM methods for use in the conceptual design phase.”)
Regarding Claim 8: The reference discloses A system for generating a design of a product, the system comprising:
one or more processing units; (Page 879, left column, 3rd paragraph, “To reduce the burden of full comparative LCAs, software vendors and government agencies developed databases, such as the European reference Lifecycle Database (Meinshausen et al., 2014) and the United States Lifecycle Inventory Database (ASTME2986-15, 2015), of reusable “unit processes” that can be linked together to estimate the environmental impact of a product.”)
a product environmental database coupled to the processing units; (Page 879, left column, 3rd paragraph, “To reduce the burden of full comparative LCAs, software vendors and government agencies developed databases, such as the European reference Lifecycle Database (Meinshausen et al., 2014) and the United States Lifecycle Inventory Database (ASTME2986-15, 2015), of reusable “unit processes” that can be linked together to estimate the environmental impact of a product.”)
and a memory coupled to the processing units, wherein the memory includes a design module configured for performing the method according to claim 1. (See rejection for claim 1)
Regarding Claim 9: The reference discloses A computer program product comprising a computer readable hardware storage device having computer readable program code stored therein, said program code executable by a processor of a computer system to implement the method according to claim 1. (See rejection for claim 1)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
7. Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brundage in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 20150106110, hereafter Edwards.
Regarding Claim 7: Brundage does not explicitly disclose The method according to claim 1, further comprising recommending one or more secondary usages of the product based on the information received from the one or more knowledge sources.
However Edwards discloses The method according to claim 1, further comprising recommending one or more secondary usages of the product based on the information received from the one or more knowledge sources. (Edwards. Paragraph 44, “The information about the alternative purpose of the product is collected and input into an automated system. The method and system then informs third parties about the client's product along with suggested alternative uses.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the secondary usages of a product as per Edwards for the design system of Brundage since as per Edwards, “[0045] Products become associated with their primary purpose from the moment they enter the marketplace. Over time, clients who manufacture a product may learn of alternative uses for a product. Some of these alternate uses are closely related to the primary purpose. Others are totally different from the original purpose of the product. These alternative uses generally do not enter the public knowledge unless the client makes these uses known. In some instances, these are not clear cut issues of an alternative use. The presentation might not say a product can perform a specific task, but there is evidence to suggest the effect is possible when used with the product. Clients have a need to get this information to third parties to broaden the scope and appeal of the client's product.”
Conclusion
8. 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.
9. All Claims are rejected.
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
i) Ramani, Karthik, et al. "Integrated sustainable life cycle design: a review." (2010): 091004.
ii) Giudice, Fabio, Guido La Rosa, and Antonino Risitano. Product design for the environment: a life cycle approach. CRC press, 2006.
iii) Bjørn, Anders, et al. "A proposal to measure absolute environmental sustainability in life cycle assessment." Ecological Indicators 63 (2016): 1-13.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Saif A. Alhija whose telephone number is (571) 272-8635. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 10:00-6:00.
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. Informal or draft communication, please label PROPOSED or DRAFT, can be additionally sent to the Examiners fax phone number, (571) 273-8635.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
SAA
/SAIF A ALHIJA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2188