DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the amendment filed 13 March 2026. Claim 3 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 11, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-2 and 4-20 are pending.
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.
[3] Previous rejection(s) of claims 1-20 (now claims 1-2 and 4-20 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more has/have not been overcome by the amendments to the subject claims and is/are maintained. The statement of rejection below is reiterated as originally presented in the previous Office Action mailed 14 January 2026. The present amendments and remarks are addressed below under “Response to Remarks/Amendment”.
.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register, 17 July 2024 and further clarified in the Reminders on Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 guidance memorandum published 4 August 2025. Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-20 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1, 11, and 16 are directed to a method, a device, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, respectively, and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1, 11, and 16 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 1, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of analyzing attributes of possible outlets and associated geographic areas generating scores visualizing the locations/areas based on the attributes of the areas and outlets, which is limited to ineligible Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations) and processes performable by Human Mental Processing (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions).
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to the implementation of Mathematical Concepts as ineligible abstract ideas (See at least Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65, 175 USPQ2d 673, 674 (1972); and Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-89, 198 USPQ2d 193, 195 (1978)). Further, the courts consider steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Lastly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to Mathematical Concepts, representative claim 1 recites:
“…generating one or more area scores, associated with one or more subareas of the geographic area, based on the tabular data and the one or more factors; generating one or more outlet scores, associated with one or more outlets in the list of outlets, based on the tabular data, the set of categories, and the one or more factors…”
NOTE: The Specification paragraphs [0036]-[0038] [0053] [0063] discloses the mathematical processes performed associated with the claimed generating of scores.
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 1 recites:
“…receiving at least one…file associated with a geographic area; generating tabular data based on the at least one…file; receiving a list of possible outlets with a corresponding set of possible location indicators; updating a list of outlets, with a corresponding set of location indicators, based on removing duplicate outlets from the list of possible outlets; generating a set of categories corresponding to the list of outlets based on a combination of master phrases, n-grams…receiving an indication of one or more factors…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited “raster file” or “displaying” (claims 1, 11, and 15) and/or “processors” and “instructions” (Claims 11 and 16), given a data file and requisite outlet information, one of ordinary skill would be reasonably relied upon to organize the data and analyze the data to generate lists of outlets, categorize the outlets, and identify and remove duplicate outlets employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Claims 1, 11, and 16 recite technical elements which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional technical elements of claim 1 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “raster file”, “displaying”, and “machine learning”. Claims 11 and 16, directed to a device and non-transitory computer-readable medium introduce “one or more memories”, “one or more processors” and processor-executable “instructions”. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “one or more memories”, “one or more processors”, and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “raster file” is identified as associated with a geographic region and is used to generate tabular data. Claim 3 further indicates that the generation of tabular data includes generating masks.
(3) The “displaying” is identified as being “based on input” and displaying “a visual representation of the one or more area scores or the one or more outlet scores”. NOTE: While not expressly stated by the present claim construction, Examiner has assumed the displaying is by a computer display. However, this is not required based on the present claim construction.
(4) The “machine learning” is identified as generating categories (claims 1 and 17) and being trained to assign a category to an outlet (claim 5).
