DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office action is in response to Claims on 03/30/2026. Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10-15, 18, 23, 26-28 and 30-31 are pending. The effective filing date of the claimed invention is 10/21/2022.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/21/2022 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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, 4-5, 8, 10-15, 18, 23, 26-28 and 30-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1- Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10-14, are directed to a computer implemented method, which is a process that is deemed appropriate subject matter for a patent. Claims 15, and 26-28 are directed to a non-transitory processor-readable storage medium, which is a manufacture that is deemed appropriate subject matter for a patent. Claims 18, 23, and 30-31 are directed to an apparatus, which is a machine that is deemed appropriate subject matter for a patent. Accordingly, claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10-15, 18, 23, 26-28 and 30-31 pass step 1.
Step 2A, Prong 1-The independent claim 1 (and similarly independent claims 15 and 18) recites:
determining current state-related information pertaining to at least one returned inventory item (making a determination falls under a mental process because a human mind can make decisions about the current state of returned items. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind...such as observation, evaluation, judgements and opinion. When the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could be practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A>, 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-1742 (Fed. Circ. 2016), the act of making a determination is a mental process);
determining health-related information of the at least one returned inventory item by processing, using one or more artificial intelligence techniques, at least a portion of the current state-related information and historical inventory-related data associated with one or more additional inventory items (making a determination falls under a mental process because a human mind can make decisions about the current state of returned items using health related information. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind...such as observation, evaluation, judgements and opinion. When the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could be practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A>, 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-1742 (Fed. Circ. 2016), the act of making a determination is a mental process); and
wherein determining health-related information of the at least one returned inventory item comprises predicting a remaining useful life of the at least one returned inventory item using the one or more artificial intelligence techniques, and wherein predicting the remaining useful life of the at least one returned inventory item comprises predicting a length of time that the at least one returned inventory item will operate before requiring at least one of repair and replacement (making a determination is accomplished by making a prediction, the predication is based on a mathematical relationship by comparing repair and replacement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))(A) iii. a mathematical relationship between enhanced directional radio activity and antenna conductor arrangement (i.e., the length of the conductors with respect to the operating wave length and the angle between the conductors), Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 91, 40 USPQ 199, 201 (1939) (while the litigated claims 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 1,974,387 expressed this mathematical relationship using a formula that described the angle between the conductors, other claims in the patent (e.g., claim 1) expressed the mathematical relationship in words));
the remaining useful life comprising a length of time that the at least one returned inventory item will operate before requiring at least one of repair and replacement, by processing the at least a portion of the current state-related information and the historical inventory-related data associated with the one or more additional inventory items using a combination of multiple ones of the artificial intelligence techniques including one or more regression models, one or more degradation models, one or more classification models, and one or more similarity models, wherein the multiple ones of the artificial intelligence techniques are arranged as layers within a multi-layer model architecture configured for feature extraction of multiple features from the at least a portion of the current state-related information and the historical inventory-related data associated with the one or more additional inventory items (Making a determination is a mental process that can occur in the human mind. Having additional information about health related information, and using AI and visualization libraries are two tools used to perform the abstract idea. When additional elements are presented as tools to perform the abstract idea, they are considered to be presented in an “apply it” manner. See MPEP 2106.05(f));
and wherein the multiple similarity models comprise interconnected models including: (i) at least one hash similarity model configured to hash performance statistics for each of one or more components of the at least one returned inventory item against aggregate-level performance data across multiple additional inventory items to generate one or more hash similarity scores (making a determination is accomplished by making a prediction, the predication is based on a mathematical relationship by comparing repair and replacement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))(A) iii. a mathematical relationship between enhanced directional radio activity and antenna conductor arrangement (i.e., the length of the conductors with respect to the operating wave length and the angle between the conductors), Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 91, 40 USPQ 199, 201 (1939) (while the litigated claims 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 1,974,387 expressed this mathematical relationship using a formula that described the angle between the conductors, other claims in the patent (e.g., claim 1) expressed the mathematical relationship in words); additionally making a determination falls under a mental process because a human mind can make decisions about the current state of returned items using health related information. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind...such as observation, evaluation, judgements and opinion. When the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could be practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A>, 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-1742 (Fed. Circ. 2016), the act of making a determination is a mental process); (ii) at least one pairwise similarity model configured to calculate distance values between signals of failure using dynamic time warping with dynamic periodicity alignment to generate pairwise similarity scores (making a determination is accomplished by making a prediction, the predication is based on a mathematical relationship by comparing repair and replacement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))(A) iii. a mathematical relationship between enhanced directional radio activity and antenna conductor arrangement (i.e., the length of the conductors with respect to the operating wave length and the angle between the conductors), Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 91, 40 USPQ 199, 201 (1939) (while the litigated claims 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 1,974,387 expressed this mathematical relationship using a formula that described the angle between the conductors, other claims in the patent (e.g., claim 1) expressed the mathematical relationship in words); making a determination falls under a mental process because a human mind can make decisions about the current state of returned items using health related information. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind...such as observation, evaluation, judgements and opinion. When the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could be practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A>, 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-1742 (Fed. Circ. 2016), the act of making a determination is a mental process); and (iii) at least one residual similarity model configured to receive, as input, the one or more hash similarity scores generated by the at least one hash similarity model and the pairwise similarity scores generated by the at least one pairwise similarity model, and to determine one or more distinctions among the at least one returned inventory item and the multiple additional inventory items based at least in part on one or more residual patterns derived from one or more differences between the one or more hash similarity scores generated by the at least one hash similarity model and the pairwise similarity scores generated by the at least one pairwise similarity model (making a determination is accomplished by making a prediction, the predication is based on a mathematical relationship by comparing repair and replacement, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I))(A) iii. a mathematical relationship between enhanced directional radio activity and antenna conductor arrangement (i.e., the length of the conductors with respect to the operating wave length and the angle between the conductors), Mackay Radio & Tel. Co. v. Radio Corp. of America, 306 U.S. 86, 91, 40 USPQ 199, 201 (1939) (while the litigated claims 15 and 16 of U.S. Patent No. 1,974,387 expressed this mathematical relationship using a formula that described the angle between the conductors, other claims in the patent (e.g., claim 1) expressed the mathematical relationship in words); making a determination falls under a mental process because a human mind can make decisions about the current state of returned items using health related information. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A) “claims do recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind...such as observation, evaluation, judgements and opinion. When the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could be practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A>, 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-1742 (Fed. Circ. 2016), the act of making a determination is a mental process);
performing one or more automated actions in connection with the at least one returned inventory item based at least in part on at least a portion of the determined health-related information (performing a task associated with returned inventory is a certain method of organizing human activity, and more specifically it is a commercial interaction because it is an action taken in regards to returned inventory, which is part of commercial transactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(Il) “activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping’);
wherein performing one or more automated actions comprises automatically refurbishing at least one or more portions of the at least one returned inventory item upon a determination that the predicted remaining useful life of the at least one returned inventory item is above a designated value (additional elements discussed below);
and automatically training at least a portion of at least one of the one or more regression models, the one or more degradation models, the one or more classification models, and the one or more similarity models, using feedback related to the predicted remaining useful life of the at least one returned inventory item, wherein automatically training further comprises selecting, based at least in part on the training, at least a given one of the one or more regression models for use in predicting a remaining useful life of an additional returned inventory item related to the at least one returned inventory item (The act of training AI techniques is the basis for using the AI techniques to perform actions. Updating the tool that is being used to perform an abstract idea, still pertains to the abstract idea of performing an action, which continues to be grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity. Using AI techniques as tools remain an application of the abstract idea on a computer element. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and also See the July 2025 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Example 47, claim 2, in which the claims do not include language beyond using the machine learning model and application of the abstract idea on the machine learning model was found to be ineligible);
wherein the method is performed by at least one processing device comprising a processor coupled to a memory (additional elements discussed below).
When viewed alone and in combination, these models with determination limitations recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2- The additional elements found in independent claim 1 include, a computer, a processor, a memory, automatic refurbishing and artificial intelligence techniques.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements fail to improve the functionality of a computer, or provide more than mere application on a computer. See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1).
The computer, processor and memory are claimed in name, as a means to perform the abstract idea. When additional elements are presented as tools to perform the abstract idea, they are considered to be presented in an “apply it” manner. See MPEP 2106.05(f) As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent- eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 707 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art’).
The artificial intelligence techniques are also described as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Making a determination is a mental process, and using a computer tool to aid in the determination is using a computer element as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Mere application of AI does not contribute more than the abstract idea. See the July 2025 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Example 47, claim 2, in which the claims do not include language beyond using the machine learning model and application of the abstract idea on the machine learning model was found to be ineligible.
The automatic refurbishing is recited as a solution to the problem, and does not recite details of how a solution to the problem is accomplished. See MPEP 2106.05(f) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words “apply it”. The details to refurbish are that actions are automatically performed, with no details of what actions, or how they are applied.
Independent claim 15 adds the additional elements of a storage medium, program code and software program. The claims recite the same determination and performance steps as claim 1 that describe mental processes and commercial interactions. When additional elements are presented as tools to perform the abstract idea, they are considered to be presented in an “apply it” manner. See MPEP 2106.05(f) As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent- eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 707 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art’).
Independent claim 18 adds an apparatus. The claims recite the same determination and performance steps as claim 1 that describe mental processes and commercial interactions. When additional elements are presented as tools to perform the abstract idea, they are considered to be presented in an “apply it” manner. See MPEP 2106.05(f) As explained by the Supreme Court, in order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent- eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do “‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it”. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 573 U.S. 208, 221, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1982-83 (2014) (quoting Mayo Collaborative Servs. V. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965). Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. See also 573 U.S. at 224, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (warning against a § 707 analysis that turns on “the draftsman’s art’).
When viewed alone and in ordered combination, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B-The independent claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the elements combined would not be more than application on a computer element.
In order to be more than an abstract idea, the claims should indicate that the details of how the solution is accomplished, but instead the claims recite only the idea of a solution (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). This is specifically showcased by the limitation of “method performed by”, with no details about how the computer elements would be more than a tool to perform the abstract method steps. With no limitation to provide a solution to a problem, the claims therefore, fail to integrate the abstract idea. The other additional elements follow the same reasoning, that the mental processes and commercial interactions that are being performed on the computers, are claimed as applications on those elements and does not do more than link the elements with the abstract idea. The artificial intelligence techniques do no more than naming a part of a computer to perform a task. The use of solution-based language does not indicate an improvement or integration in computer technology. Therefore the independent claims 1, 15 and 18 remain an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4-5 add the step of predicting the remaining life of returned inventory, aided by different artificial intelligence techniques. Making predictions is a mental process, and it is being aided by the computer tool of artificial intelligence. Claims 3-6 add language about the specific prediction model, but naming a narrower computer tool to implement the abstract idea does not prevent the prediction that could occur in the human mind from being aided by being performed on computer elements. See the July 2025 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Example 47, claim 2, in which the claims do not include language beyond using the machine learning model and application of the abstract idea on the machine learning model was found to be ineligible.
Dependent claim 8 adds the action to be performed with the inventory item after a decision is made. The act of directing a person to complete an action related to inventory items is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity, because it pertains to commercial activities. The decision making is aided by artificial intelligence techniques, but fails to integrate the abstract idea with the computer elements, and simply uses the AI techniques as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See the July 2025 Subject Matter Eligibility Examples, Example 47, claim 2, in which the claims do not include language beyond using the machine learning model and application of the abstract idea on the machine learning model was found to be ineligible.
Dependent claims 10-11 adds obtaining and merging historical data associated with the inventory item. Obtaining information and combining that information is an action that may be performed in the mind, and grouped as a mental process. Inventory management tools used to process data on a computer is a tool to perform the abstract idea. When additional elements are presented as tools to perform the abstract idea, they are considered to be presented in an “apply it” manner. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 12, 23 and 26 adds descriptive language about how the determination of health-related information is processes using AI and visualization libraries. Making a determination is a mental process that can occur in the human mind. Having additional information about health related information, and using AI and visualization libraries are two tools used to perform the abstract idea. When additional elements are presented as tools to perform the abstract idea, they are considered to be presented in an “apply it” manner. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 13 adds descriptive language about how the determination of current state related information is processed. Making a determination is a mental process that can occur in the human mind. Having additional information about current state information on a processor additional element is using the additional element as a tool to perform the abstract idea. When additional elements are presented as tools to perform the abstract idea, they are considered to be presented in an “apply it” manner. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent claim 14 adds details of the information stored about inventory items. The additional information is in relation to the determination step in claim 1 and is extra solution activity to the determination step. This makes the information relating to a mental process, and connected to the processor to implement the abstract idea. When additional elements are presented as tools to perform the abstract idea, they are considered to be presented in an “apply it” manner. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent Claims 27-28, and 30-31 add the distinction of what two regression models are used to make the determination about the health of the inventory item. Describing a model with language that describes how every model is used, does not provide more than the abstract idea. Using a regression model, in its typical use to make a determination using the model does not do more than use the models as a tool to apply it. When making a determination is a mental process that can occur in the human mind, and it uses an additional element of the AI algorithm. Having additional information about current state information on a processor additional element is using the additional element as a tool to perform the abstract idea. When additional elements are presented as tools to perform the abstract idea, they are considered to be presented in an “apply it” manner. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore the dependent claims 4-6, 8, 10-14, 23, and 26-32 remain an abstract idea.
Claim Limitations not found in Prior Art
Claims 1, 4-5, 8, 10-15, 18, 23, 26-28 and 30-31 are not found in prior art.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 2024/0104516 A1 Dar Mousa ("Mousa") teaches checking the status of inventory items (Mousa Abstract, [0045-48] at block 2, the system configured the return item to commodity level, which takes information received about the current state of the returned product and input into a configuration calculator, which uses constraints such as mandatory features, to determine the future possibilities of the returned items; [0086]).
US 2022/0137149 A1 Chueh et el. ("Chueh") teaches estimating the remaining life of a product (Chueh Abstract, improving the estimation of battery life) using AI (Chueh [0018] the prediction model is used to determine the end of life, and therefore it predicts the amount of time the item will last before it needs to be replaced).
US 2022/0138618 A1 Lee et al. (“Lee”) teaches machine learning modes (Lee Abstract, machine learning model; [0015-17] the machine learning classification system may be one class, or multi class, and used to predict the end of life of the item; end of life is when the product will fail, and therefore teaches the classification used to predict the time of failure).
US 2023/0196741 A1 Raghavan et al. (“Raghavan”) teaches determining similarities between products (Raghavan Abstract, measure a relative similarity between nodes by comparing image values) and performance data (Raghavan [0097] hashing conversion of images, giving specific nodes from the image a hash, then calculating the difference between two hashes, in order to determine similarity of two different analyzed images).
US 11,315,069 B2 Kentris et al. teaches e-commerce platforms (Abstract).
US 2015/0254601 A1 Rodrigues teaches inventory control (Abstract).
US 2021/0035250 A1 Ganesan et al. teaches inventory management (Abstract).
The claim limitations not found in the prior art are as follows:
processing the at least a portion of the current state-related information and the historical inventory-related data associated with the one or more additional inventory items using a combination of multiple ones of the artificial intelligence techniques including one or more regression models, one or more degradation models, one or more classification models, and one or more similarity models, wherein the multiple ones of the artificial intelligence techniques are arranged as layers within a multi-layer model architecture configured for feature extraction of multiple features from the at least a portion of the current state-related information and the historical inventory-related data associated with the one or more additional inventory items;
automatically training at least a portion of at least one of the one or more regression models, the one or more degradation models, the one or more classification models, and the one or more similarity models, using feedback related to the predicted remaining useful life of the at least one returned inventory item, wherein automatically training further comprises selecting, based at least in part on the training, at least a given one of the one or more regression models for use in predicting a remaining useful life of an additional returned inventory item related to the at least one returned inventory item.
The claim limitations are not found in the prior art, but the claims remain rejected under 101.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 101, Applicant point to Ex Parte Desjardins et al. which describes that categorically excluding AI innovations from patent prosecution is improper. Examiner notes that in the previous action, AI was not the reason for labeling the claim limitation as abstract, and therefore it was not categorically excluded because of is use of AI. Examiner noted that the claims limitation was determining health related information by processing information, and that is labeled as the abstract idea. The use of AI is not the reason for the label. The AI is also further evaluated to see how the AI technique is used to perform the mental process of analyzing information, and the way in which the AI is integrated into the claim language is as a tool to perform the analysis, and under MPEP 2106.05(f) when the additional element (the AI technique) is recited as a general tool to perform the idea, and is recited in an outcome only technique, without any details to how the technical process is achieved, it fails to provide more than the abstract idea.
Applicant next notes that the integration happens under MPEP 2106.05(a), which would be the improvement to the functioning of a computer, and this is accomplished by improving the accuracy and performance of machine learning model. However, Examiner points to the way the machine learning model is improved, and that is comparing results from the analysis, which is the abstract idea. Therefore, the improvement is to the determination, which is the abstract idea, not to the way a computer would function, and continue to not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant next points to the amended claim language, which includes three possible models to make predictions. Examiner discussed the amendments with QAS Jamisue Plucinski about the word “interconnected” and what would be required of the claim limitations to be eligible. When the different models individually show mathematical relations, and could possibly be performed mentally, doing three models would follow the same reasoning. Some examples of eligible claim limitation is based on multi-level training of AI tools, but those specific eligible claims showcase how the data flows between layers in order to train the model’s. This is distinct from the instant claims where the machine learning technique simply states that they are interconnected, and does not describe how they are interconnected, and therefore fails to claim the training of AI beyond a descriptive results application which is described in MPEP 2106.05(f) as a specific way in which the additional element fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant points to the interconnections between the models as the reasoning for claim eligibility. However, Examiner looks at the claim language which takes the results from two separate models, and then compares them with the third model. The language of the claims and how they interconnect with each other describes outcome based solutions, and now how the different layers would be effected, rather that a better input creates a better output by using two models instead of one. Performing two abstract ideas in a row does not showcase how the actual computer technology is improved, just that the calculation is improved by better data. This means that the improvement is to the analysis, not the technology, and the claims remain ineligible under 101.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JESSICA E SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9501. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th; 9:00 AM-5PM EST.
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, FAHD OBEID can be reached at (571) 270-3324. 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.
/JESSICA E SULLIVAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3627
/FAHD A OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3627
Prosecution Insights