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 03/27/2026 has been received and considered. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 1-20 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:
identifying one or more constraints for each of two or more components of the LPM, wherein the one or more constraints comprise initial conditions and boundary conditions of the two or more components;
generating, for the LPM, one or more conditions mapped to the one or more constraints, the one or more conditions using a plurality of parameters to account for the one or more constraints and the shape of the geometric representation in the LPM;
generating, by a processing device, a design space for the geometric representation to perform functions represented by the LPM, the geometric representation subject to the one or more conditions, and wherein generating the design space comprises specifying design domain and correspondences of boundary conditions, gravity field, and field of interest based on the one or more conditions
Claim 1 is substantially drawn to mental concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components: 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 "identifying one or more constraints for each of two or more components of the LPM, wherein the one or more constraints comprise initial conditions and boundary conditions of the two or more components", identifying constraints, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental in nature (mental processes including a judgment, opinion).
As to the limitations "generating, for the LPM, one or more conditions mapped to the one or more constraints, the one or more conditions using a plurality of parameters to account for the one or more constraints and the shape of the geometric representation in the LPM", generating conditions, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, are mental in nature (mental processes including a judgment, opinion).
As to the limitations "generating, by a processing device, a design space for the geometric representation to perform functions represented by the LPM, the geometric representation subject to the one or more conditions, and wherein generating the design space comprises specifying design domain and correspondences of boundary conditions, gravity field, and field of interest based on the one or more conditions", generating a design space and specifying are activities that can be performed in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. See for example in the Specification (underline emphasis added):
“[0085]… Users can change the size and shape of the design domain with respect to any special design requirements…
[0089]… Users can change the default boundary condition correspondence to others…".
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes).
Independent claim 1 Step 2A, Prong Two: The claim recites the limitations processing device, which provides conventional computer implementation.
As to the limitations "for generating a geometric representation of a shape… based on a lumped parameter model (LPM)… performing, by the processing device, topology optimization of the geometric representation in the design space to generate an optimized geometry", these limitations 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 “for manufacturing", they are no more than intended use.
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 element a processing device 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. The use of a computer to implement the abstract idea of a 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):
"[00121] Processing device 1802 represents one or more general-purpose processing devices such as a microprocessor, central processing unit, or the like".
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. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A, Prong two, the intended use limitations remain intended use even upon reconsideration, because no actual manufacturing is performed in the body of the claim.
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 8 and 15 recite substantially the same elements as claim 1 and are rejected for the same reasons above. As to the limitation "system level representation", the Examiner notes that the claimed invention further reads “9… the system level representation comprising a lumped parameter model (LPM)”. See also in the Specification: "[0024]… a system-level model (e.g., a lumped parameter model, or LPM)". Further, the additional elements an apparatus comprising a memory and a processing device and computer readable storage medium is rejected below:
Independent claim 15 Step 2A Prong two and 2B: As to the further additional elements an apparatus comprising a memory and a processing device and computer readable storage medium, they are interpreted as drawn to a generic computer. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2B above).
Dependent claims Step 2A, Prong One: Dependent claims limitations further the mental concepts of their independent claims. (See Independent claim 1, Step 2A, Prong One above). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes, then it falls within the "(c) Mental processes" grouping of abstract ideas (2019 PEG Step 2A, Prong One: Abstract Idea Grouping? = Yes, (c) Mental processes).
Dependent claims, Step 2A Prong two: As to the limitations "2/9/16… receiving a network of connected lumped components for the LPM“ and "5/12/19… obtaining material properties and manufacturing parameters associated with an additive manufacturing process of the geometric representation", these limitations describe the concept of “mere data gathering” , which corresponds to the concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts. Data gathering, including when limited to particular content does not change its character as information, is also within the realm of abstract ideas. See Electric Power.
As to the limitations "5/12/19… generating an optimized material layout to satisfy: the one or more corresponding lumped sources, the material properties of the geometric representation; and the manufacturing parameters associated with the additive manufacturing process" and "6/13… wherein performing the topology optimization of the geometric representation comprises performing at least one of: solid isotropic material with penalization (SIMP) method; an element-based topology optimization method; a rational approximation of material properties method; an optimal microstructure with penalization method; an evolutionary structural optimization method; an additive evolutionary structural optimization method; a level-set topology optimization method; or a bidirectional evolutionary structural optimization method", these limitations 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, 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 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. See MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). As to the limitations "generating an optimized material layout to satisfy", these limitations are not elaborated but merely repeated in the Specification.
In the dependent claims, their additional elements do not provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself (2019 PEG Step 2B: NO).
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.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morad Behandish, (Behandish hereinafter), U.S. Patent 11860682, taken in view of Peddada et al., (Peddada hereinafter), "A novel two-stage design framework for 2d spatial packing of interconnected components", and further in view of Jeffrey R. Bailey, (Bailey hereinafter), U.S. Patent 8214188.
As to claim 1, Behandish discloses a method for generating a geometric representation (see "a qualitative spatio-temporal model of the physical system is constructed" in col. 10, lines 46-47)… based on a lumped parameter model (LPM) (see "produce the qualitative spatio-temporal simulation using an existing qualitative reasoner based on lumped parameter models… the qualitative spatio-temporal model of the physical system is expressed by topological semantics" in col. 1, lines 47-51), the method comprising… generating, by a processing device, a design space for the geometric representation (see "space" as "spatio", "a qualitative spatio-temporal model of the physical system is constructed" in col. 10, lines 46-47) to perform functions represented by the LPM, the geometric representation (see "using both the topological structure and the qualitative spatio-temporal model, the qualitative spatio-temporal behaviors of the physical system are simulated as a discrete set of state transitions in space-time to produce a simulation of the physical system" in col. 10, lines 47-52) subject to the one or more conditions (see "qualitative simulation maps non-numerical specifications of physical systems to non-numerical descriptions of the behavior of the physical systems. Put another way, qualitative analysis is essentially a reasoning technique used to determine the possible qualitative states of system variables based on a qualitative description of the system's topology, initial conditions, and governing equations" in col. 4, lines 27-34)… and performing, by the processing device, topology optimization of the geometric representation in the design space to generate an optimized geometry (see "produce the qualitative spatio-temporal simulation using an existing qualitative reasoner based on lumped parameter models… the qualitative spatio-temporal model of the physical system is expressed by topological semantics" in col. 1, lines 47-51; "specify a topological structure of the physical system in space-time; and using the topological structure, generate the qualitative constraints in symbolic form… the qualitative constraints are used alongside design criteria to optimize for qualitative behavior" in col. 2, lines 42-47)…
Behandish does not disclose, but Peddada discloses of a shape for manufacturing (see "Stage 2 uses the feasible layouts obtained from stage 1 as initial designs for performing multi-physics optimization to meet system-level requirements, such as system volume… geometric projection… is used to create routing designs that can be manufactured out of standard circular cross-section pipes. The geometric parameterization involves design variables that facilitate convenient derivation of lumped-parameter model sensitivities" in page 6, 1st paragraph)… generating, for the LPM, one or more conditions (see "use of simple geometric bars to approximately model both the component geometry and routing paths (see Fig. 2)… This simple geometric representation with physics-based boundary conditions (heat source, heat sink and forced convection) will be used as part of the two-stage framework" in page 2, last line to page 3, 1st paragraph) mapped to the one or more constraints (see "The design methodology presented here: 1. Supports systems with different… physics-based operating conditions… 4. Supports geometric constraints to ensure non-interference between device-device, device-interconnect, and interconnect-interconnect combinations" in page 2, col. 2, 1st paragraph), the one or more conditions using a plurality of parameters to account for the one or more constraints and the shape of the geometric representation in the LPM… for manufacturing (see "Stage 2 uses the feasible layouts obtained from stage 1 as initial designs for performing multi-physics optimization to meet system-level requirements, such as system volume… geometric projection… is used to create routing designs that can be manufactured out of standard circular cross-section pipes. The geometric parameterization involves design variables that facilitate convenient derivation of lumped-parameter model sensitivities" in page 6, 1st paragraph).
Examiner notes that the limitations “for manufacturing" are no more than intended use, because no actual manufacturing is performed in the body of the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Peddada with Behandish, because Peddada presents "a novel two-stage sequential design framework to perform simultaneous physics based packing and routing optimization" (see page 1, ABSTRACT), and as a result, Peddada demonstrates "a two-stage design automation approach that systematically enumerates and describes the set of feasible topological layouts of an electro-thermal system, and subsequently optimizes each layout via a gradient-based design optimization procedure that accounts for the physics-based performance of the system" (see page 9, last paragraph).
Behandish and Peddada do not disclose, but Bailey discloses identifying one or more constraints for each of two or more components of the LPM, wherein the one or more constraints comprise initial conditions (see "initial BHA surrogates are obtained. Obtaining of the BHA surrogates may include accessing a stored version of a previously modeled or utilized BHA configuration or BHA surrogate, interacting with the modeling system to specify or create a BHA surrogate from the BHA design parameters, or entering a proposed BHA configuration into the model that was provided by the drilling engineer or drilling service provider. The BHA surrogates specify the positioning of the equipment and types of equipment in the BHA, usually determined as the distance to the bit of each component" in col. 14, lines 15-25) and boundary conditions of the two or more components (see "The BHA vibration model described in this section is a lumped parameter model… The dynamic model presented in this section is one variety in the class of forced frequency response models, with specific matrices and boundary conditions" in col. 17, lines 40-55)… and wherein generating the design space comprises specifying design domain (see "BHA surrogates specify the positioning of the equipment and types of equipment in the BHA, usually determined as the distance to the bit of each component" in col. 14, lines 22-25) and correspondences of boundary conditions (see "data may be obtained… Some model-related parameters may also be obtained, such as… boundary conditions" in col. 11, lines 12-22), gravity field (see "A lumped parameter model yields an approximation to the response of a continuous system. Discrete point masses in the BHA surrogate are connected by massless springs and/or dampers to other BHA surrogate mass elements and, in one variation, to the wellbore at points of contact by springs and, optionally, damper elements. The masses are free to move laterally within the constraints of the applied loads, including gravity" in col. 17, line 62 to col. 18, line 2), and field of interest based on the one or more conditions (see "data may be obtained… operating parameters" in col. 11, lines 12-17)…
Behandish, Peddada, and Bailey are analogous art because they are related to lumped parameter modeling.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bailey with Behandish and Peddada, because Bailey models "several alternative configurations and then select the one that performs in an optimal manner over the expected operating range or to operate the selected configuration at operating parameters suggested by the present methods. Such approach can be accomplished iteratively or through direct and simultaneous comparison of the several configurations" (see col. 16, lines16-23), and as a result, Bailey reports that "the BHA surrogates may be constructed in a variety of manners and the frequency-domain models may vary… it may be determined that one type of surrogate and/or one type of frequency-domain model more accurately represents actual drilling operations for a particular BHA configuration, for particular operating conditions, or for particular environments. For example, it may be found that 2D lumped parameter surrogates and associated modeling results correspond sufficiently closely to measured data for a particular BHA configuration or drilling application. As another example, it may be found that 3D distributed mass surrogates and associated frequency-domain modeling results more closely correspond to measured data for a particular type of vibration or for a particular excitation mode. Accordingly, methods within the scope of the present disclosure include methods where different BHA surrogates and different frequency-domain models are used to represent one or more BHA configurations in a single drilling operation. Additionally or alternatively, mathematical combinations of different surrogates and/or frequency-domain models may be used to improve the accuracy of the modeling results as compared to measured data" (see col. 16, line 51 to in col. 17, line 6).
As to claim 2, Behandish discloses wherein generating the design space for the geometric representation of the LPM comprises: receiving a network of connected lumped components for the LPM (see "a topological structure of a physical system in space-time is specified" in col. 10, lines 46-47).
Behandish and Peddada do not disclose, but Bailey discloses identifying one or more corresponding lumped sources acting on the network of connected lumped components of the LPM (see "each component of the BHA is subdivided into small elements, and this lumped mass element is subjected to beam shear loads, gravitational loading (assuming inclination angle φ), wellbore contact with a stiffness k, and damping force with coefficient b" in col. 19, lines 17-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Bailey with Behandish and Peddada, (see supra).
As to claim 3, Peddada discloses wherein generating the design space for the geometric representation of the LPM comprises: determining a geometric design domain that bounds a shape and a size of the geometric representation, based on an initial position of each of the two or more components of the LPM (see "computational design framework for optimally distributing system components and interconnect paths within a two dimensional volume, subject to performance objectives that rely on physics coupling between continuum and lumped-parameter models" in page 2, col. 1, last paragraph to col. 2, 1st paragraph), and wherein the one or more corresponding lumped sources include the initial position of each of the two or more components (see "use of simple geometric bars to approximately model both the component geometry and routing paths (see Fig. 2)… This simple geometric representation with physics-based boundary conditions (heat source, heat sink and forced convection) will be used as part of the two-stage framework" in page 2, last line to page 3, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Peddada with Behandish, (see supra).
As to claim 4, Peddada discloses wherein the one or more corresponding lumped sources correspond to at least a portion of the one or more constraints, wherein the one or more constraints comprise initial conditions and boundary conditions of the two or more components (see "initial conditions" as "feasible layouts as initial designs", "use of simple geometric bars to approximately model both the component geometry and routing paths (see Fig. 2)… This simple geometric representation with physics-based boundary conditions (heat source, heat sink and forced convection) will be used as part of the two-stage framework. Specifically, the combined physics-based packing and routing problem can be subdivided into two important sequential stages as shown in Fig. 1: 1) Generate spatially feasible geometric layouts without any interference between the components and interconnect routing (for example, pipes or ducts), and 2) to utilize these feasible layouts as initial designs for performing multi-physics optimization" in page 2, last line to page 3, 1st paragraph), the initial conditions and boundary conditions specifying functional requirements for the two or more components (see "The design methodology presented here: 1. Supports systems with different… physics-based operating conditions" in page 2, col. 2, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Peddada with Behandish, (see supra).
As to claim 5, Peddada discloses wherein performing the topology optimization of the geometric representation comprises: obtaining material properties and manufacturing parameters associated with an additive manufacturing process of the geometric representation (see in page 3, col. 2, "Figure 1: Two-stage design framework":
PNG
media_image1.png
82
459
media_image1.png
Greyscale
); and generating an optimized material layout to satisfy: the one or more corresponding lumped sources, the material properties of the geometric representation; and the manufacturing parameters associated with the additive manufacturing process (see "Stage 2 uses the feasible layouts obtained from stage 1 as initial designs for performing multi-physics optimization to meet system-level requirements, such as system volume… the new parameterization approach was used to optimize structures while ensuring that the resulting design could be made from stock materials, such as structural beams with standard shapes and sizes… geometric projection… is used to create routing designs that can be manufactured out of standard circular cross-section pipes. The geometric parameterization involves design variables that facilitate convenient derivation of lumped-parameter model sensitivities" in page 6, 1st paragraph; "the combined physics-based packing and routing problem can… Generate spatially feasible geometric layouts without any interference between the components and interconnect routing (for example, pipes or ducts), and 2) to utilize these feasible layouts as initial designs for performing multi-physics optimization" in page 3, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Peddada with Behandish, (see supra).
As to claim 6, Peddada discloses wherein performing the topology optimization of the geometric representation comprises performing at least one of: (see "element" as device/component, "The complete optimization problem formulation… for stage 2 is given by… The interference constraints gdd(x), gsd(x), and gss(x) prevent interference between two devices, one routing segment and one device, and two routing segments, respectively… The 1D lumped parameter model and the 2D finite element models were developed to simulate the physics response of the multi-component interconnect system" in page 6, 1st paragraph to col. 2, 2nd next paragraph; "The optimization finds a balance between smooth bends and reducing pipe length to reduce head loss in a way that is best for system performance" in page 7, next to last paragraph)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Peddada with Behandish, (see supra).
As to claim 7, Peddada discloses wherein the geometric representation comprises: a shape to perform functions of the LPM, wherein the shape is specific to one or more materials to be used and specific to manufacturing techniques specific to the one or more materials to be used (see "Stage 2 uses the feasible layouts obtained from stage 1 as initial designs for performing multi-physics optimization to meet system-level requirements, such as system volume… geometric projection… is used to create routing designs that can be manufactured out of standard circular cross-section pipes. The geometric parameterization involves design variables that facilitate convenient derivation of lumped-parameter model sensitivities" in page 6, 1st paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in this art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Peddada with Behandish, (see supra).
As to claims 8-20, these claims recite an apparatus and a computer-readable storage medium for performing the method of claims 1-7. Behandish discloses "a device comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code" (see col. 1, lines 32-34) for performing a method that teaches claims 1-7. Therefore, claims 8-20 are rejected for the same reasons given above.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the rejections under 112, the amendment corrected the deficiencies pointed out, and those objections are withdrawn.
Regarding the rejections under 101, Applicant's arguments have been considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues, (see page 11, next to last paragraph to page 12, next to last paragraph):
‘… claim 1 recites generating a lumped parameter model (LPM) that improves mapping (e.g., automatic bridging) with a physical design domain (e.g., physical shape of a component and its response to various constraints including "initial conditions and boundary conditions). Therefore, the claimed subject matter is not invoking a computer merely as a tool, but purporting to improve computer capabilities…’
Enfish2 (Enfish hereinafter), reads (underline emphasis added):
‘the first step in the Alice inquiry in this case asks whether the focus of the claims is on the specific asserted improvement in computer capabilities (i.e., the self-referential table for a computer database) or, instead, on a process that qualifies as an “abstract idea” for which computers are invoked merely as a tool… In this case, however, the plain focus of the claims is on an improvement to computer functionality itself, not on economic or other tasks for which a computer is used in its ordinary capacity'.
Examiner's response: Applicant's arguments are not persuasive, because claims do not read "generating a lumped parameter model (LPM)”, as argued. Claims do read "for generating a geometric representation of a shape for manufacturing based on a lumped parameter model (LPM)… identifying one or more constraints for each of two or more components of the LPM… generating, for the LPM, one or more conditions… using a plurality of parameters to account for the one or more constraints and the shape of the geometric representation in the LPM" (underline emphasis added). No skilled artisan would interpret the argued features as claimed features, because the claims themselves are mute about executing such argued features. The claims must stand on their own. Examiner is not allowed to bring limitations set forth in the description into the claims. Although a claim should be interpreted in light of the Specification disclosure, it is generally considered improper to read limitations contained in the Specification into the claims. See Synopsys3 at page 20, 2nd paragraph, citing Accenture: 'The § 101 inquiry must focus on the language of the Asserted Claims themselves. See Accenture4… (admonishing that “the important inquiry for a § 101 analysis is to look to the claim”); see also Content Extraction5'.
Furthermore, the claimed invention does not improve the operation of any underlying computer system, i.e. the computer itself (underline emphasis added). (See Enfish supra).
Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
Regarding the arguments with respect to the rejection under 103, Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the prior art disclosures in the previous rejection fail to teach the newly added limitations. These features of Applicants' claims and arguments were newly added. The previous Office Action could not have pointed out disclosures of a limitation that was not claimed before. Claims are rejected over Behandish taken in view of Peddada in view of Bailey instead of Behandish taken in view of Peddada, and Bailey is newly cited. See rejection supra.
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.
Examiner would like to point out that any reference to specific figures, columns and lines should not be considered limiting in any way, the entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention.
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 Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
3 Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp. (Fed. Cir. October 17, 2016)
4 Accenture Global Servs., GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 728 F.3d 1336, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
5 Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2014)
Prosecution Insights