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05(f); Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
With respect to the identification of the using the trained machine learning, Examiner notes the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register on 17 July 2024. In particular, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to Example 47, claim 2. Specifically, the instant recitations of “by machine learning” and “tagging a third outlet, from the list of outlets, with a third category based on output from a machine learning model trained on a set of possible categories” are analogous to the training of an artificial neural network based on input data and receiving continuous training data of Examiner 47. Reasonably, the training data and feedback data are limited to mere data gathering and generating an output at a high level of generality and, by extension, are reasonably understood to constitute insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recited training process is limited to a recitation of the inputs and outputs to be applied to an undefined training process absent any technical specificity regarding actual training and/or particular machine learning models. Accordingly, the recited machine-learning processes and associated training are reasonably understood to be generic machine learning processes.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., information/files/factors are received, categories are generated, scores are calculated, a visual representation of the scores is generated etc.) as associated with a respective “processor”, “instructions”, or “display”. Beyond the general statement that the technical elements are generally tied to the performed steps/functions the limitations provide no further clarification with respect to the functions performed by the “processor” and “instructions” in producing the claimed result. A recitation of “by a processor” or “executing instructions”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., files/factors/lists); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., files); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., visualization of scores); and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., organize the data and analyze the data to generate lists of outlets, categorize the outlets, and identify and remove duplicate outlets) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 1 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of analyzing attributes of possible outlets and associated geographic areas generating scores visualizing the locations/areas based on the attributes of the areas and outlets using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed analyzing attributes of possible outlets and associated geographic areas generating scores visualizing the locations/areas based on the attributes of the areas and outlets benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed, Examiner notes paragraphs [0100]-[0104]. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “one or more memories”, “one or more processors”, and “instructions” are identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “raster file” is identified as associated with a geographic region and is used to generate tabular data. Claim 3 further indicates that the generation of tabular data includes generating masks.
(3) The “displaying” is identified as being “based on input” and displaying “a visual representation of the one or more area scores or the one or more outlet scores”. NOTE: While not expressly stated by the present claim construction, Examiner has assumed the displaying is by a computer display. However, this is not required based on the present claim construction.
(4) The “machine learning” is identified as generating categories (claims 1 and 17) and being trained to assign a category to an outlet (claim 5).
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., files/factors/lists); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., files); (3) displaying data on a generic computer display (e.g., visualization of scores); and (4) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., organize the data and analyze the data to generate lists of outlets, categorize the outlets, and identify and remove duplicate outlets).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of analyzing attributes of possible outlets and associated geographic areas generating scores visualizing the locations/areas based on the attributes of the areas and outlets. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., analyzing attributes of possible outlets and associated geographic areas generating scores visualizing the locations/areas based on the attributes of the areas and outlets, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of analyzing attributes of possible outlets and associated geographic areas generating scores visualizing the locations/areas based on the attributes of the areas and outlets benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claims 11 and 16, directed to an apparatus/device and computer-executable instructions stored on computer-readable media for performing the method steps are rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12-15, and 17-20, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
Viewed as a whole, these additional claim element(s) do not provide meaningful limitation(s) to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim(s) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
In accordance with all relevant considerations and aligned with previous findings of the courts, the technical elements imparted on the method that would potentially provide a basis for meeting a “significantly more” threshold for establishing patent eligibility for an otherwise abstract concept by the use of computer technology fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
[4] Previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laurenzo et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0145228 hereinafter ‘Laurenzo’) in view of Lobell et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0385738 hereinafter ‘Lobell’) has/have been overcome by the amendments to the pending claims and is/are withdrawn.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[5] Applicant's remarks filed 13 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The remarks will be addressed below in the order in which they appear in the noted response.
[i] In response to rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 (now claims 1-2 and 4-20 as presented by amendment) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 14 January 2026, Applicant provides the following remarks:
Applicant remarks:
"…Specifically, the amended independent claim 1 clearly enables uniform categorization and tagging using a combination of master phrases, n- grams, and machine learning, conserves network resources, power, and processing resources when generating a customized visualization by standardizing category tags associated with points of interest indicated in the customized visualization (See paragraph [0019] of the specification), conserves power, processing resources, and memory by refraining from applying the n-grams when the description includes a master phrase and by refraining from applying the machine learning model when the description includes a master phrase or an n-gram and increases accuracy of categorization for the outlets by applying the master phrases, n-grams and the machine learning model in a sequential order. Further, the amended independent claim 1 "covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome" as reminded in the guidelines… "
In response, Examiner agrees. With respect to considerations under Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)):
As presented by amendment, claim 1 recites:
“…applying one or more of the master phrases, n-grams and the machine learning model in a sequential order based on description associated with the at least one of the list of outlets, by: applying a first category tag, from a set of possible category tags corresponding to the list of outlets, to at least one of the list of outlets, when the description includes at least one of the master phrases associated with the first category tag; generating a set of categories corresponding to the list of outlets based on a combination of master phrases, n-grams, and machine learning, wherein generating the set of categories comprises: applying a second category tag, from the set of possible category tags corresponding to each of the list of outlets, to at least one of the list of outlets, when the description includes an n-gram associated with the second category tag and when the description excludes the master phrases associated with the set of possible category tags; and generating a third category tag to tag the at least one of the outlet of the list of outlets by applying the machine learning model, when the description excludes the n-grams associated with the set of possible category tags, wherein the machine learning model is trained to accept the description as input and generate the third category tag, wherein the presence of the master phrases or the n-grams in the description of each outlet in the list of outlets refrains the application of the machine learning model for generating the set of categories….”
In the context of method claim 1, i.e., a sequence of successive steps, the recitation of “applying one or more of the master phrases, n-grams and the machine learning model in a sequential order” requires that only on of the three listed application need be applied. Accordingly, in the context of the method claim, the efficiencies achieved by the sequential application of the three category tagging processes need to occur. In other words, if a master phrase is present, and the first category tag is applied, the method stops at that step. Because the same functions are directed to programming of a machine and a CRM storing executable code to implement the functions, i.e., a product to perform the functions, and thus provides the argued efficiencies, the system claims and CRM are indicated allowed, herein.
Examiner suggests redrafting the method claim so that the process proceeds to a determination of applying or not applying the machine learning process to apply the third category tag, thereby requiring the performance of the ordered sequence required by Applicant’s remarks and to positively claim the allowable subject matter.
[ii] Applicant’s remarks directed to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-2 and 4-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 14 January 2026 have been fully considered and are convincing in light of the present amendments to the pending claims. The previous rejection of pending claims 1-2 and 4-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 has/have been overcome by the amendments to the pending claims and is/are withdrawn.
The most closely applicable prior art of record is referred to in the Office Action mailed 14 January 2026 as Laurenzo et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0145228. Laurenzo fails to disclose at least:
“…applying one or more of the master phrases, n-grams and the machine learning model in a sequential order based on description associated with the at least one of the list of outlets, by: applying a first category tag, from a set of possible category tags corresponding to the list of outlets, to at least one of the list of outlets, when the description includes at least one of the master phrases associated with the first category tag; generating a set of categories corresponding to the list of outlets based on a combination of master phrases, n-grams, and machine learning, wherein generating the set of categories comprises: applying a second category tag, from the set of possible category tags corresponding to each of the list of outlets, to at least one of the list of outlets, when the description includes an n-gram associated with the second category tag and when the description excludes the master phrases associated with the set of possible category tags; and generating a third category tag to tag the at least one of the outlet of the list of outlets by applying the machine learning model, when the description excludes the n-grams associated with the set of possible category tags, wherein the machine learning model is trained to accept the description as input and generate the third category tag, wherein the presence of the master phrases or the n-grams in the description of each outlet in the list of outlets refrains the application of the machine learning model for generating the set of categories….”, as required by each of claims 1, 11, and 16.
Conclusion
[6] The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Cited PATENT Literature:
Kargieman et al., DYNAMIC ORDER AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR GEOSPATIAL INFORMATION PROVISION, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0036664, paragraphs [0135]-[0137]: Relevant Teachings: Kargieman discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions utilizing geospatial data including raster maps and defined polygons for analysis of geographic and demographic data associated with an area of interest.
Pah et al., SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR GENERATING HIGH RESOLUTION PROBABILISTIC RASTER MAPS FOR ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORD AND OTHER DATA ASSOCIATED WITH A GEOGRAPHICAL REGION, United States Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0212992, paragraphs [0042]-[0045]: Relevant Teachings: Pah discloses a system/method that includes steps/functions utilizing raster maps for geographic regions for the purpose of analyzing population data associated with the region.
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 ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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, Beth V Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737. 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights