Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on October 22, 2025. The Applicants’ Amendment and Request for Reconsideration has been received and entered.
Claims 21-24, 27-35, and 37-40 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 21, 33, and 38 have been amended.
The previous rejection of claims 21-24, 27-35, and 37-40 under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments necessitated any new grounds of rejection.
The previous rejection of claims 21-24, 27-35, and 37-40 under 35 USC 112(a) has been withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendments and arguments.
Applicants’ arguments regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argue at page 9 of Applicants’ Reply dated October 22, 2025 (hereinafter “Applicants’ Reply”) that the claims do not recite a mental process because “a human cannot, inter alia, determining a format of the electronic information for each of the real-world items, wherein the format is an initial format that is different than a format for the item master database; and then reformat the determined format of the electronic information for each of the real-world items into the format of the item master database, where the format of the item master database is an electronic format the HCO is electronically capable of processing.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As the Examiner has previously noted, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C), “Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.” Thus, merely reciting the use of a computer is not sufficient to recite a technological improvement. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) further indicates “In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.”
With this in mind, the Examiner notes that, both at least in the previous office action and below, the Examiner has identified the device or the processor as being recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that the claimed invention is a concept performed in the human mind and applicants are merely claiming that concept performed on a generic computer.
Further, the Examiner notes that the claims no longer recite “reformatting” of data but only formatting of data. However, the formatting is still considered reformatting. For example, in the “formatting, by the device” step in claim 21, the limitation is recited as “formatting, by the device, the determined format of the electronic information for each of the real-world items into the format of the item master database,” This is, in effect, reformatting.
Further, regarding the formatting/reformatting of data, Applicants are respectfully referred to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) to the discussion of transforming of binary data to a different format. Per the MPEP (emphasis added):
The courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper"). Mental processes performed by humans with the assistance of physical aids such as pens or paper are explained further below with respect to point B.
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.
With this in mind, the Examiner respectfully asserts that reformatting data from one format to another is a mental process that may be done by a human user with the aid of a pen and paper or a general purpose computer. For example, if the data was in another language and it needed to be translated to English, this could be accomplished by a bilingual human using a pen and paper or a general purpose computer. Similarly, if the data included a price in Euros instead of dollars, a human using a pen and paper or a general purpose computer could reformat/translate these prices into dollars.
Applicants further argue at pages 9-10 of Applicants’ Reply that “the claims recite a technical improvement to current database systems” and cite paragraph [0033] of the specification, particularly that “identification and removal of duplicate product entries and obsolete/defunct product entries may improve the speed of database accesses, by reducing the number of records to be searched for a given query.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), in order to constitute a technical improvement, the specification "must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology." Further, per MPEP 2106.05(a), "if the specification sets forth an improvement in technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement."
With this guidance in mind, the Examiner respectfully asserts that the alleged improvement to the speed of database access is merely a bare assertion of an improvement. There is no discussion in the specification about an actual improvement, i.e., no comparison of the speed of database access before and after any duplicate/obsolete entries are removed with any improvement attributable to the removal of the entries. In fact, no improvements to the functionality of the computer or to how the computer performs are actually described. As a result, there is no difference in the operation of the computer as a result of the claimed invention.
Applicants further argue at page 10 of Applicants’ Reply that the claimed invention is directed to “a technological solution that addresses specific technical challenges in healthcare inventory management systems. The claims recite a specific method for managing real-world items in healthcare settings through a series of technical operations that cannot be performed with pen and paper.” Applicants then reference various steps in the method. The Examiner disagrees with Applicants’ assertion that these steps cannot be performed with pen and paper. For example, a user can:
manually identify and review an inventory of products to see if they are incorrectly formatted such as being in the wrong language
manually format the inventory by having it translated
manually apply identifiers to the formatted inventory
manually determine current data from current sales
manually remove duplicate and/or obsolete entries from the inventory
manually analyze the current data
manually search a database/data table
manually generate metrics
manually search the database
Regarding generating and outputting data to an interactive user interface, both at least in the previous office action and below, the Examiner has identified these steps as reciting insignificant extra-solution activity that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, both at least in the previous office action and below, the Examiner has identified these steps as computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions.
Applicants further argue at page 11 of Applicants’ Reply that, similar to the claims in Enfish, the instant claims “are directed to improvements in healthcare inventory management technology by addressing technical compatibility issues between different electronic systems and providing real-time metrics of usage and need for physical items based on electronic transaction data.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The court in Enfish drew a distinction between a business solution and a technical solution by finding it "relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea” and asked "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.” The Enfish court concluded that “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.”
With this guidance in mind, the Examiner respectfully asserts that the instant claims are directed to using existing computers as tools to perform the abstract idea, i.e., how the inventory is organized and formatted, and not to an improvement in computer functionality. There is no change or improvement to the database itself and it operates as any other database. Thus, these elements are considered to be using a generic database performing generic database functions, which does not impart eligibility.
Similarly, the claims do not provide any technical details as to how the format of the data is actually determined, how the compatible format is actually determined, and how the data is formatted/reformatted. Instead, the claims merely state that the device performs these activities without any indication of any improvement in the technology. Thus, the focus of the claims is not on an improvement to the computer functionality itself but is instead an improvement in inventory management, i.e., a business method.
Applicants further argue at page 11 of Applicants’ Reply that the claims “integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application by applying, relying on, or using the alleged abstract idea in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the alleged abstract idea” and again reference “determining initial formats of electronic information that differ from a target format,” “formatting electronic information into formats that healthcare organizations are ‘electronically capable of processing.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that, as discussed above, the claims do not actually provide any technical details as to how the format of the data is actually determined, how the compatible format is actually determined, and how the data is formatted/reformatted. Instead, the claims merely state that the device performs these activities without any indication of any improvement in the technology. Thus, the focus of the claims is not on an improvement to the computer functionality itself but is instead an improvement in inventory management, i.e., a business method.
Further, per MPEP 2106.05(a), improvements to computer functionality include a modification of conventional Internet hyperlink protocol to dynamically produce a dual-source hybrid webpage; inventive distribution of functionality within a network to filter Internet content; a method of rendering a halftone digital image; a distributed network architecture operating in an unconventional fashion to reduce network congestion while generating networking accounting data records; a memory system having programmable operational characteristics that are configurable based on the type of processor, which can be used with different types of processors without a tradeoff in processor performance; technical details as to how to transmit images over a cellular network or append classification information to digital image data; a particular structure of a server that stores organized digital images; a particular way of programming or designing software to create menus; a method that generates a security profile that identifies both hostile and potentially hostile operations, and can protect the user against both previously unknown viruses and "obfuscated code," which is an improvement over traditional virus scanning; an improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application; a specific interface and implementation for navigating complex three-dimensional spreadsheets using techniques unique to computers; and a specific method of restricting software operation within a license.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), some examples that the courts have said “may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality” include generating restaurant menus with functionally claimed features; accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer; mere automation of manual processes, such as using a generic computer to process an application for financing a purchase; recording, transmitting, and archiving digital images by use of conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment, without any assertion that the invention reflects an inventive solution to any problem presented by combining a camera and a cellular telephone; affixing a barcode to a mail object in order to more reliably identify the sender and speed up mail processing, without any limitations specifying the technical details of the barcode or how it is generated or processed; instructions to display two sets of information on a computer display in a non-interfering manner, without any limitations specifying how to achieve the desired result; providing historical usage information to users while they are inputting data, in order to improve the quality and organization of information added to a database, because "an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality”; and arranging transactional information on a graphical user interface in a manner that assists traders in processing information more quickly.
With this guidance in mind, the Examiner respectfully asserts that the instant claims are most similar to the non-eligible concept discussed above of improving the quality and organization of information added to a database, which is not eligible, because “an improvement to the information stored by a database is not equivalent to an improvement in the database’s functionality”. While removing obsolete or duplicate data improves the information stored by the database, it does not improve the database’s functionality and the database operates as any other database.
Applicants further argue at page 11 of Applicants’ Reply that, similar to the claims in Core Wireless, “the present claims generate an improved user interface with interactive elements that display current metrics of usage and need for real-world items.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), the improvement to computer functionality in Core Wireless was “An improved user interface for electronic devices that displays an application summary of unlaunched applications, where the particular data in the summary is selectable by a user to launch the respective application.” The Examiner notes that a key feature in Core Wireless was the selectability of data in the summary that was functional so as to launch an unlaunched application when selected. It was not merely a particular manner of summarizing any type of data that constituted the technical improvement.
With this guidance in mind, the instant application does not recite any analogous function to Core Wireless. For example, while the claims recite formatting/reformatting the data, there is no actual technological functionality recited to effect the formatting/reformatting. Thus, Core Wireless does not apply.
Applicants further argue at page 12 of Applicants’ Reply that in Bascom, “the Federal Circuit found that an inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces. Here, the claims recite a specific technical solution that involves the unconventional arrangement of technical components to solve technical problems in healthcare items inventory management.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Per MPEP 2106.05(a), the court in Bascom found that the claimed invention was able to provide individually customizable filtering at the remote ISP server by taking advantage of the technical capability of certain communications networks. The court further stated that the inventive concept in Bascom described and claimed the installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from the end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. The court pointed out that this design gives the filtering tool both the benefits of a filter on a local computer and the benefits of a filter on the ISP server. The court further stated that the patent described how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content. The court further found that the patent is claiming a technology-based solution (not an abstract idea based solution implemented with generic technical components in a conventional way) to filter content on the Internet that overcomes existing problems with Internet filtering systems.
With this guidance from Bascom in mind, the Examiner respectfully notes that the instant claims do not recite any particular arrangement or interactions between any particular elements in order to perform the method and do not recite an unconventional arrangement of technical components. In fact, claim 21 merely recites that a “device” performs the method without any details regarding the device and whether it is conventional or unconventional.
Applicants further argue at page 12 of Applicants’ Reply that the “claimed subject matter is tied to particular machines (networked computing devices) and transforms physical articles (real-world products in healthcare settings) by enabling improved tracking, management, and utilization of those physical items” and reference the machine-or-transformation test in Bilski. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
First, the Examiner notes that the real-world physical articles are not transformed in the claims and thus there is no actual transformation as contemplated by Bilski and thus this argument is irrelevant. Regarding a particular machine, per MPEP 2106.05(b), “while the application of a judicial exception by or with a particular machine is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility.” Further, per MPEP 2706 05(b), “a general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception, such as an abstract idea, by use of conventional computer functions does not qualify as a particular machine.” As the Examiner has noted, at least in the previous Office Action and below, claims 21, 33, and 38 each recite a device or a processor. These elements are recited at a high level of generality i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not constitute a particular machine and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Thus, the rejection under 35 USC 101 is maintained.
Applicants’ remaining arguments have been fully considered but they have either been addressed above or they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 21-24, 27-35, and 37-40: rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites, in the “executing” step, “the formatted electronic information within indexed item master database.” It is unclear if this is intended to be the same “indexed item master database” that was previously recited. For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting them as being the same.
Further, claim 21 recites, in the “executing step”, “based on at least the mapping and the removal.” It is unclear what is meant by “the removal.” For purposes of examination, the Examiner is interpreting “the removal” as “the removing of the duplicate and/or obsolete entries.”
Claims 33 and 38 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 22-24, 27-32, 34-35, 37, and 39-40 inherit the deficiencies of claims 21, 33, and 38.
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 21-24, 27-35, and 37-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Independent claims 21, 33, and 38 recite a method, device, and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for determining current inventory metrics. With respect to claim 21, claim elements identifying data, analyzing the data, determining a format of the electronic information, formatting the electronic information, using product identifiers, determining current electronic transaction data, mapping the electronic information, removing duplicate and/or obsolete entries, analyzing the item master database, determining metrics, indexing the database, and executing a search of the database, as drafted, illustrate a series of steps that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover a mental process. That is, other than reciting that a device or processor performs the method, nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claims 21, 33, and 38 each recite receiving and transmitting (outputting) data and generating a user interface (displaying data). These limitations are considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity.
Further, claims 21, 33, and 38 each recite a device or a processor. These elements are recited at a high level of generality i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further, claims 21, 33, and 38 each recite a database. Regarding the steps of mapping and indexing a database, this may be done using a pencil and paper by creating a table of inventory and then organizing it to make it easier to search. For example, creating a table organized by categories of products (mapping) and organizing the products by price (index). These activities are distinguished from those in, for example, Enfish, LLC v Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
The court in Enfish drew a distinction between a business solution and a technical solution by finding it "relevant to ask whether the claims are directed to an improvement to computer functionality versus being directed to an abstract idea” and asked "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.” The Enfish court concluded that “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.”
With this guidance in mind, the Examiner respectfully asserts that the instant claims are directed to using existing computers as tools to perform the abstract idea, i.e., how the inventory is organized, and not to an improvement in computer functionality. There is no change or improvement to the database itself and it operates as any other database. Thus, these elements are considered to be using a generic database performing generic database functions, which does not impart eligibility.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite receiving and transmitting (outputting) data and generating a user interface (displaying data). Per MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), elements such as receiving or transmitting data over a network, using the Internet to gather data, and storing and retrieving information in memory are considered to be computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional functions. See Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPG2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network)).
Further, as discussed above, claims 21, 33, and 38 recite a device, a processor, and a database. These elements are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
Claims 22-32, 34-37, and 39-40 depend from claims 21, 33, and 38. Claims 22, 34, and 39 are directed to monitoring traffic and updating the metrics and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 23, 35, and 39 are directed to causing an update to be displayed and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 24, 35, and 40 are directed to updating the database based on the updated metrics and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 27 and 37 are directed to analyzing the metrics, determining a quantify of items, and generating a recommendation and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claim 28 is directed to the association of various entities and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 29-30 are directed to the type of electronic information and items and are further directed to the abstract idea. Claims 31-32 are directed to the type of entity hosting/associated with the database and are further directed to the abstract idea.
Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-24, 27-35, and 37-40 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
In the event the claims are amended, they will be subject to further examination.
With respect to claim 21, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither anticipates nor renders obvious, a method comprising receiving, by a device, a request from a healthcare organization (HCO), the request corresponding to a status check of available real-world items for at least one healthcare location; identifying, by the device, data for a plurality of real-world items in an item master database, the item master database comprising electronic information for the plurality of real-world items, each of the plurality of real-world items corresponding to an item category; analyzing, by the device, the identified data, and determining, based on the analysis, a format of the electronic information for each of the real-world items, the format being an initial format that is different than a format for the item master database; formatting, by the device, the determined format of the electronic information for each of the real-world items into the format of the item master database, the format of the item master database being an electronic format the HCO is electronically capable of processing; using, by the device, organization-agnostic product identifiers for the formatted electronic information of the real-world items; determining, by the device, over the network, current electronic transaction data for each item category, the electronic transaction data comprising a metric of electronic traffic over the network corresponding to at least some of the real-world items within at least some of the item categories; mapping, by the device, the electronic information within the item master database to the current electronic transaction data based on the determined current electronic transaction data for each item category; removing, by the device, duplicate and/or obsolete entries within the item master database; analyzing, by the device, the item master database based on the determined current electronic transaction data; determining, by the device, based on the analysis, metrics for at least some of the real-world items in the item master database, the metrics providing a current indication of usage and need for the real-world items at the at least one healthcare location; indexing, by the device, the item master database based on the determined metrics, the indexing performed in accordance with the organization-agnostic product identifiers for the real- world items; generating, by the device, a user interface (UI), the UI comprising interactive interface elements for each determined metric of the plurality of real-world items; outputting, by the device, the UI to a device associated with the HCO, the output causing the UI to be displayed on a display of the HCO device; and executing, by the device, a search of the indexed item master database the search performed based on a query received via the output UI, the search performed on the formatted electronic information within indexed item master database, the search performed based at least on the mapping and the removal; and outputting, by the device, within the UI, results from the search.
With respect to claims 33 and 38, the prior art of record, alone or combined, neither anticipates nor renders obvious a device and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium reciting similar limitations.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689