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 .
Claims Status
Claims 1, and 3-8 are pending with claims 1, and 3-7 being examined, claim 8 is deemed withdrawn. Claim 2 is canceled.
Response to Amendment
As to the claim amendments and remarks filed on 12/22/2025, the previous 112(b) rejection is withdrawn. Applicant addressed the issues.
The previous drawing objection is withdrawn. Applicant filed replacement drawings that identify the NMR measurement apparatus, the specification is also amended to include the element number. Applicant also identified the first and second acquisition unit and the first and second characteristic portion.
The previous claim objection is withdrawn. Applicant addressed the issues.
As to the claim amendments and remarks, the examiner has found applicants arguments not persuasive. Therefore, the previous rejection has been modified to address the claim amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The instant rejection reflects the Guidance published in the Federal Register notice titled 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidelines (Vol. 84, No. 4, Monday January 7, 2019 at 50) and the October 2019 Updated Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter both referred to as the “Guidance”).
Framework with which to Evaluate Subject Matter Eligibility:
(1) Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter;
(2A) Are the claims directed to a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea (Prong One); If the claims are directed to a judicial exception under Prong One, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application (Prong Two); and
(2B) If the claims are directed to a judicial exception and do not integrate the judicial exception, do the claims provide an inventive concept.
Framework Analysis as Pertains to the Instant Claims:
With regard to (1), the instant claims recite an “an NMR measurement apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to: acquire an NMR spectrum, analyze a characteristic portion of the NMR spectrum to thereby identify splitting information for a particular nucleus of interest, and identify the solvent based on the number of splits and the splitting interval, identify a number of nucleus of interest signals, identify the solvent based on the number on nucleus of interest signals, identify a signal interval in the characteristic portion, identify the solvent based on the signal interval, wherein the processor is further configured to acquire the first NMR spectrum and from a second nucleus of interest included in the solvent a second NMR spectrum comprising a second characteristic portion intrinsic to the second nucleus of interest, and manage using a solvent table, a plurality of reference frequencies corresponding the identified solvent”, and therefore the answer is "yes".
With regard to (2A), Prong One, under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI), the instant claims recite claim steps directed to the judicial exception that is an abstract idea of the type that is in the grouping of “mental process” or “mathematical concepts” (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) subsections (I) and (III)) because said operations could be performed in the mind. Mental operations and mathematical concepts in the instant claims are recited as: “a processor configured to: acquire an NMR spectrum, analyze a characteristic portion of the NMR spectrum to thereby identify splitting information for a particular nucleus of interest, and identify the solvent based on the number of splits and the splitting interval, identify a number of nucleus of interest signals, identify the solvent based on the number on nucleus of interest signals, identify a signal interval in the characteristic portion, identify the solvent based on the signal interval, wherein the processor is further configured to acquire the first NMR spectrum and from a second nucleus of interest included in the solvent a second NMR spectrum comprising a second characteristic portion intrinsic to the second nucleus of interest, and manage using a solvent table, a plurality of reference frequencies corresponding the identified solvent”.
In summary, the claim(s) recite(s) “an NMR measurement apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to: acquire an NMR spectrum, analyze a characteristic portion of the NMR spectrum to thereby identify splitting information for a particular nucleus of interest, and identify the solvent based on the number of splits and the splitting interval, identify a number of nucleus of interest signals, identify the solvent based on the number on nucleus of interest signals, identify a signal interval in the characteristic portion, identify the solvent based on the signal interval, wherein the processor is further configured to acquire the first NMR spectrum and from a second nucleus of interest included in the solvent a second NMR spectrum comprising a second characteristic portion intrinsic to the second nucleus of interest, and manage using a solvent table, a plurality of reference frequencies corresponding the identified solvent which is a process that can be performed using a computer which uses mathematical algorithms/formulas as a form of an abstract idea.
Said recited judicial exception steps are directed to acquiring and comparing data information against a data table and producing results, which under the BRI, cover performance of the limitations in the mind and mathematical concepts, as said steps under said interpretation would involve a making a mental comparison and mental correlation or mathematical correlation. Thus, if a claim, under its BRI, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer elements, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C)).
Because the claims are directed to abstract ideas, they must further be analyzed under Prong Two to determine if said judicial exceptions are integrated into a practical application as determined by further assessment of the “additional steps” recited in the claims. With respect to Prong Two, the additional elements and the rationale pertaining to why the additional elements are not integrated, are as follows:
(a) The claims recite mathematical process (judicial exception) which are not integrated into a practical application because the manage using a solvent table, a plurality of reference frequencies corresponding the identified solvent to produce results” In summary, the claim(s) recite(s) “an NMR measurement apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to: acquire an NMR spectrum, analyze a characteristic portion of the NMR spectrum to thereby identify splitting information for a particular nucleus of interest, and identify the solvent based on the number of splits and the splitting interval, identify a number of nucleus of interest signals, identify the solvent based on the number on nucleus of interest signals, identify a signal interval in the characteristic portion, identify the solvent based on the signal interval, wherein the processor is further configured to acquire the first NMR spectrum and from a second nucleus of interest included in the solvent a second NMR spectrum comprising a second characteristic portion intrinsic to the second nucleus of interest, and manage using a solvent table, a plurality of reference frequencies corresponding the identified solvent”, and therefore the method does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea;
(b) Although the claims recite an NMR measurement apparatus comprising at least one processor configured to; acquire data, analyze data, identify a solvent, a number of nucleus of interest, a characteristic portion, and manage, using a table data comparison to identify the solvent, the claims do not apply the exception, as the claim does not transform the automatic determination system to a different state or thing beyond its ordinary purpose (See MPEP 2106.05(f) and MPEP 2106.05(c));
(c) A processor is recited at a high level of generality (as a generic and well-known structure) such that it is no more than a generic computer/diagnostic system (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) and MPEP 2106.05(d));
(d) The claims include acquiring data, analyzing data, identifying a solvent, a number of nucleus of interest, a characteristic portion, and manage, using a table data comparison to identify the solvent, which is recited at a high level of generality (i.e., generic computer and processor performing generic computer functions) such that the recitations amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exceptions on said generic computer (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As such, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Because the claims fail under (2A), the claims are further evaluated under (2B). The claims herein do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under (2B) because, as discussed above with regard to integration of the recited abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements herein amount to no more than an NMR apparatus comprising at least one processor which does not provide an inventive concept as a generic NMR apparatus comprising at least one processor is well-understood, routine and conventional. Further, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because (1) the at least one processor is being used in their ordinary capacity and are merely tools to execute the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(d)), (2) the additional claim elements of acquiring, determining and linking (compare results against a data table) information, whether considered individually or as a whole, do not meaningfully limit the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(e)), (3) the claims recite insignificant extra-solution activity because the activity of the at least one processor to link/store information is not inventive since all NMR apparatus have a processor that is used to control the processing (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the features represent an abstract idea. Dependent claims 3-7 amount to no more than identifying a number of nucleus, a solvent, and acquire the first and second NMR spectrum, a second nucleus of interest information, and linking information, which is an intangible abstract idea or mathematical concept, and similarly does not integrate the exception into a practical application or include additional elements that amount to significantly more. The instant claims do not include an inventive concept.
Thus, in light of the above considerations the claims remain non-statutory, and are thus not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 1: Claims 1-3-7 are directed towards an NMR apparatus comprising a processor.
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites the abstract idea, “acquire an NMR spectrum…”, “analyze a characteristic portion…”, “identify a solvent based on the number of splits and the splitting interval…”. Abstract human reasoning or a generic computer is required to acquire, analyze and identify the results of the nucleus of interest to acquire splitting information.
Claim 3 recites the abstract idea “the at least one processor is further configured to: identify a number of nucleus of interest signals…”, “identify the solvent based on the number of nucleus of interest…”. Abstract human reasoning or a generic computer is required to identify a number of nucleus of interest signals and identify the solvent based on the number of nucleus of interest.
Claim 4 recites the abstract idea “the at least one processor is further configured to: identify a signal interval in the characteristic portion, and identify the solvent based on the signal interval…” Abstract human reasoning or a generic computer is required to identify a signal interval and identify the solvent. .
Claim 7 recites the abstract idea “the at least one processor is further configured to: manage, using a solvent table a plurality of reference frequencies wherein reference frequency of the plurality of reference frequencies corresponding to the identified solvent is identified based on the solvent table…”. Abstract human reasoning or a generic computer is required to compare information with a reference table to identify the solvent.
Step 2A, Prong Two: These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because upon evaluating the NMR apparatus comprising a processor configured to acquire an NMR spectrum, analyze the characteristic portion and identify the solvent, nothing further is performed with the abstract evaluation.
Step 2B: Claim 1 recites the elements “acquire an NMR spectrum…”, analyze the characteristic portion…”, and “identify the solvent…”.
Claim 3 recites “identify a number of nucleus of interest…”, identify the solvent…”.
Claim 4 recites “identify a signal interval…”, identify the solvent…”.
Claim 7 recites “manage, using a solvent table identify the solvent based on the solvent table …”.
These elements are interpreted as extra-solution activity which are incidental to the primary process and are mere data gathering which is not considered significantly more than the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g), Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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 for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
Claim 1 and 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hachitani et al. (US 20160187442 A1; hereinafter “Hachitani” already of record) in view of Hausler (US 20200158668 A1; hereinafter “Hausler” already of record), further in view of Jones (“1H and 13C NMR data to aid the identification and quantification of residual solvents by NMR spectroscopy”, Magnetic Resonance in Chem. (43), pgs. 497-508 (2005); hereinafter :”Jones”).
Regarding claim 1, Hachitani teaches an NMR measurement apparatus (Hachitani; Title) comprising at least one processor (Hachitani; fig. 3 and –[0023]).
Hachitani fails to teach the processor is configured to acquire an NMR spectrum from a nucleus of interest in a solvent included in a sample solution, the NMR spectrum comprising a characteristic portion intrinsic to the nucleus of interest;
analyze the characteristic portion, to thereby identify splitting information for a particular nucleus-of-interest signal comprised in the characteristic portion wherein the splitting information comprises a number of splits and splitting interval.
However, Hausler teaches the analogous art of an NMR measurement device (Hausler; Title) that includes at least one processor (Hausler; fig. 2. 26 and [0070] “the control unit having a processor unit”) wherein the at least one processor unit is configured to acquire an NMR spectrum from a nucleus of interest in a solvent included in a sample solution, the NMR spectrum comprising a characteristic portion intrinsic to the nucleus of interest (Hausler; fig. 4. 48);
analyze the characteristic portion, to thereby identify splitting information for a particular nucleus-of-interest signal comprised in the characteristic portion wherein the splitting information comprises a number of splits and splitting interval (Hausler; [0046] “the position of the peaks belonging to the analyte”).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Hachitani’s at least one processor to be configured to acquire an NMR spectrum from a nucleus of interest in a solvent included in a sample solution, the NMR spectrum comprising a characteristic portion intrinsic to the nucleus of interest and analyze the characteristic portion, to thereby identify splitting information for a particular nucleus-of-interest signal comprised in the characteristic portion wherein the splitting information comprises a number of splits and splitting interval as taught by Hausler because Hausler teaches an NMR measurement device (Hausler; Title) that includes at least one processor (Hausler; fig. 2. 26 and [0070] “the control unit having a processor unit”) wherein the at least one processor unit is configured to acquire an NMR spectrum from a nucleus of interest in a solvent included in a sample solution, the NMR spectrum comprising a characteristic portion intrinsic to the nucleus of interest (Hausler; fig. 4. 48);
analyze the characteristic portion, to thereby identify splitting information for a particular nucleus-of-interest signal comprised in the characteristic portion wherein the splitting information comprises a number of splits and splitting interval (Hausler; [0046] “the position of the peaks belonging to the analyte”).
The modification allows to acquire and analyze data provided from the sample analysis.
Hachitani fails to teach identifying the solvent based on the number of splits and the splitting interval.
However, Jones teaches the analogous art of an NMR measurement apparatus (Jones: Title) that includes a processor (Jones; fig. 1 and 2 illustrate what appears to be a processor monitor) wherein the processor is configured to identify the solvent based on the number of splits and the splitting interval (Jones; fig. 3).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Hachitani’s processor to be configured to identify the solvent based on the number of splits and the splitting interval as taught by Jones because Jones teaches an NMR measurement apparatus (Jones: Title) that includes a processor (Jones; fig. 1 and 2 illustrate what appears to be a processor monitor) wherein the processor is configured to identify the solvent based on the number of splits and the splitting interval (Jones; fig. 3).
The modification allows to identify residual solvents (Jones; Title).
Regarding claim 3, modified Hachitani teaches the NMR measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (see above) to include at least one processor (see above).
Modified Hachitani fails to teach the at least one processor is further configured to identify a number of nucleus-of interest signals forming the characteristic portion.
However, Hausler teaches the analogous art of an NMR measurement device (Hausler; Title) that includes at least one processor (Hausler; fig. 2. 26 and [0070] “the control unit having a processor unit”) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify a number of nucleus-of interest signals forming the characteristic portion (Hausler; fig. 4. 48).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Hachitani’s at least one processor to be configured to identify a number of nucleus-of interest signals forming the characteristic portion as taught by Hausler because Hausler teaches an NMR measurement device (Hausler; Title) that includes at least one processor (Hausler; fig. 2. 26 and [0070] “the control unit having a processor unit”) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify a number of nucleus-of interest signals forming the characteristic portion (Hausler; fig. 4. 48).
The modification would allow to identify the analytes using the signals formed in the characteristic portion.
Modified Hachitani fails to teach identifying the solvent based further on the number of nucleus-of-interest signals.
However, Jones teaches the analogous art of an NMR measurement apparatus (Jones: Title) that includes a processor (Jones; fig. 1 and 2 illustrate what appears to be a processor monitor) wherein the processor is configured to identify the solvent based further on the number of nucleus-of-interest signals (Jones; fig. 3 1H nucleus intervals are illustrated).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Hachitani’s at least one processor to be configured to identifying the solvent based further on the number of nucleus-of-interest signals as taught by Jones because Jones teaches of an NMR measurement apparatus (Jones: Title) that includes a processor (Jones; fig. 1 and 2 illustrate what appears to be a processor monitor) wherein the processor is configured to identify the solvent based further on the number of nucleus-of-interest signals (Jones; fig. 3 1H nucleus intervals are illustrated).
The modification allows to distinguish between different solvents.
Regarding claim 4, modified Hachitani teaches the NMR measurement apparatus according to claim 3 (see above) to include at least one processor (see above).
Modified Hachitani fails to teach the at least one processor is further configured to identify a signal interval in the characteristic portion, and identify the solvent based further on the signal interval.
However, Jones teaches the analogous art of an NMR measurement apparatus (Jones: Title) that includes at least one processor (Jones; fig. 1 and 2 illustrate what appears to be a processor monitor) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify a signal interval in the characteristic portion, and identify the solvent based further on the signal interval (Jones; fig. 3).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Hachitani’s at least one processor to be configured to identify a signal interval in the characteristic portion, and identify the solvent based further on the signal interval as taught by Jones because Jones teaches an NMR measurement apparatus (Jones: Title) that includes at least one processor (Jones; fig. 1 and 2 illustrate what appears to be a processor monitor) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to identify a signal interval in the characteristic portion, and identify the solvent based further on the signal interval (Jones; fig. 3).
This allows to identify the peaks that represent the sample characteristic portion and the solvent.
Regarding claim 5, modified Hachitani teaches the NMR measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (see above) to include at least one processor (see above).
Modified Hachitani fails to teach wherein the nucleus of interest is a first nucleus of interest; wherein the NMR spectrum is a first NMR spectrum comprising a first characteristic portion intrinsic to the first nucleus of interest; and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to acquire the first NMR spectrum acquire, from a second nucleus of interest included in the solvent, a second NMR spectrum comprising a second characteristic portion intrinsic to the second nucleus of interest, analyze the first NMR spectrum, to thereby identify a number of nucleus-of-interest signals forming the first characteristic portion; analyze the second NMR spectrum, to thereby identify a number of nucleus-of-interest signals forming the second characteristic portion; and identify the solvent based on the splitting information, the number of the nucleus-of-interest signals forming the first characteristic portion, and the number of the nucleus-of-interest signals forming the second characteristic portion.
However, Hausler teaches the analogous art of an NMR measurement device (Hausler; Title) that includes at least one processor (Hausler; fig. 2. 26 and [0070] “the control unit having a processor unit”) and a first and second NMR spectrum (Hausler; fig. 4. 48) wherein the NMR spectrum is a first NMR spectrum comprising a first characteristic portion intrinsic to the first nucleus of interest; and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to acquire the first NMR spectrum acquire, from a second nucleus of interest included in the solvent, a second NMR spectrum comprising a second characteristic portion intrinsic to the second nucleus of interest, analyze the first NMR spectrum, to thereby identify a number of nucleus-of-interest signals forming the first characteristic portion; analyze the second NMR spectrum, to thereby identify a number of nucleus-of-interest signals forming the second characteristic portion (Hausler; fig. 4. 48).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Hachitani’s processor to include a first and second NMR spectrum wherein the NMR spectrum is a first NMR spectrum comprising a first characteristic portion intrinsic to the first nucleus of interest; and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to acquire the first NMR spectrum acquire, from a second nucleus of interest included in the solvent, a second NMR spectrum comprising a second characteristic portion intrinsic to the second nucleus of interest, analyze the first NMR spectrum, to thereby identify a number of nucleus-of-interest signals forming the first characteristic portion; analyze the second NMR spectrum, to thereby identify a number of nucleus-of-interest signals forming the second characteristic portion as taught by Hausler because Hausler teaches an NMR measurement device (Hausler; Title) that includes at least one processor (Hausler; fig. 2. 26 and [0070] “the control unit having a processor unit”) wherein the NMR spectrum is a first NMR spectrum comprising a first characteristic portion intrinsic to the first nucleus of interest; and wherein the at least one processor is further configured to acquire the first NMR spectrum acquire, from a second nucleus of interest included in the solvent, a second NMR spectrum comprising a second characteristic portion intrinsic to the second nucleus of interest, analyze the first NMR spectrum, to thereby identify a number of nucleus-of-interest signals forming the first characteristic portion; analyze the second NMR spectrum, to thereby identify a number of nucleus-of-interest signals forming the second characteristic portion (Hausler; fig. 4. 48).
This allows to identify the peaks that represent the sample characteristic portion and the solvent.
Regarding claim 6, modified Hachitani teaches the NMR measurement apparatus according to claim 5 (see above), wherein the first nucleus of interest is an atomic nucleus of an element other than deuterium (Hachitani; [0042] “”observation of the nucleus of the sample”), and the second nucleus of interest is an atomic nucleus of deuterium.
Modified Hachitani does not explicitly teach a second nucleus of interest is an atomic nucleus of deuterium.
It would have been obvious to have a second nucleus of interest is an atomic nucleus of deuterium because it is known in the art that deuterated solvents are used in NMR spectroscopy.
The deuterated solvent would appear as a signal in an NMR spectra which would be the second nucleus of interest.
Regarding claim 7, modified Hachitani teaches the NMR measurement apparatus according to claim 1 (see above) to include at least one processor (see above).
Modified Hachitani fails to teach the at least one processor is further configured to manage, using a solvent table, a plurality of reference frequencies, wherein a reference frequency of the plurality of reference frequencies corresponding to the identified solvent is identified based on the solvent table, and wherein an operation of the NMR measurement apparatus is adjusted according to the reference frequency.
However, Jones teaches the analogous art of an NMR measurement apparatus (Jones: Title) that includes at least one processor (Jones; fig. 1 and 2 illustrate what appears to be a processor monitor) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to manage, using a solvent table, a plurality of reference frequencies, wherein a reference frequency of the plurality of reference frequencies corresponding to the identified solvent is identified based on the solvent table, and wherein an operation of the NMR measurement apparatus is adjusted according to the reference frequency (Jones; Tables 1-8).
To one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention it would have been obvious to modify Hachitani’s processor to be configured to manage, using a solvent table, a plurality of reference frequencies, wherein a reference frequency of the plurality of reference frequencies corresponding to the identified solvent is identified based on the solvent table, and wherein an operation of the NMR measurement apparatus is adjusted according to the reference frequency as taught by Jones because Jones teaches an NMR measurement apparatus (Jones: Title) that includes at least one processor (Jones; fig. 1 and 2 illustrate what appears to be a processor monitor) wherein the at least one processor is further configured to manage, using a solvent table, a plurality of reference frequencies, wherein a reference frequency of the plurality of reference frequencies corresponding to the identified solvent is identified based on the solvent table, and wherein an operation of the NMR measurement apparatus is adjusted according to the reference frequency (Jones; Tables 1-8).
The modification allows to identify the solvent using the solvent table.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEX RAMIREZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9756. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 - 5:00.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 272-1295. 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.
/A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798