DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-4 and 11 are presented for examination. Claim 1 stands currently amended. Claim 11 is new.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Finality of Office Action
The following is a brief summary description of new ground(s) of rejection (if any) and the reason why those new ground(s) are made necessary by this amendment:
New §112(b) rejections are made as necessitated by the amended claim language.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks filed 27 April 2026 have been fully considered and Examiner’s response is as follows:
Regarding 101:
Applicant remarks page 9 argues:
The Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim I is not directed to an abstract idea, but rather to a practical application in aircraft template inspection and quality control.
This argument is unpersuasive.
Regarding the “inspection” claim limitations, the scanning of the aircraft of (S1) has been analyzed as an “additional” limitation. However, they amount to generic data gathering recitations. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Regarding the allegation of an improvement to “quality control” Examiner notes the analysis of the respective data correspond with the identified judicially excepted mathematical concept. Accordingly, any improvement to quality control appears to be a result of the improvement to the judicially excepted mathematical subject matter. An improved abstract idea remains ineligible subject matter under §101.
Applicant remarks page 9 further argues:
The present invention addresses this technical problem by providing an automated, point-cloud-based inspection process tied to engineering standards.
Automating a previously manual activity by using mathematical analysis of the point cloud data corresponds with the identified judicially excepted mathematical concept. An engineering analysis reciting a mathematical concept is not patent eligible subject matter under §101.
Applicant remarks page 9 further argues:
Based on these steps, amended claim 1 further recites calculating an actual distance between a target point in the 3D digital model and a corresponding point in the resulting point cloud.
Calculating is one of the subcategories for mathematical concepts. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Accordingly, calculating the actual distance between points is itself part of the identified mathematical concept.
Applicant remarks page 10 further argues:
Critically, the claimed method does not merely compute distances, but instead: evaluates whether a physical aircraft template satisfies engineering tolerances defined for a design model in accordance with an aviation manufacturing standard.
This argument is unpersuasive. The mathematical criteria for making this determination is mathematical subject matter.
Furthermore, evaluation is one of the subcategories for mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). A combination of judicially excepted math and judicially excepted mental processes remains a recitation of an abstract idea.
Applicant remarks page 10 further argues:
The recited "preset distance threshold" is not an arbitrary value, but is determined based on an allowable tolerance associated with the target point, where such tolerance defines an allowable deviation range specified by a lofting template aviation standard. Thus, the claimed method is firmly rooted in real-world manufacturing requirements and directly tied to objective quality control criteria.
This argument is unpersuasive. It is irrelevant that the distance threshold numerical value is associated with a particular value. The comparison to the numerical distance threshold remains a mathematical comparison.
Applicant remarks page 11 further argues:
These features are not generic data processing steps, but instead define a specific manner of evaluating whether the aircraft template satisfies the lofting template aviation standard.
This argument is unpersuasive. The instant claims are easily distinguishable from McRO. In McRO the overall result was an observable product in the form of the animation created. Here, the end result is an evaluation of whether or not the aircraft template is qualified. Basically, a yes/no. The recited steps are mathematical and an evaluating would be a mental process if recited in isolation. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument that the claims define an evaluation does not weigh in favor of eligibility under the §101 subject matter eligibility criteria.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 6-10 were cancelled. Accordingly, Examiner's rejection of claims 6-10 under § 112 is withdrawn. However, a new rejection is made as follows:
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 step “(S11)” recites “importing and aligning, via a polyworks measurement software, the 3D digital model with the resulting point cloud.” The term Polyworks™ is a registered trademark. MPEP §2173.05(u) states:
a trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and is not the name of the goods themselves. Thus a trademark or trade name does not define or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. See definitions of trademark and trade name in MPEP § 608.01(v).
If the trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982).
Here the claim language “measurement software” does not appear to be appropriate generic terminology sufficient to render the claim language definite.
Applicant may wish to consider whether the Specification provides adequate disclosure to support amending the claim with corresponding generic terminology. See MPEP §2173.05(u).
Dependent claims 2-4 and 11 are rejected for depending from a rejected claim.
Claim 11 recites “a lofting template aviation standard HB-240-89.” This raises several distinct issues under §112(b). First, it is unclear what standard HB-240-89 refers to. A copy has not been provided and the phrase “HB-240-89” by itself does not clearly identify any cited source or reference to a particular document. A basic search for “HB-240-89” yields no clear results. Accordingly, the phase itself within the claim is indefinite. Second, assuming “HB-240-89” refers to a published standard found within the art, this appears to be an incorporation by reference of essential subject matter. While incorporation by reference is permitted within the Specification, it is not allowed in claims as incorporation by reference omits essential subject matter. See MPEP §2172.01. Third, this standard “HB-240-89” is not specified according to a fixed point in time. Standards are periodically updated and change over time. Fourth, “HB-240-89” may be multi-faceted and state more than one way to set an “allowable tolerance.” “HB-240-89” may itself be ambiguous in one or more aspects. Accordingly, it may be unclear to a person of ordinary skill in the art whether or not any particular “allowable tolerance” has, or has not been set according to “HB-240-89.”
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 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
To determine if a claim is directed to patent ineligible subject matter, the Court has guided the Office to apply the Alice/Mayo test, which requires:
1. Determining if the claim falls within a statutory category;
2A. Determining if the claim is directed to a patent ineligible judicial exception consisting of a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or abstract idea; and
2B. If the claim is directed to a judicial exception, determining if the claim recites limitations or elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
See MPEP §2106.
Step 2A is a two prong inquiry. MPEP §2106.04(II)(A). Under 2A(i), the first prong, examiners evaluate whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. Abstract ideas include mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes. MPEP §2106.04(a)(2). Under 2A(ii), the second prong, examiners determine whether any additional limitations integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. MPEP §2106.04(d).
Claim 1 step 2A(i):
The claim(s) recite:
(S2) establishing a local coordinate system of a template point cloud based on the zero-mean template point cloud;
(S3) rasterizing the template point cloud to obtain a plurality of local point clouds;
(S4) fitting a plane parameter of a target local point cloud to obtain a normal vector of the target local point cloud on a template point cloud plane and any point on the template point cloud plane;
(S5) acquiring an average of normal vectors of all points in the target local point cloud;
(S6) calculating a height of all points in the target local point cloud based on the average of the normal vectors of all points in the target local point cloud to obtain a sinking point in the target local point cloud;
(S7) calculating an angle between a normal vector of the sinking point in the target local point cloud and a normal vector of the template point cloud plane where the sinking point is located to obtain a cutting point of the aircraft template; wherein all cutting points of the aircraft template constitute a cutting line;
(S8) binarizing a point cloud image of the aircraft template to obtain outer contour points of the aircraft template; wherein the outer contour points constitute an outer contour of the aircraft template;
(S9) merging all cutting points and outer contour points of the aircraft template to obtain a resulting point cloud;
(S10) …;
(S11) importing and aligning, via a polyworks measurement software, the 3D digital model with the resulting point cloud;
(S12) calculating a distance between a target point in the 3D digital model and a corresponding point in the resulting point cloud to obtain an actual distance; and
(S13) determining whether the actual distance exceeds a preset distance threshold, wherein the preset distance threshold is determined based on an allowable tolerance associated with the target point in the 3D digital model, and wherein the allowable tolerance defines an allowable deviation range specified by a lofting template aviation standard;
in response to a determination that the actual distance does not exceed the preset distance threshold, confirming that the aircraft template is qualified;
in response to a determination that the actual distance exceeds the preset distance threshold, determining whether the number of points in the resulting point cloud of which the actual distance exceeds the preset distance threshold exceeds a preset number threshold;
in response to a determination that the number of points in the resulting point cloud of which the actual distance exceeds the preset distance threshold does not exceed the preset number threshold, confirming that the aircraft template is qualified;
in response to a determination that the number of points in the resulting point cloud of which the actual distance exceeds the preset distance threshold exceeds the preset number threshold, determining that the aircraft template is not qualified;
S2. Establishing a local coordinate system with a zero-mean point cloud is a mathematical construction involving respective mathematical calculations.
S3. Rasterizing is performing corresponding mathematical calculations.
S4. Fitting a plane parameter is further mathematical operations. Obtaining a normal vector is a mathematical calculation.
S5. Acquiring an average of normal vectors is further mathematical calculation.
S6. Calculating a height of all points from the average to obtain sinking point(s) of the point cloud is further mathematical calculation.
S7. Calculating an angle to obtain a cutting point and cutting line is further mathematical calculation.
S8. Binarizing the point cloud image is further mathematical operation.
S9. Merging the points is a mathematical operation of the mathematical construction of the resulting point cloud data.
S11. Aligning the point data of the digital model and point cloud is a mathematical operation.
S12. Calculating a distance between points is further mathematical calculation.
S13. Determining whether or not a distance numerical value exceeds a numerical threshold is a mathematical comparison. Determining that this calculated comparison determines whether an aircraft template is qualified or not qualified is an evaluation corresponding with a mental process or final determination of a mathematical algorithm.
Claim 1 further recites:
wherein the step (S8) is performed through steps of:
(S801) calculating a distance between a target point in the template point cloud and a point closest to the target point;
(S802) calculating a spatial resolution of the template point cloud according to the following formula:
l
=
1
n
∑
i
=
1
n
d
i
wherein / represents the spatial resolution of the template point cloud; n represents the total number of points in the template point cloud; and d represents a distance between an ith point in the template point cloud and a point closest to the ith point;
(S803) dividing an
X
1
O
1
Y
1
plane into a plurality of grids with the spatial resolution as an interval to obtain a binary image; wherein each of the plurality of grids is a pixel of the binary image; and an initial value of each pixel in the binary image is set to 0;
(S804) traversing all points in the template point cloud, and setting pixels corresponding to grids where the points in the template point cloud are respectively located as 1-value pixels;
(S805) traversing all 0-value pixels in the binary image, and setting a target 0-value pixel as a 1-value pixel, wherein in surrounding 8 pixels of the target 0-value pixel, the number of 1-value pixels exceeds a target number;
(S806) traversing all 1-value pixels in the binary image, and taking a 1-value pixel adjacent to a 0-value pixel as a contour pixel; and
(S807) taking a point in a grid corresponding to the contour pixel as the outer contour point of the aircraft template.
S801. Calculating a distance between points is further mathematical calculation.
S802. The mathematical formula recited for calculating a spatial resolution is an explicit recitation of mathematical subject matter.
S803. Dividing a plant into grids is a mathematical operation involving geometry.
S804-S806. Calculating the pixel values in the template point cloud is a mathematical calculation. These steps are an algorithmic recitation to calculate the contour pixels.
S807. The contour pixels of the grid are numerical values. Assigning a representative description (as outer contour points) does not change the values or alter the nature of these contour pixels to be non-mathematical in nature.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 1 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
The claim(s) recite:
1. A method for detecting defects in an aircraft template, comprising:
(S1) scanning the aircraft template to obtain a zero-mean template point cloud;
…
(S10) obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) digital model of the aircraft template; ….
The claim language “for detecting defects in an aircraft template” is a recitation of intended use. Furthermore, generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a field of use fails to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.05(h).
S1 and S10. Scanning a template to obtain a point cloud and obtaining a 3D digital model are generic non-specific recitations of data gathering. Mere data gathering is insignificant extra solution activity. See MPEP §2106.05(g).
Claim 1 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Limitations analyzed under MPEP §2106.05(h) in step 2A(ii) above are analyzed the same under step 2B.
The claim(s) recite:
1. …
(S1) scanning the aircraft template to obtain a zero-mean template point cloud;
…
(S10) obtaining a three-dimensional (3D) digital model of the aircraft template; ….
Obtaining data in a non-specific manner is a generic recitation of data gathering. MPEP §2016.05(d) provides examples “i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).” The generic recitation of “obtaining” encompasses receiving information transmitted over a network.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 2 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
2. The method of claim 1, wherein the step (S2) is performed through steps of:
(S201) calculating a product of a 3×n matrix formed from the zero-mean template point cloud and a transpose matrix of the 3×n matrix to obtain a covariance matrix; wherein n represents the number of points in the zero-mean template point cloud;
(S202) calculating three eigenvectors a1, a2 and a3 of the covariance matrix which are mutually orthogonal; wherein λ1 is an eigenvalue of a1, λ2 is an eigenvalue of a2, λ3 is an eigenvalue of a3, and λ1>λ2>λ3; and
(S203) establishing the local coordinate system of the template point cloud by taking the three eigenvectors a1, a2 and a3 respectively as X1-axis direction, Y1-axis direction and Z1-axis direction of the local coordinate system, and taking a zero point O1 as an origin of the local coordinate system.
S201. Calculating a product of a matrix is explicitly mathematical.
S202. Calculating eigenvectors is explicit recitation of mathematical subject matter.
S203. Establishing a coordinate system is a mathematical operation.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 2 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 2 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 3 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
3. The method of claim 1, wherein the step (S6) is performed through steps of:
(S601) calculating the height of all points in the target local point cloud according to the following formula:
h
j
i
=
p
j
i
-
p
j
0
∙
v
j
v
j
,
v
j
∙
v
j
-
<
0
p
j
0
-
p
j
i
∙
v
j
v
j
,
v
j
∙
v
j
-
≥
0
wherein
v
j
-
represents an average of normal vectors of all points in a target local point cloud j;
v
j
represents a normal vector of the target local point cloud j on the template point cloud plane;
p
j
i
represents an ith point in the target local point cloud j;
p
j
0
represents any point in the target local point cloud j; and
h
j
i
represents a height of the ith point in the target local point cloud j; and
(S602) setting a target height threshold; wherein a point in the target local point cloud whose height is less than the target height threshold is the sinking point.
S601. The mathematical formula recited is an explicit recitation of mathematical subject matter.
S602. The target threshold is a numerical value. Setting a numerical value as a part of a broader mathematical algorithm is a mathematical operation of the algorithm.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 3 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 3 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 4 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
4. The method of claim 1, wherein the step (S7) is performed through steps of:
(S701) calculating the angle between the normal vector of the sinking point in the target local point cloud and the normal vector of the template point cloud plane where the sinking point is located according to the following formula:
r
j
i
=
a
r
c
c
o
s
v
j
i
∙
v
j
v
j
wherein
r
j
i
represents an angle between a normal vector of an ith sinking point in a target local point cloud j and a normal vector of a template point cloud plane where the ith sinking point is located;
v
j
represents a normal vector of the target local point cloud j on the template point cloud plane; and
v
j
i
represents the normal vector of the ith sinking point in the target local point cloud j; and
(S702) setting a target angle threshold; wherein a sinking point in the target local point cloud corresponding to an angle less than the target angle threshold is the cutting point.
S701. The mathematical formula recited is an explicit recitation of mathematical subject matter.
S702. The target angle threshold is a numerical value. Setting a numerical value as a part of a broader mathematical algorithm is a mathematical operation of the algorithm.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 4 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 4 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Claim 11 step 2A(i):
Dependent claims recite at least the identified judicially excepted subject matter of their parent claim(s).
The claim(s) recite:
11. The method of claim 1, wherein the allowable tolerance is set according to a lofting template aviation standard HB-240-89.
Setting a tolerance value is a mathematical operation. Following a set of procedures or guidance (e.g. HB-240-89) for setting that tolerance value is further description of respective mathematical value setting.
This falls within the mathematical concept grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Claim 11 step 2A(ii):
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
Claim 11 step 2B:
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered individually and in combination, because:
Claim(s) do not recite any “additional” limitations.
When further considering the claims as a whole and as an ordered combination the claims fail to amount to significantly more than the judicially excepted abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1-4 and 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. §101, and under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) or 35 U.S.C. §112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
A statement of reasons for indication of allowable subject matter was previously presented in the office action dated 27 January 2026. For convenience, those reasons are restated here:
Jovančević, I., et al. “3D Point Cloud Analysis for Detection and Characterization of Defects on Airplane Exterior Surface” J. Nondestructive Evaluation, vol. 36, issue 74 (2017) [herein “Jovancevic”] page 4 step 2 “pre-processing” teaches:
We use Moving Least Squares (MLS) for smoothing the surface. MLS is a method of reconstructing a surface from a set of unorganized point data by higher order polynomial interpolations in the neighborhood of a fixed point. This technique was proposed by Lancaster and Salkauskas in 1981 [27] and developed by Levin [28,29]. We are approximating our cloud with a polynomial of second degree in
R
n
, since airplane fuselage is closest to this type of surface.
Reconstructing the surface corresponds with obtaining an outer contour of points which constitute an outer contour of the aircraft. But Jovancevic fails to teach a spatial resolution formula or binarization pixel grid.
US patent 12,067,083 B2 Wolke, et al. [herein “Wolke”] column 9 lines 1-3 teaches “an iterative closest point (ICP) technique is applied to match the points in the test cluster [point cloud] to the points in the reference cluster [i.e. CAD model].” Wolke fails to teach a spatial resolution formula or binarization pixel grid.
Intwala, A. & Magikar, A. “A Review on Process of 3D Model Reconstruction” IEEE Int’l Conf. on Electrical Electronics & Optimization Techniques, ICEEOT (2016) [herein “Intwala”] teaches technology background on converting point cloud data into a 3D model. Intwala fails to teach a spatial resolution formula or binarization pixel grid.
US patent 10,417,822 B2 Taubin [herein “Taubin”] column 1 line 37 teaches “surface reconstruction from point clouds.” Taubin column 8 lines 1-3 teach “a regular voxel grid of sufficiently high resolution, for instance such that different points fall in different voxels, must be chosen.” Taubin column 18 lines 19-25 teach “The non-convex hull surface reconstruction method includes the steps of fitting a non-convex hull signed distance function to the oriented points, evaluating the non-convex hull signed distance function on the vertices of a volumetric mesh, and approximating a zero level set of the non-convex hull signed distance function by the polygon mesh using an isosurface algorithm.” But Taubin fails to teach a spatial resolution formula or binarization pixel grid.
Hong-Seok, P. & Mani, T.U. “Development of an Inspection System for Defect Detection in Pressed Parts using Laser Scanned Data” Procedia Engineering, vol. 69, pp. 931-936 (2014) [herein “Hong-Seok”] abstract teaches a “feature based registration process to localize them with the respective CAD model and bring into same coordinate frame. A modified Iterative closest point (ICP) algorithm is proposed for the registration process.” Hong-Seok fails to teach a spatial resolution formula or binarization pixel grid.
Wang, Y., et al. “Density-Invariant Registration of Multiple Scans for Aircraft Measurement” IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation & Measurement, vol. 70 (2021) [herein “Wang”] abstract teaches an “influence of nonuniform distribution of point cloud density on registration accuracy.” Wang page 6 left column teaches “we use RANSAC combined with least scares method to fit two vertical intersection lines.” Wang section V teaches a density invariant global registration. The density corresponds with a spatial resolution, but Wang fails to teach binarization pixel grid.
None of the references taken either alone or in combination with the prior art of record disclose:
(S801) calculating a distance between a target point in the template point cloud and a point closest to the target point; (S802) calculating a spatial resolution of the template point cloud according to the following formula:
l
=
1
n
∑
i
=
1
n
d
i
wherein / represents the spatial resolution of the template point cloud; n represents the total number of points in the template point cloud; and d represents a distance between an ith point in the template point cloud and a point closest to the ith point;
(S803) dividing an
X
1
O
1
Y
1
plane into a plurality of grids with the spatial resolution as an interval to obtain a binary image; wherein each of the plurality of grids is a pixel of the binary image; and an initial value of each pixel in the binary image is set to 0;
(S804) traversing all points in the template point cloud, and setting pixels corresponding to grids where the points in the template point cloud are respectively located as 1-value pixels;
in combination with the remaining elements and features of the claimed invention.
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 Jay B Hann whose telephone number is (571)272-3330. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-7pm EDT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Jay Hann/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2186 15 June 2026
Prosecution Insights