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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to Applicant’s communication received on April 02, 2026, wherein claims 1-2, 4-10, and 12-17 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's remarks have been fully considered but they are geared towards the amended claims with newly added limitations. The newly amended claims and the newly added limitations are considered for the first time in the rejection below.
35 USC §101 discussion:
The claimed concept (claimed limitations and terms) in the amended claims are directed to obtaining and using abstract and non-technical information, organizing and manipulating the abstract type information (reducing a number (of inputs of information/data), etc., using the information for predictions and mathematical computation), and using the results to improve a forecasting model (no technical improvement is shown to a technical element/device/component/etc., nor any improvement shown to any technical environment – instead a prediction model is “improved” to give abstract results using abstract information; i.e. improving (based on Applicant’s own stated abstract steps) forecasting/predictions (by “improving” models) is an abstract idea). Applicant also adds creating groups of information which is abstract in nature as it is information organization. None of the added limitation and terms to the newly amended claims improve/effect any technology or any technical environment. The stated “features” are just fundamental economic abstract information/variables (e.g. macroeconomic drivers/features/information, supply chain drivers/information/features – see fig. 2) used in the determination, calculation, and other data determining abstract steps which are geared towards forecasting/predicting in a business setting. The amended/added limitations include “impact of rare events” which is according to specification are abstract event such as “pandemic” etc. The rare event is abstract non-technical information on known type abstract “events.” Hence, the added limitations (“model, the impact including interference from rare event impacted data and delayed influence from lagged data sets; modifying rare event impacted data in the data set associated with at least one of the drivers”) and terms to the amended claims are abstract in nature as they analysis and manipulate (including modifying abstract information) abstract information and the limitations remain non-technical in nature. Also, note that “quantifying” information is mathematical in nature is also an abstract step/idea. Additionally, “lag” data/features is/are just non-technical values (which can be numerical – see Applicant’s specification at paras. 0060-0062, 0070) applied in the mathematical models and further used in forecasting/predicting. The limitation “wherein the drivers comprise one or more social media drivers and one or more non-social media drivers” shows that drivers are data and the data comprises social media related information and non-social media information. The limitation “wherein the one or more lags are selected based on data variability and the impact of the lagged data on the forecasting model” only discusses selecting abstract information based on an impact on a mathematical forecasting model. Hence, both the newly added limitations (“wherein the drivers comprise one or more social media drivers and one or more non-social media drivers” and “wherein the one or more lags are selected based on data variability and the impact of the lagged data on the forecasting model”) are non-technical and abstract in nature and do not help overcome the §101 rejection – i.e. the limitations do not show any improvement in any technical element or any technology. The independent and dependent claims recite obtaining/receiving and identifying information/data (abstract information regarding sales and/or demand and that effects sales/demand), data analysis and manipulation to determine more abstract information/data (generating information and organizing and selecting information; also uses mathematical concepts), and providing/displaying this determined data for further use (in forecasting and determining accuracy of forecasting; also uses mathematical concepts to help make determinations and forecasting/predictions (note that lag is a value represented mathematically – e.g. see paras.0060-0064 )). The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data. The limitations of the independent claims and dependent claims, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activities (fundamental economic principles or practices (of forecasting/predicting in a sales/retail (demand-supply) environment) and commercial interactions)) and mathematical concepts (generating and modelling steps – calculations made). Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mathematical concepts grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The claims only recite generic/general-purpose computers and computing/technical elements. For example, recitations in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, and 3-8 of training and generic implication of machine learning, social media, input, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc.,; recitation in independent claim 9 and its dependent claims 10, and 12-16 of systems, processors, memories, training and generic implication of machine learning, social media, input, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc.,; recitation in independent claim 17 of non-transitory computer program product, processor, storage, computer, training and generic implication of machine learning, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of the generic/general-purpose computers and computing/technical elements the claims are geared towards and recite the above stated abstract idea of organizing human activities (fundamental economic principles or practices (of forecasting/predicting in a sales/retail (demand-supply) environment) and commercial interactions)) and mathematical concepts (generating and modelling steps – calculations made). The generic/general-purpose elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool.. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. See further details int eh rejection below.
The additional elements (for example, recitation in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, and 3-8 of training and generic implication of machine learning, social media, input, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc.,; recitation in independent claim 9 and its dependent claims 10, and 12-16 of systems, processors, memories, training and generic implication of machine learning, social media, input, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc.,; recitation in independent claim 17 of non-transitory computer program product, processor, storage, computer, training and generic implication of machine learning, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc.,) are also insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims recite using known and/or generic/general-purpose computers and computing/technical devices/elements/components/etc., and software. For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art — as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, ¶¶ 0090-0095 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2358. Also see rejection below for further details.
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 1-2, 4-10, and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Note: The above discussion regarding §101, in the Response to Arguments section, is also fully incorporated in this rejection in addition to the rejection below.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claims 9-10 and 12-16 are directed to a system (i.e. machine), and claim 17 is directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. product or article of manufacture). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Regarding Step 2A, Prong 1; see MPEP 2106.04) The claimed concept (claimed limitations and terms) in the amended claims are directed to obtaining and using abstract and non-technical information, organizing and manipulating the abstract type information (reducing a number (of inputs of information/data), etc., using the information for predictions and mathematical computation), and using the results to improve a forecasting model (no technical improvement is shown to a technical element/device/component/etc., nor any improvement shown to any technical environment – instead a prediction model is “improved” to give abstract results using abstract information; i.e. improving (based on Applicant’s own stated abstract steps) forecasting/predictions (by “improving” models) is an abstract idea). Applicant also adds creating groups of information which is abstract in nature as it is information organization. The independent claims (1, 9, 17) and dependent claims (2, 4-8, 10, 12-16) recite obtaining/receiving and identifying information/data (abstract information regarding sales and/or demand and that effects sales/demand), data analysis and manipulation to determine more abstract information/data (generating information and organizing and selecting information; also uses mathematical concepts), and providing/displaying this determined data for further use (in forecasting and determining accuracy of forecasting; also uses mathematical concepts to help make determinations and forecasting/predictions (note that lag is a value represented mathematically – e.g. see paras.0060-0064)). The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data. The amended/added limitations include “impact of rare events” which is according to specification are abstract event such as “pandemic” etc. The rare event is abstract non-technical information on known type abstract “events.” Hence, the added limitations (“model, the impact including interference from rare event impacted data and delayed influence from lagged data sets; modifying rare event impacted data in the data set associated with at least one of the drivers”) and terms to the amended claims are abstract in nature as they analysis and manipulate (including modifying abstract information) abstract information and the limitations remain non-technical in nature. Also, note that “quantifying” information is mathematical in nature is also an abstract step/idea. The newly added limitations and terms in the amended claims are directed to using abstract information (historical data), reducing a number (of inputs of information/data), etc., and using the information for computation. Applicant also adds creating groups of information which is abstract in nature as it is information organization. None of the added limitation and terms to the newly amended claims improve/effect any technology or any technical environment. Also note that the stated “features” (used to replace the term “drivers”) are just fundamental economic abstract information/variables (e.g. macroeconomic drivers, supply chain drivers – see fig. 2) used in the determination, calculation, and other data determining abstract steps which are geared towards forecasting/predicting in a business setting. Additionally, “lag” data/features is/are just non-technical values (which can be numerical – see Applicant’s specification at paras. 0060-0062, 0070) applied in the mathematical models and further used in forecasting/predicting. The limitation “wherein the drivers comprise one or more social media drivers and one or more non-social media drivers” shows that drivers are data and the data comprises social media related information and non-social media information. The limitation “wherein the one or more lags are selected based on data variability and the impact of the lagged data on the forecasting model” only discusses selecting abstract information based on an impact on a mathematical forecasting model. Hence, both the newly added limitations (“wherein the drivers comprise one or more social media drivers and one or more non-social media drivers” and “wherein the one or more lags are selected based on data variability and the impact of the lagged data on the forecasting model”) are non-technical and abstract in nature and do not help overcome the §101 rejection – i.e. the limitations do not show any improvement in any technical element or any technology.
The limitations of the independent claims (1, 9, 17) and dependent claims (2, 4-8, 10, 12-16), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activities (fundamental economic principles or practices (of forecasting/predicting in a sales/retail (demand-supply) environment) and commercial interactions)) and mathematical concepts (generating and modelling steps – calculations made) but for the recitation of: recitation in Independent claim 1 and its dependent claims 2, and 3-8 of training and generic implication of machine learning, social media, input, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc.,; recitation in independent claim 9 and its dependent claims 10, and 12-16 of systems, processors, memories, training and generic implication of machine learning, social media, input, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc.,; recitation in independent claim 17 of non-transitory computer program product, processor, storage, computer, training and generic implication of machine learning, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc. If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57). If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations then it falls within the Mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04 and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance - Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, pages 50-57).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mathematical concepts grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of, for example, recitation in Independent claim 1 and it’s dependent claims 2-8 of training and generic implication of machine learning, social media, input, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc.,; recitation in independent claim 9 and it’s dependent claims 10-16 of systems, processors, memories, training and generic implication of machine learning, social media, input, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc.,; recitation in independent claim 17 of non-transitory computer program product, processor, storage, computer, training and generic implication of machine learning, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc., in the context of the claims, the claim encompasses the abstract idea (organizing human activities and mathematical concepts) stated above. As shown above, the claims and specification recite generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing components which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (MPEP 2106.04; and also see 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The generic/general-purpose elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion. The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool.. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (organizing human activities (fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions, and data organization) and mathematical concepts) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes organizing human activities and mathematical concepts) involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The claims recite additional elements that are shown as using known and/or generic/general-purpose computer and computing devices/elements/components and software (for example, recitation in Independent claim 1 and it’s dependent claims 2-8 of training and generic implication of machine learning, social media, input, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc.,; recitation in independent claim 9 and it’s dependent claims 10-16 of systems, processors, memories, training and generic implication of machine learning, social media, input, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc.,; recitation in independent claim 17 of non-transitory computer program product, processor, storage, computer, training and generic implication of machine learning, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc.,). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, ¶¶ 0090-0095 [general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc.,]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claim into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional element(s) or combination of elements in the claim(s) other than the abstract idea per se amount(s) to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc.(U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (2, 4-8, 10, 12-16) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The above rejection includes and details the discussion of dependent claims and the above rejection applies to all the dependent claim limitations. In summary, the dependent claims further state using obtaining/receiving and identifying information/data (abstract information regarding sales and/or demand and that effects sales/demand), data analysis and manipulation to determine more data (generating information and organizing and selecting information; also uses mathematical concepts), and providing/displaying this determined data for further use (in forecasting and determining accuracy of forecasting; also uses mathematical concepts to help make determinations and forecasting/predictions). The claimed invention further uses mathematical steps to analyze and determine further data (model and analysis in forecasting are mathematical in nature). These claims are directed towards organizing human activities (fundamental economic principles or practices (forecasting in sales and supply-demand scenario) and commercial interaction); and further geared towards mathematical relationships (as discussed in the claims and the specification). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite generic components (for example, recitation in Independent claim 1 and it’s dependent claims 2-8 of training and generic implication of machine learning, social media, input, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc.,; recitation in independent claim 9 and it’s dependent claims 10-16 of systems, processors, memories, training and generic implication of machine learning, social media, input, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc.,; recitation in independent claim 17 of non-transitory computer program product, processor, storage, computer, training and generic implication of machine learning, application programming interfaces (APIs), web scrapers (getting information), drivers, etc.,) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic computer functions. (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance – Federal Register, Vol. 84, Vol. 4, January 07, 2019, page 53-55). The dependent claims also merely recites post-solution/extra-solution activities (with generic/general-purpose computers and/or computing components/devices/etc., - see above). The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities. The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea without adding any new additional elements. Also, the dependent claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the juridical exception (shown above) because the additional elements either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself (see discussion above).
Claims are not rejected under prior art but remain rejected under §101
The closed prior art regarding the independent claims are Siebel et al., (US 2022/0405775) and O'Rourke (US 2012/0226645). However, neither Siebel nor O'Rourke specifically disclose the limitations of the independent claims which recite “identifying a plurality of drivers applied to a forecasting model to capture both linear and non-linear patterns of actual data associated with a product or service… identify and filter errors from the respective data set extracted for each driver; applying one or more impact functions using the filtered data to determine impact of each driver on the forecasting model; generating one or more lagged data sets for each driver…for each driver…identifying a lag from the one or more lags such that the forecasting model, applied with a lagged data set associated with the identified lag and using the one or more impact functions, generates a prediction result with a least error value on one or more error metric value as compared with the actual data; combining each lagged data set associated with the identified lag for each driver.” Additionally, the specific ordered combination of the claim elements in the independent claims cannot be found in the prior art (including art cited in PTO-892) and can only be found in Applicant’s Specification. The prior art of record (including art cite on PTO-892) does not teach or suggest (the reference individually or in combination) Applicant’s current independent claims as a whole (it is the entire claimed concept described by the limitations collectively coming together that is not rejected under prior art (the core concept is shown in the claim as a whole — limitations organized in the specific form and coming together collectively to form the concept)). Furthermore, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all of the claim elements would not be obvious and would result in impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
As per the dependent claims, these claims depend on the independent claims not rejected under prior art above and incorporate the limitations thereof, and are therefore not rejected under prior art for at least the same rationale as applied to the independent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Note that all the claims are still rejected under §101 rejection and are therefore not allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the pertinent prior art is as follows:
Abdollahian et al., (US 11,392,847): An early warning and event monitoring computer device for predicting events is provided. The computer device programmed to a) store a plurality of models associated with a plurality of future events, b) receive a plurality of data from a plurality of data sources, c) preprocess the plurality of data to remove noise and populate the plurality of models with the plurality of data, d determine a subset of models of the plurality of models to execute based on a user query, e) execute the subset of models to receive a plurality of results, f) ensemble the plurality of results from the subset of models to determine a combination model, and g) execute the combination model to forecast at least one future event based on the user query. The computer device uses predictive analytical results to visualize which actors, events, sentiments, and key variables across the topologies are critical to support.
Castera et al., (US 2014/0122622): Discusses providing near real-time feedback when a user is composing a social media message. The feedback can indicate a predicted level of engagement with the social media message by other users of a social networking system. In some implementations, a prediction model is used to determine a predicted engagement score, which is an approximation of the predicted level of engagement with the social media message by the other users. A computing device can be configured to display a graphical representation of the predicted engagement score in a user interface at which the social media message is being composed.
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 GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights