DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 1 December 2025, have been fully considered. Claims 1-16 remain pending, where claims 1, 7, and 14-16 have been amended.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the drawings to address objections are satisfactory, therefore all objections to the drawings have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s efforts to amend the claims to address objections to the claim language are satisfactory, therefore all objections to the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments concerning the eligibility of the amended claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been considered but are not satisfactory. Although the independent claims have been amended to include a process for generating “aligned data channels,” the context of the invention is still vague. The claims describe traversing a “linear asset” and taking data, then representing “conditions” along the linear asset graphically, where conditions are represented on the same row if they overlap and satisfy a “grouping criterion.” There is little in the claim language that narrows the scope of interpretation for the term “linear asset” except that it is traversable and measurable. Similarly, the “grouping criterion” is only further limited in dependent claims by stating that it may comprise comparing the “priority” or “proximity” of first and second conditions. There is nothing in the claim language to further limit what a “condition” might represent. For these reasons, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract ideas of evaluating and assigning data. See 101 rejections below.
Applicant’s arguments regarding claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered.
The applicant argues that the teachings of Ebersohn, in combination with Pickard and Apuy, would not render obvious the conditional logic for determining row assignments of conditions based on coordinate overlap and grouping criteria. The applicant points to the fact that, in Fig. 10 of Ebersohn, data is distinguished in rows by time rather than conditional logic.
The examiner agrees that Fig. 10 separates data into rows by time, and acknowledged this in the previous office action. The examiner referred to Fig. 10 merely to show that one can avoid confusion by displaying spatially overlapping data by separating them into rows. In the previous office action, the examiner argued from Pickard that it would have been obvious to display a linear asset in map form, and from Apuy that it would have been obvious to represent conditions as line segments with visual characteristics, rather than the letter codes of Ebersohn (see Fig. 9). However, Fig. 9 also shows that different conditions may exist along proximate lengths of track. If one of ordinary skill in the art were to portray conditions as line segments along a map (applying the teachings of Pickard and Apuy), how would spatially overlapping conditions be treated? Ambiguity might be avoided by separating linear segments into rows, as shown in Fig. 10 of Ebersohn. The method of separating into rows may be different from that of Fig. 10, however. As given in the previous office action, the argument for depicting conditions in separate rows relied upon the reasoning of one of ordinary skill in the art when changing condition outputs to be line segments. Since multiple different conditions could exist along proximate portions of track, one would be motivated to separate those conditions into rows when certain criteria are satisfied, as a method of clearly distinguishing conditions.
The applicant argues that the examiner’s reliance of Fig. 6I of Apuy is misplaced because Apuy does not teach separating line segments into multiple rows. However, the examiner did not rely upon Fig. 6I for this reason. Rather, Fig. 6I of Apuy was relied upon to suggest: 1. That conditions along a linear asset may be portrayed with line segments having specified visual characteristics, and 2. That conditions of varying priority but having similar qualities may be clearly depicted along a single line segment by the use of certain visual characteristics. The rationale for separating line segments into multiple rows is given above.
Finally, the applicant argues that the Ebersohn, Pickard, Apuy, and Miller do not teach the amended limitations in claims 1 and 16. The examiner agrees. However, new grounds of rejection are given in light of the amendments. See 103 rejection below.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
At Step 1 of the 101 analysis, all claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claim 1 is rejected in response to the following analysis:
At Step 2A, Prong One, the judicial exceptions are bolded in the copy of claim 1 below:
A method for displaying a plurality of conditions of a linear asset, the method performed by at least one computer processor executing computer program instructions stored on at least one non- transitory computer-readable medium,
the method comprising:
(A) generating, on a display device, linear asset visual output representing the linear asset;
(B) generating aligned data channels by:
(i) obtaining survey channels comprising measurement units from multiple traversals of the linear asset;
(ii) analyzing the measurement units in the survey channels;
(iii) identifying measurements in the survey channels;
(iv) creating tie-down points at the identified measurements; and
(v) stretching or shrinking data between consecutive tie-down points;
(C) identifying, from the aligned data channels, first condition data representing a first condition within the plurality of conditions, wherein the first condition is assigned to a first row;
(D) identifying, from the aligned data channels, second condition data representing a second condition within the plurality of conditions;
(E) determining whether linear coordinates of the first condition overlap with linear coordinates of the second condition;
(F) in response to determining that the linear coordinates of the first condition do not overlap with the linear coordinates of the second condition, assigning the second condition to the first row;
(G) in response to determining that the linear coordinates of the first condition do overlap with the linear coordinates of the second condition, determining whether the first condition and the second condition satisfy a grouping criterion relative to each other; and
(H) in response to determining that the first condition and the second condition satisfy the grouping criterion relative to each other, assigning the second condition to the first row;
(I) in response to determining that the first condition and the second condition do not satisfy the grouping criterion relative to each other, assigning the second condition to a second row;
(J) generating, on the display device, first condition output representing the first condition in its assigned row; and
(K) generating on the display device, second condition output representing the second condition in its assigned row.
Step (B)(ii)-(v) describe evaluating and processing data, step (C) describes evaluating data and making an assignment for a first condition, while steps (D)-(I) recite evaluating data and implementing an algorithm for making an assignment for a second condition. These steps recite either mental or mathematical processes depending on the complexity of each step.
At Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements, none of which integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application, are:
Steps (A) and (J)-(K) recite generating a visual output on a display device. Outputting data in this way is insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Step (B)(i) describes obtaining measured data of a linear asset, which is mere data gathering (MPEP 2106.05(g)).
A general-purpose computer is implicitly recited by stating that the method of claim 1 is “performed by at least one computer processor executing computer program instructions stored on at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium.” In this capacity, the computer is invoked as a general tool to perform the judicial exceptions (MPEP 2106.05(f)).
At Step 2B, when considered as a whole, claim 1 recites processing measurement data of a “linear asset,” then displaying visuals of the linear asset and “conditions of [the] linear asset,” where a comparison is implemented to determine whether or not the conditions should be displayed on the same row. From the claim language, it is not clear what the context is; under broadest reasonable interpretation, the term “linear asset” could be interpreted in many ways to fit various contexts. The display is not applied to effect a real-world transformation, nor does the display represent a significant improvement to a technological field. For these reasons, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 16 recites the same limitations as claim 1 save that claim 16 describes a system comprising the general-purpose computer, while claim 1 is a method claim. The analysis of claim 1 applies to claim 16, therefore claim 16 is also ineligible.
Claims 2-3 recite that the output comprises line segments, which does not significantly change the analysis of claim 1. Claims 2-3 are therefore ineligible.
Claims 4 and 6-7 recite further judicial exceptions but do not significantly change the analysis of claim 1. Claims 4 and 6-7 are therefore ineligible.
Claim 5 recites that the outputs comprise a plurality of line segments. This does not significantly change the analysis of claim 1. Claim 5 is therefore ineligible.
Claims 8-10 recite that the first and second condition data have parameter values and that the output comprises visual characteristics depending on the parameter values. These claims do not significantly change the analysis of claim 1, therefore they are also ineligible.
Claims 11 and 13 recite displaying the first and second condition outputs, respectively, near the linear asset visual output. This does not significantly change the analysis of claim 1, therefore claims 11 and 13 are ineligible.
Claim 12 recites displaying the first condition asset parallel to the linear asset visual output. This does not significantly change the analysis of claim 1, therefore claim 12 is ineligible.
Claims 14-15 recite generating the first and second condition outputs, respectively, to have a curvature that matches the linear asset visual output. This does not significantly change the analysis of claim 1, therefore claims 14-15 are ineligible.
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 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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebersöhn et al (US 5978717 A; hereinafter “Ebersohn”) in view of Khosravi (“Reducing the positional errors of railway track geometry measurements using alignment methods: A comparative case study”), Pickard et al (US 20230082722 A1) and Apuy et al (US 20220391074 A1).
(Note that Pickard is a continuation of application No. 17/471995, filed on Sep. 10, 2021, which discloses all features of the patent application publication relied upon in the rejection below)
Regarding claim 1, Ebersohn discloses a method for displaying a plurality of conditions of a linear asset (Abstract: the invention provides a means for visualizing and inter-relating sets of track data; Fig. 2 depicts a sample user interface; Fig. 9 depicts multiple rail conditions along a track), the method performed by at least one computer processor executing computer program instructions stored on at least one non-transitory computer-readable medium (Title: the invention is a computer system implemented on a computer), the method comprising:
generating, on a display device, linear asset visual output representing the linear asset (Fig. 6, inventory window of a selected length of track);
identifying first condition data representing a first condition within the plurality of conditions, wherein the first condition is assigned to a first location (Fig. 9 and Column 8, lines 10-20: multiple rail defects are represented along a track, where the x-axis represents defect location along a track and the y-axis represents the date of detection; let one or more of the conditions represent the first condition);
identifying second condition data representing a second condition within the plurality of conditions (Fig. 9, let one or more other conditions not associated with the first condition represent the second condition);
generating, on the display device, first condition output representing the first condition in its assigned location (Fig. 9, the letter codes represent first and second condition outputs); and
generating on the display device, second condition output representing the second condition in its assigned location (Fig. 9, the letter codes represent first and second condition outputs).
Ebersohn does not explicitly disclose step (B), nor that the first and second conditions are assigned to rows, nor steps (E)-(I).
Khosravi teaches that position measurements of railroad tracks may have errors (Abstract). Many factors can contribute to these errors, such as irregularities in track geometry, wheel slippage, wheel sliding, and wheel wear (see Fig. 3). Because of this, track position data over multiple runs may need to be aligned (see Fig. 1). One method of aligning track data includes correcting absolute position errors (APEs) by comparing measurements to reference points using devices such as GPS or radio frequency identification (RFID) tags (pg. 2, column 1, ¶3: “APEs can be reduced using absolute position-based (APB) methods. APB methods locate the track geometry measurements based on the absolute position of reference points along the track by using positioning devices such as the Global Positioning System (GPS), radio frequency identification (RFID) tags, and by identifying markers along the track using mathematical models.”). Furthermore, “sliding and slipping of a wheel cause compression and stretching of the datasets, respectively,” which can be accounted for by stretching or shrinking data (pg. 4, column 2, ¶2, near the end).
Let a “measurement unit” describe a measurement comprising a location, time, and some parameter of the linear asset. Let “tie-down points” represent reference points with known position, such as from GPS or RFID.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Khosravi with the invention of Ebersohn by causing the method to comprise step (B) of generating aligned data channels by: (i) obtaining survey channels comprising measurement units from multiple traversals of the linear asset; (ii) analyzing the measurement units in the survey channels; (iii) identifying measurements in the survey channels; (iv) creating tie-down points at the identified measurements; and (v) stretching or shrinking data between consecutive tie-down points, then identifying the first and second condition data from the aligned data channels. Doing so would enable one to correct absolute position errors in track measurement data by fixing measurements to known reference points, then account for sliding or slipping between reference points by stretching or compressing data, respectively.
Ebersohn in view of Khosravi does not explicitly teach that the first and second conditions are assigned to rows, nor steps (E)-(I).
Pickard discloses a system and method for continuous welded rail risk modeling along a track (Abstract). As part of the invention, Pickard discloses a user interface which displays a train track on a map, as well as visuals of scored areas representing risk for a particular location (Fig. 10B, track 1004 and scored areas 1008; ¶238).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Pickard with the invention of Ebersohn by displaying the linear asset visual output on a map representing a surrounding region in order to provide a user with visual context and help a user geolocate a displayed portion of track.
Apuy discloses a method for depicting navigation routes for a vehicle including conditions along a route (Abstract; ¶217). As part of this invention, Apuy discloses displaying conditions such as traffic along a route, which are represented by linear segments depicting various values of a condition such as a traffic condition (Fig. 6I and ¶217, where light traffic 608h, moderate traffic 608i, and heavy traffic 608j may be depicted with different colors, patterns, translucencies, sizes to visually distinguish the portions).
Ebersohn discloses a maintenance window where the x-axis depicts distance along a track and the y-axis depicts time (Fig. 10; Column 8, lines 20-30). Track maintenance activities are depicted as lines such as line 101, where the length represents the region along the track where the maintenance was performed (Column 8, lines 20-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Apuy with the invention of Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard by representing the condition outputs as line segments which follow a track along the map. Doing so would provide a clear way to represent track condition data while a user views the map. Having done so, it would have been obvious to replace the letter code method of Ebersohn for conveying condition information with line feature method of Apuy, providing line segment features such as color, pattern, translucence, and size.
When implementing the method above, multiple conditions may exist along the same length of track or may be proximate to each other along the track (see Fig. 9 of Ebersohn, noting that the two leftmost conditions represent lengths of track which are close and may be overlapping). Depicting an arbitrary number of condition outputs for a small portion of track would be difficult if the line segments were restricted to lie along the track on the map. To easily display an arbitrary number of condition outputs, even if they correspond to a small portion of track, it would have been obvious to offset the line segments from the track so that they run parallel to and along the track, and to enable the line segments to be displayed in separate rows running parallel to each other (see Fig. 10 of Ebersohn, noting that different maintenance activities addressing overlapping portions of track are made distinguishable by separating the line segments vertically into rows). Again, having determined that line segments may be displayed in separate rows along a track, it would have been obvious to implement a criterion for determining whether the line segments should be depicted on separate rows or on the same row (such as when the condition data correspond to sufficiently distant portions of track; also see Apuy Fig. 6I, where the traffic conditions 608h-j represent similar condition types in proximate regions, and so are represented as contiguous line segments along a single path but have distinguishable patterns).
With the above in mind, it would have been obvious for the invention of Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy to assign the first condition to a first row, and then to implement the following steps:
determining whether linear coordinates of the first condition overlap with linear coordinates of the second condition;
in response to determining that the linear coordinates of the first condition do not overlap with the linear coordinates of the second condition, assigning the second condition to the first row;
in response to determining that the linear coordinates of the first condition do overlap with the linear coordinates of the second condition, determining whether the first condition and the second condition satisfy a grouping criterion relative to each other;
in response [to] determining that the first condition and the second condition satisfy the grouping criterion relative to each other, assigning the second condition to the first row; and
in response to determining that the first condition and the second condition do not satisfy the grouping criterion relative to each other assigning the second condition to a second row.
Applying the grouping criterion to overlapping conditions, where overlapping conditions satisfying the grouping criterion are assigned to the same row, would have been obvious because some conditions share similarities which would make grouping them as contiguous line segments on a single row intuitive (such as in Fig. 6I of Apuy, where differing traffic conditions are depicted on a single line; this makes sense because the conditions differ in priority but not in quality).
Finally, for continuity with the arguments above, it would have been obvious for the first and second condition outputs to be the line segments, which are displayed on their respectively assigned rows.
Regarding claim 16, the elements of claim 1 are found in claim 16. While Ebersohn does not explicitly disclose that computer program instructions stored on a non-transitory computer-readable medium are executed by a processor to perform the method of claim 1, Ebersohn does disclose that the method is performed on a computer (see the title of the invention). Therefore, it would have been obvious for the method to be performed in the way described in claim 16 since this is typically how computers implement software. The remaining steps of claim 16 are recited in claim 1, therefore claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that the first condition output comprises a first line segment (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 2, and further teaches that the second condition output comprises a second line segment (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 4, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 3, and further teaches that, in step (H), the first line segment and the second line segment are parallel to each other (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 3. Furthermore, in the case that the first and second conditions each represent a plurality of condition data values (see Fig. 9 of Ebersohn and the rejection of claim 1), it would have been obvious for the first condition output to comprise a plurality of first line segments and for the second condition output to comprise a plurality of second line segments.
Regarding claim 7, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for the step of determining whether the first condition and the second condition satisfy the grouping criterion relative to each other to comprise determining whether a location of the first condition is in proximity to a location of the second condition. If two conditions have overlapping linear coordinates, the overlap may be small or large (see Fig. 10 of Ebersohn, where maintenance line segments overlap by varying degrees), and by accounting for the degree of overlap when grouping the conditions by row one may convey that information visually.
Regarding claim 8, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 1. Apuy further teaches selecting a visual characteristic based on a parameter value (Fig. 6I and ¶217, traffic severity 608h-j have different visual characteristics based on the amount of delay along a section of a route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Apuy with the invention of Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy by causing the first condition data to have a first value of a first parameter; and causing the generating the first condition output to comprise: selecting a first visual characteristic based on the first value of the first parameter; and generating the first condition output to have the first visual characteristic. Recalling that conditions may represent defects (Ebersohn, Column 8, lines 10-20), it would have been obvious to include a parameter value of a first parameter which encodes the severity of the defect in order to classify priorities when planning and conducting maintenance. Then, it would have been obvious to select and display a visual characteristic of the condition output based on that value in order to quickly convey information about the severity (see Fig. 6I of Apuy which does this with traffic severity).
Regarding claim 9, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 8 and, under the same reasoning as given in the rejection of claim 8, it would have been obvious to cause the second condition data to have a second value of the first parameter; and to cause the generating the second condition output to comprise: selecting a second visual characteristic based on the second value of the first parameter; and generating the second condition output to have the second visual characteristic.
One would expect conditions along a train track to have varying levels of severity. In order to easily distinguish e.g. a mild condition from a severe one on the visual display, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to cause conditions with varying severity to be displayed with different visual characteristics (see Fig. 6I of Apuy, for example, where traffic conditions along a route vary and are displayed with different visual characteristics). For these reasons, then, it would have been obvious for the first value of the first parameter to differ from the second value of the first parameter; and for the first visual characteristic to differ from the second visual characteristic.
Regarding claim 10, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 9 and, following the reasoning in the rejection of claims 8 and 9, it would have been obvious for the first parameter to represent the severity of a condition. Since a condition’s severity would be useful for prioritizing maintenance tasks, the first parameter may be considered to comprise a priority parameter.
Regarding claim 11, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 1, and further teaches that (I) comprises displaying the first condition output near a first portion of the linear asset visual output that corresponds to the linear coordinates of the first condition (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 12, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 11, and further teaches that (I) comprises displaying the first condition output parallel to, and separated by some distance from, the corresponding portion of the linear asset visual output (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 13, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 11, and further teaches that (J) comprises displaying the second condition output near a second portion of the linear asset visual output that corresponds to the linear coordinates of the second condition (see rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 1. Apuy further discloses that a route indication may curve with the route (Fig. 6A and ¶203, where rout indication 608a curves along with the route).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Apuy with the invention of Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy by causing (I) to comprise generating the first condition output to have a curvature that matches a curvature of a first portion of the linear asset visual output that corresponds to the linear coordinates of the first condition. Doing so would enable a linear marker to clearly indicate a region in which a condition exists along a curved portion of track.
Regarding claim 15, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 14, and the arguments of claim 14 also render obvious causing (J) to comprise generating the second condition output to have a curvature that matches a curvature of a second portion of the linear asset visual output that corresponds to the linear coordinates of the second condition.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebersohn (US 5978717 A) in view of Khosravi (“Reducing the positional errors of railway track geometry measurements using alignment methods: A comparative case study”), Pickard (US 20230082722 A1) and Apuy (US 20220391074), and further in view of Miller et al (US 20070194099 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach the limitations of claim 6.
Miller teaches a system and method for tracking people affected by a public health crisis (Abstract). Miller discloses attaching a tag to victims of an incident (Fig. 1A, tag 300). The tag visually distinguishes victims by priority, where priority is represented by distinct rows of tabs (Fig. 1A, elements 312-320 categorize persons by priority, where ¶19 describes the elements as: 312, dead; 314, in need of immediate medical attention; 316, in need of delayed medical care; 318, minor injuries; 320, not a casualty).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Miller with the invention of Ebersohn in view of Khosravi and Pickard and Apuy by causing the step of determining whether the first condition and the second condition satisfy the grouping criterion relative to each other to comprise determining whether a priority of the first condition is equal to a priority of the second condition. By doing so, one would be able to group overlapping conditions by priority, such that overlapping conditions displayed in the same row have the same priority, while overlapping conditions in different rows have different priorities. Doing so would be useful for quickly conveying information about which maintenance tasks are most important.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Houghton (“Diagram of the Rise and Fall of American Political Parties, from 1789 to 1880, inclusive”) depicts conditions (US political party strength) along a linear dimension (time). A criterion is implemented (namely, strength of a political party relative to other parties) for determining which row to place the conditions in (stronger parties are depicted on a higher row relative to weaker parties). A grouping criterion (whether parties are of equal strength) is provided, where if the grouping criterion is satisfied, the conditions are assigned to the same row (As in 1800 when the Federalist and Democratic-Republican parties were of equal strength), and if the grouping criterion is not satisfied, the conditions are assigned to different rows (as in the later years of the Jefferson Presidency, when the Democratic-Republican party had more strength than the Federalist party).
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 ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS whose telephone number is (571)272-0266. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:30am-5pm.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached at (571) 272-2302. 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.
ETHAN WESLEY EDWARDS
Examiner
Art Unit 2857
/E.W.E./
Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857