DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to amendments received on 06/18/2025.
Claims 1, 3, and 4 are amended. Claims 1-4 are considered in this Office Action. Claims 1-4 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejections set forth in this Office Action.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101, however the arguments are primarily raised in light of applicant’s amendments. An updated 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection will address applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments have been considered with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103, however the arguments are primarily raised in light of applicant’s amendments. An updated 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection will address applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the “Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance” (as explained in MPEP 2106).
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the apparatus (claims 1-2), the method (claim 3), and the non-transitory computer readable storage (claim 4) are directed to an eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture respectively). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2, and in particular Step 2A Prong One of 2019 PEG, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea of resource planning and management can be categorized as “Mental process”, and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions — business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between entities —including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). The claims further recite an abstract idea by reciting a mental process which is a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The limitations reciting the abstract idea are highlighted in italics and the limitation directed to additional elements highlighted in bold, as set forth in exemplary claim 1, are: A city management support apparatus that supports management of a city in which a plurality of services sharing a physical resource are provided, the city management support apparatus comprising: a display; at least one memory storing at least one program; and at least one processor configured to execute the at least one program, wherein the at least one program is configured to cause the at least one processor to execute: receiving an input of information on a provision status of the resource; receiving an input of a service definition for each of the plurality of services; predicting statuses for each of the plurality of services and a status of resource acquisition competition between services in the future by a predetermined time using a prediction model based on the input information; calculating a time transition of dependency of the plurality of services on the resource based on the service definition for each of the plurality of services; detecting a competition for acquisition of the resource among the plurality of services based on the time transition of the dependency; and generating a proposed amendment to the service definition for at least one of the plurality of services so as to optimize the competition for the acquisition of the resource among the plurality of services; and displaying, on the display, a flowchart for the at least one of the plurality of services in which a service status of the resource according to the proposed amendment is highlighted at a current block of time. Claims 3 and 4 recite substantially the same limitation as claim 1 and therefore subject to the same rationale.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of MPEP 2106.04, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements are directed to a city management support apparatus, a display, at least one memory storing at least one program, and at least one processor configured to execute the at least one program, wherein the at least one program is configured to cause the at least one processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a city management support program for causing a computer to execute processing for supporting management of a city in which a plurality of services sharing a physical resource are provided, and a city management support method for supporting, displaying, on the display, a flowchart for the at least one of the plurality of services in which a service status of the resource according to the proposed amendment is highlighted at a current block of time (amounts to outputting information which is considered post-solution activity) using a computer to implement the abstract idea. However, these elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Furthermore, these elements have been fully considered, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification paragraph [0030] describes high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). The step to receive data (i.e., receiving an input of information on a provision status of the resource and receiving an input of a service definition for each of the plurality of services), although part of the abstract idea itself, also encompass insignificant extra-solution data gathering activity, which is not indicative of a practical application. For instance, a data gathering step that is limited to a particular data source (such as the Internet) or a particular type of data (such as power grid data or XML tags) could be considered to be both insignificant extra-solution activity and a field of use limitation. See, e.g., Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (limiting use of abstract idea to the Internet); Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1354, 119 USPQ2d at 1742 (limiting application of abstract idea to power grid data); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Erie Indem. Co., 850 F.3d 1315, 1328-29, 121 USPQ2d 1928, 1939 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (limiting use of abstract idea to use with XML tags). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”)).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are directed to: a city management support apparatus, a display, at least one memory storing at least one program, and at least one processor configured to execute the at least one program, wherein the at least one program is configured to cause the at least one processor, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a city management support program for causing a computer to execute processing for supporting management of a city in which a plurality of services sharing a physical resource are provided, and a city management support method for supporting, displaying, on the display, a flowchart for the at least one of the plurality of services in which a service status of the resource according to the proposed amendment is highlighted at a current block of time (amounts to outputting information), and using a computer to implement the abstract idea. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0030]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter. Such generic, high-level, and nominal involvement of a computer or computer-based elements for carrying out the invention merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, which is not enough to render the claims patent-eligible, as noted at pg. 74624 of Federal Register/Vol. 79, No. 241, citing Alice, which in turn cites Mayo.
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that the ordered combination amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
The dependent claims have been fully considered as well (i.e., claim 2 recites the at least one program is configured to cause the at least one processor to further execute, however they are directed to the use of generic computing elements (Applicant’s Specification paragraph [0030] describes high level general purpose computer) to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application (as noted in the MPEP 2106) and is tantamount to simply saying “apply it” using a general purpose computer, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer based operating environment) by using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to amount to particular application. These elements have been considered, but merely serve to tie the invention to a particular operating environment (i.e., computer-based implementation), though at a very high level of generality and without imposing meaningful limitation on the scope of the claim. In addition, Applicant’s Specification (paragraph [0030]) describes generic off-the-shelf computer-based elements for implementing the claimed invention, and which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, which is not enough to transform an abstract idea into eligible subject matter ), however, similar to the finding for claims above, these claims are similarly directed to the abstract idea of certain method of organizing human activity and a mental process, without integrating it into a practical application and with, at most, a general purpose computer that serves to tie the idea to a particular technological environment, which does not add significantly more to the claims. The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paresh Nagada (US 2012/0226440 A1, hereinafter “Nagada”) in view of Mitchell Scott Wills (US 2015/0066561 A1, hereinafter “Wills”) in view of Troy Goode (US 2018/0189096 A1, hereinafter “Goode”).
Claim 1/3/4
Nagda teaches:
A city management support apparatus that supports management of a city in which a plurality of services sharing a physical resource are provided, the city management support apparatus comprising: a display([0016] the driver 110 and co-driver 112 interfacing with tracking device and navigation device 120, dispatcher 160 and/or manager 190 may interface or communicate with tracking device and navigation device 120 through wireless network 130 and network 170 (e.g., specify a destination in an ETA information request)); at least one memory storing at least one program ([0018] The firmware and/or operating system may be programmed and tested like software, may be implemented to coordinate operations of the hardware within computer 180, and may contain programming constructs used to perform such operations. Storage may be volatile memory (e.g., RAM, SRAM, etc.), non-volatile memory); and at least one processor configured to execute the at least one program, wherein the at least one program is configured to cause the at least one processor to execute: ([0018] Computer 180 may include one or more processors. [0023] Processors 268 may be microprocessors (e.g., .times.86, ARM, PowerPC, etc.), application specific standard products, application specific integrated circuits, programmable logic (e.g., field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs)), and the like), receiving an input of information on a provision status of the resource( [0012], Tracking device and navigation device 120 provides guidance to a destination based upon such parameters as waypoints, real-time traffic conditions, speed, remaining distance to the destination, and the like. Tracking device and navigation device 120 generates estimated time of arrival (ETA) information and may also determine the geographic location of the vehicle. Examiner Notes traffic conditions as the provision status of the of the resource. In this case the road is interpreted as the resource);
predicting statuses for each of the plurality of services and a status of resource acquisition competition between services in the future by a predetermined time using a prediction model based on the input information ([0012] describes prediction model based on tracking information “Tracking device and navigation device 120 provides guidance to a destination based upon such parameters as waypoints, real-time traffic conditions, speed, remaining distance to the destination, and the like. Tracking device and navigation device 120 generates estimated time of arrival (ETA) information and may also determine the geographic location of the vehicle. Tracking device and navigation device 120 may determine a trip route from a starting point (e.g., present location) to the destination based at least on a map database.” [0033] ETA information enables job dispatch applications to adjust to real-time changes to predicted conditions encountered by the mobile assets. For example, job dispatch applications can: provide ETA information for multiple vehicles 122 in real-time to dispatcher 160 and respond to delays encountered by one or more vehicles 122 (e.g., by alerting a dispatcher 160 who may notify a customer, rescheduling the appointment, and/or dispatching another vehicle to fulfill the job within the same time frame). [0034] Job scheduling applications may be useful for optimizing the productivity of mobile assets. ETA information enables job scheduling applicator is to adjust to real-time changes to predicted conditions encountered by the mobile assets. For example, job scheduling applications can adapt by: generating a job schedule with current ETA to job site information; rescheduling jobs when an appointment does not fall within the limits of a service level agreement (SLA) based upon changes in ETA; generating benchmarks for individual or a group of vehicles based upon ETA and SLA information (optionally in real time). Examiner notes: the system predicts ETA which results in predicating status of a resource (mobile assest) and service (generating a job schedule with current ETA to job site information; rescheduling jobs when an appointment does not fall within the limits of a service level agreement (SLA) based upon changes in ETA) by a predetermined time(eta));
and generating a proposed amendment to the service definition for at least one of the plurality of services so as to optimize the competition for the acquisition of the resource among the plurality of services ([0033] Job dispatch applications may be useful for optimizing the productivity of mobile assets. ETA information enables job dispatch applications to adjust to real-time changes to predicted conditions encountered by the mobile assets. For example, job dispatch applications can: provide ETA information for multiple vehicles 122 in real-time to dispatcher 160 and respond to delays encountered by one or more vehicles 122 (e.g., by alerting a dispatcher 160 who may notify a customer, rescheduling the appointment, and/or dispatching another vehicle to fulfill the job within the same time frame)).
While Nagda teaches in [0012] tracking device and navigation device 120 provides guidance to a destination based upon such parameters as waypoints, real-time traffic conditions, speed, remaining distance to the destination, and the like. Tracking device and navigation device 120 generates estimated time of arrival (ETA) information and may also determine the geographic location of the vehicle. [0033] Job dispatch applications may be useful for optimizing the productivity of mobile assets. ETA information enables job dispatch applications to adjust to real-time changes to predicted conditions encountered by the mobile assets. For example, job dispatch applications can: provide ETA information for multiple vehicles 122 in real-time to dispatcher 160 and respond to delays encountered by one or more vehicles 122 (e.g., by alerting a dispatcher 160 who may notify a customer, rescheduling the appointment, and/or dispatching another vehicle to fulfill the job within the same time frame, Nagda does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference Wills teaches:
receiving an input of a service definition for each of the plurality of services ([0045] FIG. 1 illustrates a schematic representation of a vehicle yard management or planner system 100, according to an embodiment of the present disclosure. FIG. 1 illustrates various types of data/information that may be input to and/or output from the yard planner system 100, as well as the other systems or entities that may provide the input and/or receive the output. Yard state and/or plan data/information 102 ("Yard Status and Plans" in FIG. 1) may be communicated with yard operators and/or other users (collectively, operators 106). The yard state information indicates the status of the different vehicles in, approaching, and/or planned to approach the yard, such as where the vehicles currently are located, where the vehicles are expected (for example, scheduled) to be located, what operations are being performed or are planned to be performed on the vehicles(service definition), what resources (for example, equipment, tools, personnel, or the like) are being expended or used to perform the operations on the vehicles, and the like);
calculating a time transition of dependency of the plurality of services on the resource based on the service definition for each of the plurality of services ([0074] The yard plan may extend for a configurable period of time into the future, which may be referred to as the planning horizon. The planning horizon may be modified by a human operator of the yard planner system 100. The level of certainty in the yard plan may decrease as the yard plan extends further into the future. For example, the adherence of the vehicles to the yard plan may deviate more significantly over time due to the assumed constraints on the yard changing with respect to time, unplanned changes in arrival times of consists, unplanned maintenance on routes within the yard, and the like. The yard planner system 100 includes a configurable planning horizon that allows a human operator to control how many hours into the future the sequence of activities may be planned. The planning horizon may be a rolling calculation based on the current system time);
detecting a competition for acquisition of the resource among the plurality of services based on the time transition of the dependency ([0112] The method may also include determining conflicts between the actual processing of the rail cars and the scheduled processing of the rail cars, automatically resolving the conflicts between the actual processing. [0114] The yard planner system and method may manage and assign resources to planned activities for moving vehicles into, through, and out of a vehicle yard. The yard planner system and method visualize and resolves conflicts in assignment of resources to perform the planned activities. Consequential delays associated with resource conflicts may be visualized and resolved. The system and method may visualize and manage impacted vehicle connection goals as a consequence of resource conflicts and delays. The yard operating plan may be created for variable time periods into the future, such as at least two work shifts or more (sixteen hours or more) into the future. The system and method may visually represent dependencies between the planned activities for the vehicles and/or the sequences of the planned activities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teaching of Nagda with Wills to include receiving an input of information on a provision status of the resource; receiving an input of a service definition for each of the plurality of services; calculating a time transition of dependency of the plurality of services on the resource based on the service definition for each of the plurality of services and detecting a competition for acquisition of the resource among the plurality of services based on the time transition of the dependency, because it will aid in efficiently distribute and schedule processing resources.
While Nagda teaches in [0012] tracking device and navigation device 120 provides guidance to a destination based upon such parameters as waypoints, real-time traffic conditions, speed, remaining distance to the destination, and the like. Tracking device and navigation device 120 generates estimated time of arrival (ETA) information and may also determine the geographic location of the vehicle. [0033] Job dispatch applications may be useful for optimizing the productivity of mobile assets. ETA information enables job dispatch applications to adjust to real-time changes to predicted conditions encountered by the mobile assets. For example, job dispatch applications can: provide ETA information for multiple vehicles 122 in real-time to dispatcher 160 and respond to delays encountered by one or more vehicles 122 (e.g., by alerting a dispatcher 160 who may notify a customer, rescheduling the appointment, and/or dispatching another vehicle to fulfill the job within the same time frame, Nagda does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference Goode teaches:
and displaying, on the display, a flowchart for the at least one of the plurality of services in which a service status of the resource according to the proposed amendment is highlighted at a current block of time ([0055] At a process 620, the current state for the instance of the state machine selected during process 610 is identified. The current state of the instance of the state machine may be identified using a process similar to process 530 by, for example, finding the most recent (e.g., using the TimeStamp field) instance of a TransitionEvent that matches the identifier of the instance of the state machine selected during process 610 and referencing the ToState field of that TransitionEvent. [0056] At a process 630, the task updates associated with possible state transitions from the current state may then be moved through. In some examples, the most recent status of each of the tasks may be determined by finding the most recent (e.g., using the TimeStamp field) instance of a TaskEvent that matches the identifier of the instance of the state machine and/or the instance of the corresponding tasks (e.g., using the TaskID and Version fields). The status of each of the tasks may then be retrieved and/or displayed using the corresponding instance of the schema and/or form. [0058] At a process 650, the task states are reviewed. As the instance of the state machine is navigated between states and/or task updates using processes 620-640, the agent may access the state of the various tasks by accessing the instance of the schema that corresponds to the current point within the state machine being traced and/or audited. In some examples, the forms corresponding to the various tasks and their versions may be used to display the state to the agent. [0059] Processes 610-650 may then be repeated in any suitable order to select instances of other state machines, move through the various state transitions and/or task updates, and/or review the task states).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teaching of Nagda and Wills with Goode to include displaying, on the display, a flowchart for the at least one of the plurality of services in which a service status of the resource according to the proposed amendment is highlighted at a current block of time, because it will aid in enhancing transparency, facilitating better decision-making for resource allocation and utilization, improving efficiency, and helping prevent issues and delays.
Claim 2
While Nagda teaches in [0012] tracking device and navigation device 120 provides guidance to a destination based upon such parameters as waypoints, real-time traffic conditions, speed, remaining distance to the destination, and the like. Tracking device and navigation device 120 generates estimated time of arrival (ETA) information and may also determine the geographic location of the vehicle. [0033] Job dispatch applications may be useful for optimizing the productivity of mobile assets. ETA information enables job dispatch applications to adjust to real-time changes to predicted conditions encountered by the mobile assets. For example, job dispatch applications can: provide ETA information for multiple vehicles 122 in real-time to dispatcher 160 and respond to delays encountered by one or more vehicles 122 (e.g., by alerting a dispatcher 160 who may notify a customer, rescheduling the appointment, and/or dispatching another vehicle to fulfill the job within the same time frame, Nagda does not explicitly teach the following, however analogous reference Wills teaches:
The city management support apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the at least one program is configured to cause the at least one processor to further execute generating a proposed change to provision of the resource so as to optimize the competition for the acquisition of the resource among the plurality of services ([0064] The yard planner system 100 may reserve one or more-yard resources, such as tracks, facilities, equipment, or the like, for the opportunities. For example, the yard planner system 100 may identify unused resources within the yard (such as track segments, idle personnel, idle equipment, and the like), and then reserve one or more of these resources in the yard plan that is created and updated. In at least one embodiment, one or more of these resources may be reserved in case of an emergency, faulty equipment, unplanned track outage, a scheduled employee calling in sick, and/or the like. [0112] determining conflicts between the actual processing of the rail cars and the scheduled processing of the rail cars, automatically resolving the conflicts between the actual processing and the scheduled processing of the rail cars by modifying the movement plan, and automatically communicating command signals to the one or more resources to notify the one or more resources of modifications to the movement plan).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the teaching of Nagda with Wills to include generating a proposed change to provision of the resource so as to optimize the competition for the acquisition of the resource among the plurality of services, because it will aid in efficiently distribute and schedule processing resources.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20230104122 A1
Facilitating Achievement of Equilibrium Between Supply and Demand of Resources
Sevastyanov; Vladimir et al.
US 20220019634 A1
Secure Resource Allocation Utilizing a Learning Engine
Allison; Gregory Austin et al.
US 20160124775 A1
Resource Allocation Control with Improved Interface
Ashtiani; Babak Nakhayi et al.
US 20110184771 A1
Implementation Resource Project Management
WELLS; Robert Frances
US 20100223386 A1
Method And Apparatus for Resource-Allocation Management
Kokusho; Yasuhiro et al.
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 REHAM K ABOUZAHRA whose telephone number is (571)272-0419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM.
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 at (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.
/REHAM K ABOUZAHRA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3625
/BRIAN M EPSTEIN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3625