RDETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been presented for examination.
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 this application is a 371 of PCT/US2021/015886 filed 01/29/2021. PCT/US2020/026787 has priority to provisional application 62/967,492 filed 01/29/2020.
Acknowledgment is made this application is a CIP of PCT/US2020/026787 filed 04/05/2019. PCT/US2020/026787 has priority to provisional application 62/829,834 filed 04/05/2019.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant's arguments filed 12/17/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
i) Following Applicants amendments and arguments the previously presented 101 rejection is MAINTAINED. With respect to Applicants arguments that the mental process cannot read on receiving data from a PAC controller the Examiner notes that the receiving data steps 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 alternatively can be viewed as an 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.
With respect to Applicants arguments that a mental process cannot calculate a sliding time window which represents a real time process the Examiner first notes, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a real time process) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, as currently recited a person with pencil and paper could calculate the values over a window that slides a few or so time increments.
With respect to Applicants arguments against insignificant extra solution activity the Examiner notes that the steps recited as such include the receiving data and initiating a responsive action including a notification which all relate to either receiving or transmitting data and as such continue to merely represent insignificant extra solution activity.
With respect to Applicants arguments that the claims provide an improvement to a technology the Examiner notes that the resultant of the claims merely recites either a notification which in and of itself would not improve a technology and/or a corrective action to resolve the abnormal operation which in view of the broadest reasonable interpretation is broad enough to lack any detail as to how it would result in an improvement to a technology. As to Applicants citation of their specification to address these alleged improvements although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With respect to Applicants arguments regarding a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing the Examiner notes that altering data does not constitute a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
As such the 101 rejection is MAINTAINED.
ii) Following Applicants amendments the previously presented 112 rejection is WITHDRAWN.
iii) Applicants argue that the prior art does not read on the claimed “derive a probability for a given slope for each one of the one or more operational parameters as correlated to a different one of the one or more operational parameters to produce correlated probabilities for the one or more operational parameters over a sliding time window.” Applicants note the Examiner cited “[0225] FIG. 27 is a graph that illustrates determination of probabilities to answer alternatives for the correlation question. The red line 421 is the embodiment of the correlation, in this case a positive correlation between the two operations properties. The negative-slope blue line 425 is the Threshold between negative correlation (minus signs in the figure) and no correlation (zeros in the figure), and the positive-slope blue line 423 is the Threshold between positive correlation (plus signs in the figure) and no correlation (zeros in the figure). [0226] Thus, the output from the correlation question is the probability values for each of the categories negative correlation, positive correlation and no correlation.” See also “[0087] A straight line in three dimensions has four unknown parameters, two slopes and the intersection with the x-y plane, i.e., WOB-torque plane in this case. These parameters could be estimated with a least squares fit to a temporal or spatial sliding window, e.g., last five minutes or last ten feet of data, but this would provide very poor fits in the vicinity of formation boundaries. For example, in FIG. 5, plotting a straight line through both the points of the first set (509) and points of the second set (511) would yield bizarre model parameters.” Specifically [0225]-[0227] recites the probability of slope correlation with respect to the correlation between the two operations properties. This reads on the claimed recitation. Applicants have parsed the sentence without addressing the combination of elements particularly as they are directed to at least “[0020] In one aspect the technology disclosed herein includes a method for detecting equipment failures or stress conditions that may result in equipment failures in a process in the hydrocarbon industry, where the hydrocarbon-industry-process is subject to a change in a plurality of operating conditions each monitored by at least one sensor providing a plurality of input data streams, comprising segmenting the input data streams such that each segment of data points is modeled using a simple mathematical model, using the segmentations and statistical parameters associated with the segmentations and the underlying data to compute probabilities associated with at least one high-level inquiry in regard to the input streams thereby computing probabilities for inquiry answers, and inputting the high-level inquiry probabilities into a reasoning engine and operating the reasoning engine to determine the probability of an equipment event.” As such the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
iv) Applicants argue that the prior art does not recite inclination or azimuth in the context of a sliding time window and that the analysis is over static data. However once again see “[0087] A straight line in three dimensions has four unknown parameters, two slopes and the intersection with the x-y plane, i.e., WOB-torque plane in this case. These parameters could be estimated with a least squares fit to a temporal or spatial sliding window, e.g., last five minutes or last ten feet of data, but this would provide very poor fits in the vicinity of formation boundaries. For example, in FIG. 5, plotting a straight line through both the points of the first set (509) and points of the second set (511) would yield bizarre model parameters.” It is noted that the prior art further recites “[0075] Most analysis of data captured in the hydrocarbon industry is moving window analysis, i.e., a window of data is analyzed using the same assumptions/as a whole without consideration as to whether a change has occurred requiring separate analysis of different portions of the window of data.” The prior art appears to recite at least twice the use of sliding time windows as an element of these types of analysis. As such the prior art rejection is MAINTAINED.
v) Applicants argue that the prior art does not disclose measurements at the drilling site. However this concept is addressed in at least [0072] In the hydrocarbon industry it is often desirable to automate, semi-automate and/or the like operations to remove, mitigate human error, to increase speed and/or efficiency, allow for remote operation or control, lessen communication obstacles and/or the like. Moreover, in the hydrocarbon industry sensors are commonly deployed to gather data to provide for monitoring and control of the systems related to hydrocarbon capture and/or the like. 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 1-20 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 machine, claim 8 is directed to a statutory category as a process, and claim 15 is directed to an article of manufacture as a non-transitory computer-readable medium, which each represent a statutory category of invention. Therefore, claims 1-20 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
ii) In view of Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the abstract idea of calculating a probability value based on measured values from a well site system 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 well as and alternatively as Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As to claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15, the limitation of “derive a probability for a given slope for each one of the one or more operational parameters as correlated to a different one of the one or more operational parameters to produce correlated probabilities for the one or more operational parameters over a sliding time window;” would be analogous to a person calculating a probability based on given data values and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As to claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15, the limitation of “derive a resultant probability from the correlated probabilities over the sliding time window;” would be analogous to a person calculating a further probability based on the previously calculated probability values and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As to claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15, the limitation of “determine whether the resultant probability meets a preselected threshold probability value that indicates an abnormal operation;” would be analogous to a person making a determination based on the calculated probability values and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As to claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 8 and 15, the limitation of “initiate a responsive action if the resultant probability fails to meet the preselected threshold probability value,” would be analogous to a person making a further or alternate determination of an action based on the calculated probability values and thus fall under Mental Processes. In addition, the steps would constitute Mathematical Concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
As to claim 1 and claim 15, other than reciting “a processor” or “one or more computer processors” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 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 1 and 15, the additional element of “a processor” or “one or more computer processors”, and the “non-transitory computer readable medium”, in claim 15, 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 15 of “receive well site data from a remote programmable automation (PAC) controller at a well site, the well site data representing one or more operational parameters related to well site operations” and the broadest reasonable interpretation of ““initiate a responsive action if the resultant probability fails to meet the preselected threshold probability value, wherein the responsive action includes at least one of a notification or a corrective action to resolve the abnormal operation” 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 “receive well site data from a remote programmable automation (PAC) controller at a well site, the well site data representing one or more operational parameters related to well site operations” and the broadest reasonable interpretation of ““initiate a responsive action if the resultant probability fails to meet the preselected threshold probability value, wherein the responsive action includes at least one of a notification or a corrective action to resolve the abnormal operation” in claims 1, 8, and 15, 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 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 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 15 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 1 and 15, the additional element of “a processor” or “one or more computer processors”, and the “non-transitory computer readable medium”, in claim 15, 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 15 of “receive well site data from a remote programmable automation (PAC) controller at a well site, the well site data representing one or more operational parameters related to well site operations” and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “initiate a responsive action if the resultant probability fails to meet the preselected threshold probability value, wherein the responsive action includes at least one of a notification or a corrective action to resolve the abnormal operation” 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 “receive well site data from a remote programmable automation (PAC) controller at a well site, the well site data representing one or more operational parameters related to well site operations” and the broadest reasonable interpretation of “initiate a responsive action if the resultant probability fails to meet the preselected threshold probability value, wherein the responsive action includes at least one of a notification or a corrective action to resolve the abnormal operation” in claims 1, 8, and 15, alternatively can be viewed as an 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 claims 2, 9, and 16 further define the sources of data used in the probability calculation which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 3, 10, and 17 further defines how the correlated probability is calculated which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 4, 11, and 18 further defines a constraint on how the correlated probability is calculated which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 5, 12, and 19 further defines additional calculations using the calculated probabilities which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 6, 13, and 20 further defines additional calculations using the calculated probabilities which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
Dependent claims 7 and 14 further defines additional constrain limits on the calculated probabilities which merely narrows the abstract idea identified as a mental process and/or mathematical concepts including mathematical formulas or equations as well as calculations.
v) Accordingly, claims 1-20 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.
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 1-4, 7-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170096889.
Regarding Claim 1: The reference discloses An edge device comprising: a processor; and a storage device coupled to the processor and storing computer-readable instructions for a well site monitoring and control application thereon that, when executed by the processor, causes the edge device to:
receive well site data from a remote programmable automation (PAC) controller at a well site, the well site data representing one or more operational parameters related to well site operations; (“[0180] As discussed hereinabove, in some embodiments, the changepoint detector output may be fed into analysis software, for example, in the form of a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN). By way of example, in one embodiment, the combination of a changepoint detector, a signal processing system, and an expert system are used to analyze sensor data for artificial lift operations using electrical submersible pumps (ESPs) or progressive cavity pumps (PCPs). Such pumps are used in many oil fileds to improve oil production. Downhole and surface gauges as well as sensor data provided from control equipment may be used in such a system to assess pump performance to detect equipment failures or stress conditions that may lead to equipment failures. The amount and complexity of the data from artificial lift operations using ESP or PCP easily overwhelm a human operator who may therefore miss such failure or potential failure events in the mass of data.”)
derive a probability for a given slope for each one of the one or more operational parameters as correlated to a different one of the one or more operational parameters to produce correlated probabilities for the one or more operational parameters over a sliding time window; (“[0059] A technology is presented herein that automates the detection of signal signatures that are indicative of equipment stress and failure events. This technology uses a segmentation algorithm to segment data series and to model the data series. The results from the segmentation are used to answer several high-level inquiries, such as tendencies, noise level, and correlation between signals. Each high-level inquiry has associated therewith several answers. Probabilities for each of the answers is computed and the probabilities are input into a reasoning engine, for example, a Bayesian belief network, for determining the probabilities of equipment events, such as stress patterns and equipment failure.” “[0087] A straight line in three dimensions has four unknown parameters, two slopes and the intersection with the x-y plane, i.e., WOB-torque plane in this case. These parameters could be estimated with a least squares fit to a temporal or spatial sliding window, e.g., last five minutes or last ten feet of data, but this would provide very poor fits in the vicinity of formation boundaries. For example, in FIG. 5, plotting a straight line through both the points of the first set (509) and points of the second set (511) would yield bizarre model parameters.”)
derive a resultant probability from the correlated probabilities for the one or more operational parameters over the sliding time window; (“[0108] Having evaluated the segmentations of the input data stream, the segmentations and corresponding models may be used in a process control program or in a further data analysis program 713. The use of the segmentations and corresponding models may take several forms. For example, the remaining segmentations may each be used to evaluate the input data in the calculation of a quantity used to compare against a threshold value for the purpose of alerting of a condition to which some corrective action should be taken. In such a scenario, a weighted average (weighted by the weights associated with each segmentation) may be computed to determine the probability that the condition has or has not occurred. This probability may either be used to trigger an action or suggest an action, or as input into further condition analysis programs.”)
determine whether the resultant probability meets a preselected threshold probability value that indicates an abnormal operation; and (“[0108] Having evaluated the segmentations of the input data stream, the segmentations and corresponding models may be used in a process control program or in a further data analysis program 713. The use of the segmentations and corresponding models may take several forms. For example, the remaining segmentations may each be used to evaluate the input data in the calculation of a quantity used to compare against a threshold value for the purpose of alerting of a condition to which some corrective action should be taken. In such a scenario, a weighted average (weighted by the weights associated with each segmentation) may be computed to determine the probability that the condition has or has not occurred. This probability may either be used to trigger an action or suggest an action, or as input into further condition analysis programs.”)
initiate a responsive action if the resultant probability fails to meet the preselected threshold probability value, wherein the responsive action includes at least one of a notification or a corrective action to resolve the abnormal operation. (“[0108] Having evaluated the segmentations of the input data stream, the segmentations and corresponding models may be used in a process control program or in a further data analysis program 713. The use of the segmentations and corresponding models may take several forms. For example, the remaining segmentations may each be used to evaluate the input data in the calculation of a quantity used to compare against a threshold value for the purpose of alerting of a condition to which some corrective action should be taken. In such a scenario, a weighted average (weighted by the weights associated with each segmentation) may be computed to determine the probability that the condition has or has not occurred. This probability may either be used to trigger an action or suggest an action, or as input into further condition analysis programs.”)
Regarding Claim 2: The reference discloses The edge device of claim 1, wherein the well site operations include pump operations performed by an electric semisubmersible pump (ESP) at the well site and the well site data includes data related to the pump operations by the ESP at the well site. (“[0180] As discussed hereinabove, in some embodiments, the changepoint detector output may be fed into analysis software, for example, in the form of a Bayesian Belief Network (BBN). By way of example, in one embodiment, the combination of a changepoint detector, a signal processing system, and an expert system are used to analyze sensor data for artificial lift operations using electrical submersible pumps (ESPs) or progressive cavity pumps (PCPs). Such pumps are used in many oil fileds to improve oil production. Downhole and surface gauges as well as sensor data provided from control equipment may be used in such a system to assess pump performance to detect equipment failures or stress conditions that may lead to equipment failures. The amount and complexity of the data from artificial lift operations using ESP or PCP easily overwhelm a human operator who may therefore miss such failure or potential failure events in the mass of data.”)
Regarding Claim 3: The reference discloses The edge device of claim 2, wherein the monitoring and control application causes the edge device to derive the resultant probability from the correlated probabilities by taking an average of the correlated probabilities over a predefined time interval. ([0243] “Once the signals are segmented, it is possible to compare the signals to what is defined as a standard condition (for example the average statistical distribution of each parameter during a day, which can by the way be determined in parallel in a changepoint detector).”)
Regarding Claim 4: The reference discloses The edge device of claim 3, wherein the predefined time interval has a duration between one minute and 10 minutes. (“[0087] A straight line in three dimensions has four unknown parameters, two slopes and the intersection with the x-y plane, i.e., WOB-torque plane in this case. These parameters could be estimated with a least squares fit to a temporal or spatial sliding window, e.g., last five minutes or last ten feet of data…”)
Regarding Claim 7: The reference discloses The edge device of claim 1, wherein the preselected threshold probability value is one of a first threshold probability value and a second threshold probability value. ([0213] Threshold levels are set to reflect where a sample would fit with respect to the reference distribution, 523. The thresholds are typically set as a percentage of the reference level. To segment tendency into the five categories, two threshold levels are set above and below the reference, e.g., [0214] Thrld=10%.Math.Ref [0215] ThrldStrg=40%.Math.Ref”)
Regarding Claim 8: See rejection for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9: See rejection for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 10: See rejection for claim 3.
Regarding Claim 11: See rejection for claim 4.
Regarding Claim 14: See rejection for claim 7.
Regarding Claim 15: See rejection for claim 1.
Regarding Claim 16: See rejection for claim 2.
Regarding Claim 17: See rejection for claim 3.
Regarding Claim 18: See rejection for claim 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 5-6, 12-13, and 19-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as well as resolving all intervening issues such as the 101 rejections above.
Claim 5 recites, and similarly in claims 12 and 19, wherein the monitoring and control application causes the edge device to determine a slope for the resultant probability and estimate a time remaining until the resultant probability fails to meet the preselected threshold probability value based on the slope.
Claim 6 recites, and similarly in claims 13 and 20, wherein the monitoring and control application further causes the edge device to determine a correlated probability from among the correlated probabilities that most frequently falls below the average of the correlated probabilities, and identify operational parameters associated with the correlated probability as causing the resultant probability to fail to meet the preselected threshold probability value.
The closest prior art of record includes:
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110220410 which teaches systems and methods for real-time/online interpretation/processing of data associated with a hydrocarbon related procedure to provide for real-time automation/control of the procedure.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170177761 which teaches processing system configured to estimate production properties based on mathematical models including at least a model of the downhole component and one or more models for simulating fluid flow in the formation.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20150167392 which teaches methods for determining drilling states of a downhole tool and controlling the trajectory thereof during the process of drilling a wellbore in a subterranean formation.
However, the closest prior art of record does not explicitly teach or render obvious the limitations above,
particularly in combination with the other limitations within the claims. The dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as their respective independent claims.
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.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20110220410
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170096889
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170177761
U.S. Patent Publication No. 20150167392
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 2186