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 .
Responses to Amendments and Arguments
The amendments filed 09/17/2025 have been entered. Claims 1, 11-12 and 14 are amended, and Claim 13 is canceled. Claims 1-12 and 14-20 remain pending in the application.
Applicant's argument and amendments filed 09/17/2025 with respect to the rejection of claim 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
On page 6 of Remarks, Applicant alleges that the features of claim 13 are incorporated into independent claims 1 and 14. Claim 13 is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The first receptacle handling installation including the apparatus comprising the filler carousel and the multiple filling elements are recited at high-level of generalities to merely gather routine data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) and to perform a generic computer function related to data processing itself of a generic computer component. The feature of “an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements installed on an outer circumference of the filler carousel, wherein the multiple filling elements are configured to introduce the filling product into one or more receptacles” is insignificant extra-solution activity necessary merely recited to be indicative of a field of use for where the data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) comes from. Further, the feature of “an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements …” does not present an inventive concept but a field of use for where the data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) comes from, because this limitation is not indicative of specifying a feature related to machine maintenance decisions of abstract idea itself in the claims but a filler machine used to collect the data, and further is well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, as the PIANA reference (WO 2021219499 A1) teach (see at least Fig. 1 and pages 3-4 of English machine translation). Therefore, the Examiner maintains the claims are ineligible.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 09/17/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but is not persuasive.
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that Piana fails to disclose multiple filling elements installed on an outer circumference of the filler carousel and that are configured to introduce the filling product into one or more receptacles. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At least Fig. 1 of PIANA teaches transport devices 106 and 107 (i.e., multiple filling elements) which are placed along the periphery of the carousel and configured to feed each container (filling product) to a series of container receptacles 102 (“The transport device 106 is designed as a feed device so that it can feed non-printed containers to the direct printing machine … the transport devices 106 and 107 or along the periphery of the carousel in the container receptacles 102” in pages 3-4 of English machine translation).
On page 7 of the Remarks, Applicant alleges that Piana also fails to disclose "deriving a state of wear for one or more of the multiple filling elements," as recited in the claims. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “deriving a state of wear for one or more of the multiple filling elements” is indicative of determining operating state (anomalies, malfunctions, errors) related to components/parts of the maintenance apparatus for operating machine maintenance. Under this limitation, PIANA teaches determining/deriving if the operating state of the part of the container handling machine in normal operation to thereby operate in a maintenance mode to replace worn parts (“collect the data from the container treatment systems and then carry out an evaluation of this data. Based on this evaluation, the status of the individual container treatment machines can then be monitored … to determine whether there are any anomalies in the entirety of the state variables … a large part of this data is not relevant for individual malfunctions” in page 1 of English machine translation; “parts of the container treatment machine come into consideration as components, which can output data relating to an operating state either about themselves and / or the entire container treatment machine and / or other parts of the container treatment machine. … is not operated in normal operation, but is operated, for example, in a maintenance mode. It is known that approximately annual maintenance cycles are carried out by container treatment machines, during which operation is stopped and, for example, worn parts are replaced” in page 4 of English machine translation).
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.
The current 35 USC 101 analysis is based on the current guidance (Federal Register vol. 79, No. 241. pp. 74618-74633). The analysis follows several steps. Step 1 determines whether the claim belongs to a valid statutory class. Step 2A prong 1 identifies whether an abstract idea is claimed. Step 2A prong 2 determines whether any abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. If the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application the claim is patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Last, step 2B determines whether the claims contain something significantly more than the abstract idea. In most cases the existence of a practical application predicates the existence of an additional element that is significantly more.
The 35 USC 101 analysis between each element of claims and its combination is presented in the table below
Claim number and elements
Judicial exception (Step 2A Prong one)
Practical application (Step 2A Prong two)/ Significantly more (Step 2B)
Claim 1
Step 1: Yes, statutory class
Step 2A Prong two: No / Step 2B: No
A system comprising:
Step2A Prong one: Yes
a first receptacle handling installation comprising an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements installed on an outer circumference of the filler carousel, wherein the multiple filling elements are configured to introduce the filling product into one or more receptacles; and
“a first receptacle handling installation comprising an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements” is high level of generality.
“an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements …” is insignificant extra-solution activity and indicative of a field of use for where the process data come from.
a predictive maintenance apparatus in communication with an installation control of the first receptacle handling installation, wherein the predictive maintenance apparatus is configured to:
“a predictive maintenance apparatus” is high level of generality to perform a generic computer function to communicate with the first receptable handling installation.
receive process data of a handling operation performed by the first receptacle handling installation on one or more receptacles,
assign the handling operation a quality class from a plurality of quality classes based on the process data,
derive a state of wear for one or more of the multiple filling elements, and
derive a state of wear for one or more components of the first receptacle handling installation from an analysis of the assigned quality class.
abstract idea
mental process or mathematical concept
“receive process data~” is insignificant extra-solution activity to collect routine data (the process data).
“assign the handling operation …” is math or mental process based on the collected data.
“derive a state of wear for one or more of the multiple filling elements, … derive a state of wear ~ from analysis of the assigned quality class” is a math or mental process.
Claims 1-11 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claims 1-11 and 14-20 are directed to an abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as addressed below and presented in the above table.
Step 2A: Prong One
Regarding Claim 1, the limitations recited in Claim 1, as drafted, are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mathematical calculations and/or the mind, as presented in the above table. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or the mathematical calculations. For example, “assign the handling operation a quality class from a plurality of quality classes based on the process data” and “derive a state of wear for one or more of the multiple filling elements, and derive a state of wear for one or more components of the first receptacle handling installation from an analysis of the assigned quality class” in the context of this claim may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring operation state of the components by classifying a quality class (i.e., state levels or variable) based on the collected routine data (i.e., process data).
Step 2A: Prong Two
This judicial exception is abstract ideal itself and not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the specification details use of a data processor of a computer to perform mathematical calculations of “assign the handling operation a quality class from a plurality of quality classes based on the process data” and “derive a state of wear for one or more of the multiple filling elements, and derive a state of wear for one or more components of the first receptacle handling installation from an analysis of the assigned quality class”. The first receptacle handling installation, the apparatus comprising the filler carousel and the multiple filling elements, and the predictive maintenance apparatus are recited at high-level of generalities to merely gather routine data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) and to perform a generic computer function related to data processing itself of a generic computer component. The limitation of “an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements installed on an outer circumference of the filler carousel, wherein the multiple filling elements are configured to introduce the filling product into one or more receptacles” is insignificant extra-solution activity necessary merely recited to be indicative of a field of use for where the data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) comes from. The limitation of “receive process data of a handling operation performed by the first receptacle handling installation on one or more receptacles” is insignificant extra-solution activity necessary to merely gather data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) to be used for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). There is no showing of integration into a practical application such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, or use of a particular machine.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation of “receive process data of a handling operation performed by the first receptacle handling installation on one or more receptacles” are insignificant pre-solution activities to merely gather routine data (the signal) to be used for performing the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(g). The limitation of “an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements installed on an outer circumference of the filler carousel, wherein the multiple filling elements are configured to introduce the filling product into one or more receptacles” is insignificant extra-solution activity necessary merely recited to be indicative of a field of use for where the data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) comes from. The limitation of “an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements …” does not present an inventive concept but a field of use for where the data (i.e., process data of the handling operation) comes from, because this limitation is not indicative of specifying a feature related to machine maintenance decisions but a filler machine used to collect the data. The feature related to “an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel and multiple filling elements installed on an outer circumference of the filler carousel, wherein the multiple filling elements are configured to introduce the filling product into one or more receptacles” is well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, as the PIANA reference (WO 2021219499 A1) teach (see at least Fig. 1 and pages 3-4 of English machine translation). See MPEP 2106.05(d).
As discussed above, with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, using the data processor of the computer to perform “assign the handling operation a quality class from a plurality of quality classes based on the process data” and “derive a state of wear for one or more components of the first receptacle handling installation from an analysis of the assigned quality class” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept cannot provide statutory eligibility. Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Regarding Claims 2-11, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 1. The limitation of “analyze a past handling operation assigned a quality class characterized as unacceptable and to derive a further quality class from process data of the past handling operation, and the further quality class characterizes a limit-value handling operation” in the context of claim 4 may encompass mathematical calculations and/or inferring operation state of the components based on the collected routine data. Claim 5 has similar limitations as of a part of claim 1 above, and it is therefore rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above. The limitation of “report the state of wear for the one or more components to the first receptacle handling installation; or report an action recommendation derived from the state of wear for the one or more components to the first receptacle handling installation” in claim 6 is insignificant extra-solution activities to merely report the inferred result performed by abstract idea.
The limitation of “the first receptacle handling installation comprises a beverage bottling installation, and the beverage bottling installation comprises an apparatus configured to fill the one or more receptacles with a filling product” in claim 11 is insignificant extra-solution activities to merely perform a generic function of filling product. Therefore, the functions and/or structures related to the “a beverage bottling installation, and the beverage bottling installation comprises an apparatus configured to fill the one or more receptacles with a filling product” are well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality to the judicial exception, as the PIANA reference (WO 2021219499 A1) teaches. For the reasons described above with respect to claim 2-11, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Claim 14, it is a method type claim having similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claims 15-20, the limitations are further directed to an abstract idea, as described in claim 14 and 2-10. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 14 and 2-10, the judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by PIANA STEFAN et al. (WO 2021219499 A1, hereinafter referred to as “PIANA”, a family case of DE 102020111674 A1 cited in IDS dated 06/01/2023).
Regarding Claim 1, PIANA teaches a system (Fig. 1), comprising:
a first receptacle handling installation (Fig. 1, a container treatment machine 100) comprising an apparatus that comprises a filler carousel (Fig. 1, 101) and multiple filling elements (Fig. 1, 106 and 107) installed on an outer circumference of the filler carousel, wherein the multiple filling elements are configured to introduce the filling product into one or more receptacles (Fig. 1, 102); and
a predictive maintenance apparatus (Fig. 1; 130) in communication with an installation control of the first receptacle handling installation (Abstract, “the control unit comprises a neural network (253) …”), wherein the predictive maintenance apparatus is configured to:
receive process data of a handling operation performed by the first receptacle handling installation on one or more receptacles (Fig. 1, 102) (Abstract, “the container treatment machine comprises at least one component (131-137) which can output data relating to its operating state and/or the operating state of the container treatment machine (100) to the control unit (130)”; Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “process data of a handling operation” is indicative of data related to operating state of the first receptacle handling installation, which is taught by Abstract in PIANA.),
assign the handling operation a quality class (state variables) from a plurality of quality classes based on the process data (“collect the data from the container treatment systems and then carry out an evaluation of this data …a large number of parameters, also called state variables, are continuously monitored and examined by appropriate computing units, such as servers in a cloud architecture, to determine whether there are any anomalies in the entirety of the state variables” in page 1 of English machine translation teaches classifying state variables to determine operation status of the individual container treatment machines.),
derive a state of wear (anomalies, malfunctions, errors) for one or more of the multiple filling elements (other parts of the container treatment machine) (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “deriving a state of wear for one or more of the multiple filling elements” is indicative of determining operating state (anomalies, malfunctions, errors) related to components/parts of the maintenance apparatus for operating machine maintenance. Under this limitation, PIANA teaches determining/deriving if the operating state (e.g., anomalies or errors) of the part of the container handling machine in normal operation to thereby operate in a maintenance mode to replace worn parts.; “collect the data from the container treatment systems and then carry out an evaluation of this data. Based on this evaluation, the status of the individual container treatment machines can then be monitored … to determine whether there are any anomalies in the entirety of the state variables … a large part of this data is not relevant for individual malfunctions” in page 1 of English machine translation; “parts of the container treatment machine come into consideration as components, which can output data relating to an operating state either about themselves and / or the entire container treatment machine and / or other parts of the container treatment machine. … is not operated in normal operation, but is operated, for example, in a maintenance mode. It is known that approximately annual maintenance cycles are carried out by container treatment machines, during which operation is stopped and, for example, worn parts are replaced” in page 4 of English machine translation), and derive a state of wear (anomalies, malfunctions, errors) for one or more other components of the first receptacle handling installation from an analysis of the assigned quality class (“collect the data from the container treatment systems and then carry out an evaluation of this data. Based on this evaluation, the status of the individual container treatment machines can then be monitored … to determine whether there are any anomalies in the entirety of the state variables … a large part of this data is not relevant for individual malfunctions” and ““parts of the container treatment machine come into consideration as components, which can output data relating to an operating state either about themselves and / or the entire container treatment machine and / or other parts of the container treatment machine. …” in pages 1 and 4 of English machine translation teaches determine/derive operation status (e.g., anomalies or errors) of the individual container treatment machines based on the state variables).
PNG
media_image1.png
503
495
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 1 of PIANA
Regarding Claim 2, PIANA teaches wherein one of the plurality of quality classes characterizes a first type of handling operation and another of the plurality of quality classes characterizes a second type of handling operation (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “a first type of handling operation” and “a second type of handling operation” are indicative of operations of the container treatment machine, which are taught by page 1 of English machine translation (“carry out an evaluation of this data …a large number of parameters, also called state variables, are continuously monitored and examined by appropriate computing units ...”)).
Regarding Claim 3, PIANA teaches wherein the first type of handling operation comprises an acceptable handling operation and the second type of handling operation comprises an unacceptable handling operation (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “an acceptable handling operation” and “an unacceptable handling operation” are respectively indicative of a normal operation state and anomaly/error operations state of the machine which are taught by Abstract and page 1 of English machine translation (“trained to use the data to determine whether a deviation of the operating state of the container treatment machine (100) from a normal state is present and/or imminent …. Based on this evaluation, the status of the individual container treatment machines can then be monitored … to determine whether there are any anomalies in the entirety of the state variables”)).
Regarding Claim 4, PIANA teaches wherein the predictive maintenance apparatus is further configured to analyze a past handling operation assigned a quality class characterized as unacceptable and to derive a further quality class from process data of the past handling operation, and the further quality class characterizes a limit-value handling operation (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this claimed limitation is indicative of updating processes of operation state variables as part of the maintenance cycle to thereby modify parameters related to operation states, which is taught by page 4 of English machine translation (“recorded by the corresponding components and / or pre-processing can have taken place. This pre-processing can also include processing of this data at a central point, for example in a server architecture outside the container handling machine, and make a modification of parameters of the neural network immediately available so that not original data from components, but rather updates "the parameters of the neural network can be made available from outside the container handling machine as part of the maintenance cycle.”)).
Regarding Claim 5, PIANA teaches wherein the predictive maintenance apparatus is further configured to: receive process data of a handling operation performed by a second receptacle handling installation, and assign the handling operation performed by the second receptacle handling installation to a quality class from the plurality of quality classes based on the received process data, or create a quality class from the received process data (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Abstract, page 1 and claim 13 in PIANA teaches receiving data related to operations states of one more container treatment machines and classifying/assigning operation state variables of the machines. (“the additional data include data on an operational status of at least one further container treatment machine of a container treatment system to which the container treatment machine belongs; and or wherein the additional data include data about an operating state of a container handling machine of the same type” in claim 13 of English machine translation)).
Regarding Claim 6, PIANA teaches wherein the predictive maintenance apparatus is further configured to: report the state of wear for the one or more components to the first receptacle handling installation; or report an action recommendation derived from the state of wear for the one or more components to the first receptacle handling installation (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Abstract and pages 1-2 in PINAN teaches determining operation state of the container treatment machine and transmitting additional data to the machine as part of predictive maintenance. (“As part of such maintenance, a data volume of additional data (for example several 100 MB of additional data) can be transmitted to the container handling machine” in page 2 of English machine translation)).
Regarding Claim 7, PIANA teaches wherein the predictive maintenance apparatus comprises an Internet/cloud application or a data processing device (“collect the data from the container treatment systems and then carry out an evaluation of this data …a large number of parameters, also called state variables, are continuously monitored and examined by appropriate computing units, such as servers in a cloud architecture, to determine whether there are any anomalies in the entirety of the state variables” in page 1 of English machine translation).
Regarding Claim 8, PIANA teaches wherein the data processing device comprises a database, a server, or an artificial intelligence (AI) application (“collect the data from the container treatment systems and then carry out an evaluation of this data …a large number of parameters, also called state variables, are continuously monitored and examined by appropriate computing units, such as servers in a cloud architecture, to determine whether there are any anomalies in the entirety of the state variables … neural networks are also used in corresponding cloud solutions to evaluate such large amounts of data, in particular for pattern recognition.” in page 1 of English machine translation).
Regarding Claim 9, PIANA teaches wherein: the handling operation comprises a filling operation that places a filling product into a receptacle from the one or more receptacles (Fig. 1; “shaping a preform into a container, filling the container, closing the container, providing the container with decorative elements, …” in page 2 of English machine translation), and the process data comprises a process parameter (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, page 1 of PIANA teaches data related to operation states and parameters called state variable “collect the data from the container treatment systems and then carry out an evaluation of this data. Based on this evaluation, the status of the individual container treatment machines can then be monitored a large number of parameters, also called state variables”).
Regarding Claim 10, PIANA teaches wherein the process parameter comprises one or more of: a bottling pressure, a pressurization time, a pressurization pressure, an evacuation pressure, a fill rate, a fill curve, or a depressurization time (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, page 1 and 3 of PIANA teaches pressure sensors to provide operation state variables (i.e., parameter) related to pressure measured by pressure sensors (“pressure sensors, light sensors, speed sensors and the like come into consideration as sensors, since all values measured by such sensors can usually be indicative or relevant for the operating state of a container handling machine” in page 3 of English machine translation).
Regarding Claim 11, PIANA teaches wherein the first receptacle handling installation comprises a beverage bottling installation, and the beverage bottling installation comprises the apparatus, wherein the apparatus is configured to fill the one or more receptacles with the filling product (“shaping a preform into a container, filling the container, closing the container, providing the container with decorative elements, …” in page 2 of English machine translation).
Regarding Claim 12, PIANA teaches wherein the apparatus comprises a filler control configured to control a filling operation, the filler control is in communication with the predictive maintenance apparatus, and the filler control is configured to send process data of the filling operation to the predictive maintenance apparatus (Note that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Abstract and pages 1-2 of PIANA teaches controlling functions of the container treatment machine by communicating with at least one components 131-137 and a neural network 253 by sending data to thereby determine whether the operating state of the container treatment machine is in a normal state or anomaly state (“the container treatment machine comprises a control unit (130) for controlling the function of the container treatment machine (100) and at least one treatment unit (102-105) for treating the containers; the container treatment machine is designed to treat the containers in exactly one way; the container treatment machine comprises at least one component (131-137) which can output data relating to its operating state and/or the operating state of the container treatment machine (100) to the control unit (130); and the control unit comprises a neural network (253) which is configured and trained to use the data to determine whether a deviation of the operating state of the container treatment machine (100) from a normal state is present and/or imminent” in Abstract).
Regarding Claim 14, it is a method type claim and has similar limitations as of claim 1 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 15, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 2 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 16, it is dependent on claim 15 and has similar limitations as of claim 3 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 3 above.
Regarding Claim 17, it is dependent on claim 16 and has similar limitations as of claim 4 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 4 above.
Regarding Claim 18, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 5 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 5 above.
Regarding Claim 19, it is dependent on claim 14 and has similar limitations as of claim 9 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 9 above.
Regarding Claim 20, it is dependent on claim 19 and has similar limitations as of claim 10 above. Therefore, it is rejected under the same rationale as of claim 10 above.
Citation of Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fiechter et al. (US 20030114965 A1) teaches A method and system for an improved vehicle monitoring system in order to provide a cost-effective and scalable system design for industrial application through the use of machine learning and data mining technologies on data acquired from a plurality of vehicles to create models. Frequent acquisition of vehicle sensor and diagnostic data enables comparison with the created models to provide continuing analysis of the vehicle with respect to repair, maintenance and diagnostics.
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 BYUNG RO LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-3707. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-4:00pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on (571) 270-5628. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-2555.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BYUNG RO LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/LEE E RODAK/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights