Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been rejected below.
Response to Amendment
With respect to Applicant’s arguments, the 101 rejection remains and is updated below.
Applicant’s arguments have been considered. However, the art rejections remain.
Response to Argument
With respect to the 101 arguments, Applicant argues that the “claims are not mental steps if “the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations” (See Remarks at pg. 2). Specifically, Applicant asserts that the claim limitations, “selecting a remote computing device based stored data items; and calculating monotony indices for selected remote computing devices based on one or more of the tasks and one or more time windows, in the mind or by pen and paper” are “computer centric tasks, which a human cannot perform as a practical matter” (See Remarks at pg. 3). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner first notes that Applicant’s Specification, at ¶0034, recites that a “plurality of agents or remote computers may be chosen or selected by embodiments of the invention for monotony assessment or evaluation based on, for example, existing or stored agent queue reports and/or data items and a plurality of conditions and/or criteria and/or predetermined thresholds.” Also, Applicant’s Specification, at ¶0058 recites the “monotony index associated with a specific computer may be associated also with the person assigned to that computer, e.g. the agent associated with a computer... In step 1040, a processor may then control a computer system based on the calculation or quantification of monotony, for example by sending or transmitting instructions to a remote computer. For example, a processor may assign computer- dependent tasks to a certain computer based on the calculated monotony index for that computer, or for the person associated with that computer.” Examiner notes that from the interpretation of Applicant’s Specification the selection of a remote computing devices is merely an evaluation performed according to data and reports about the computing devices. It is clear that the remote computing devices are associated with a person assigned to the computer and their task interactions with the computer. Also, the calculated “monotony indices” is an evaluative assessment that quantifies the amount of data about the computing device operated by an agent against a condition and/or criteria and/or threshold. Therefore, the assessment that contributes to the calculated monotony index is an observation of data items and/or tasks that are evaluated according to conditions and/or criteria and/or predetermined thresholds. The selection of remote computing device is also a mere selection in which devices associated with agents are being observed for the evaluation of the monotony index. Accordingly, these claims, in view of Applicant’s Specification, recite mental processes, as they recite observations and evaluations.
With respect to the 102 and 103 arguments, Applicant argues that the cited reference Paul et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2010/0049574, hereinafter referred to as Paul) fails to recite the limitation, “computing, by one or more of the processors, a monotony index for a remote computing device based on one or more of the interactions and one or more timeframes” (See Remarks at pg. 4). Specifically, Applicant argues that the interactions in the cited reference, Paul, are physical tasks and do not involve remote computing devices. Also, Applicant argues that Paul does not factor in “its time period when calculating whether tasks are repetitive” (See Remarks at pg. 5). However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner first notes that Applicant notes that the remote computer system in Paul tracks physical work in a factory (See Remarks at pg. 4). However, Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification identifies in ¶0029 that the “task or interaction as discussed herein may be a combination of computer-based and manual or human processes.” It is clear from Applicant’s Specification that the remote computing devices also track physical or manual or human processes. Additionally, Applicant’s Specification, in ¶0034-0035, describes the calculation of monotony indices as calculating a plurality of subcomponents such as a task type and monotony frequency. Therefore, the use of the calculated repetitive task factor and burden value for consecutive work assignments in a predetermine work period would be a calculation of a monotony indices. See also Paul’s calculation of the repetitive task factor respective to a predetermined timeframe in Paul ¶0035 and 0039. Therefore, in view of the Applicant’s Specification, the cited reference Paul teaches the above argued claimed limitations.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with Step 1, it is first noted that the claimed methods in claims 1-8 and 17-20; and the claimed computerized system in claims 9-16 are directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., processes, machine etc.). Thus, Step 1 is satisfied with respect to claims 1-20.
In accordance with Step 2A, Prong One, claims 1-20, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, the independent claim(s) recite(s) (abstract idea recited in italics and additional elements
recited in bold):
Claim 1:
A method for controlling a computer system based on quantifying repetitive computer- based tasks, the method comprising: in a computerized-system comprising one or more processors, a communication interface to communicate via a communication network with one or more remote computing devices, and a memory including a data store of a plurality of data items describing one or more of the remote computing devices, wherein one or more of the data items describe one or more tasks executed by one or more of the remote computing devices, the one or more tasks associated with one or more tasks types:
selecting, by one or more of the processors, one or more of the remote computing devices based on one or more of the stored data items;
calculating, by one or more of the processors, one or more monotony indices for one or more of the selected remote computing devices based on one or more of the tasks and one or more time windows; and
automatically documenting one or more of the calculated monotony indices in a database, the documenting including changing one or more of: fields included in the database. or metadata linked to the database.
Claim 9:
A computerized system for controlling a computer system based on quantifying repetitive computer-based tasks, the system comprising: one or more processors, a communication interface to communicate via a communication network with one or more remote computing devices, and a memory including a data store of a plurality of data items describing one or more of the remote computing devices, wherein one or more of the data items describe one or more tasks executed by one or more of the remote computing devices, the one or more tasks associated with one or more tasks types; wherein the one or more processors are to:
select one or more of the remote computing devices based on one or more of the stored data items;
calculate one or more monotony indices for one or more of the selected remote computing devices based on one or more of the tasks and one or more time windows; and
automatically document one or more of the calculated monotony indices in a database, the documenting including changing one or more of: fields included in the database, or metadata linked to the database.
Claim 17:
A method for identifying monotony, the method comprising: in a computerized-system comprising one or more processors, a communication interface to communicate via a communication network with one or more remote computing devices, and a memory including a data store of a plurality of data items describing one or more of the remote computing devices, wherein one or more of the data items describe one or more interactions involving one or more of the remote computing devices, the one or more interactions associated with one or more interaction types:
computing, by one or more of the processors, a monotony index for a remote computing device based on one or more of the interactions and one or more timeframes; and
automatically publishing one or more of the calculated monotony indices, the publishing including changing one or more of: fields included in a database, or metadata linked to the database.
The above-recited limitations viewed as an abstract idea are mental processes (i.e., concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Specifically, the claimed invention recites steps for observing task and interaction types to evaluate an index of monotony and data to be changed. Therefore, the claims recite a mental process.
According to Step 2A, prong two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the use of bolded additional elements for receiving/transmitting data (e.g., automatically documenting one or more of the calculated monotony indices in a database, the documenting including changing one or more of: fields included in the database. or metadata linked to the database; automatically publishing one or more of the calculated monotony indices, the publishing including changing one or more of: fields included in a database, or metadata linked to the database etc.); processing information (e.g., select one or more of the remote computing devices based on one or more of the stored data items; calculate one or more monotony indices for one or more of the selected remote computing devices based on one or more of the tasks and one or more time windows; computing, by one or more of the processors, a monotony index for a remote computing device based on one or more of the interactions and one or more timeframes; etc.); storing data; displaying data and repeating steps is merely implementing the abstract idea steps of valuing an idea in the manner of “apply it”. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to practically apply the judicial exception because they, whether taken separately or as a whole, merely use conventional computer components or technology to receive, process, store and display data and thus do not provide an inventive concept in the claims.
In accordance with Step 2B, the claims only recite the above bolded additional elements. The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic computer for identifying and quantifying monotony, and associated degradations in performance statistics) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, as evidence of generic computer implementation and an indication that the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more, it is first noted in the Applicant’s Specification at paragraph 0018-0020, that a “computing device100 may include a controller or processor105 (or, in some embodiments, a plurality of processors) that may be, for example, a central processing unit processor (CPU), a chip or any suitable computing or computational device, an operating system115, a memory120, a storage130, input devices135 and output devices140 such as a computer display or monitor displaying for example a computer desktop system. Each of the procedures and/or calculations discussed herein, and the modules and units discussed, such as for example those included in Figs. 2-10, may be or include, or may be executed by, a computing device such as included in Fig. 1, although various units among these modules may be combined into one computing device. Operating system115 may be or may include any code segment designed and/or configured to perform tasks involving coordination, scheduling, arbitration, supervising, controlling or otherwise managing operation of computing device100, for example, scheduling execution of programs. Memory120 may be or may include, for example, a Random Access Memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a Dynamic RAM (DRAM), a Synchronous DRAM (SD-RAM), a double data rate (DDR) memory chip, a Flash memory, a volatile memory, a non-volatile memory, a cache memory, a buffer, a short term memory unit, a long term memory unit, or other suitable memory units or storage units. Memory120 may be or may include a plurality of, possibly different memory units. Memory120 may store for example, instructions (e.g. code125) to carry out a method as disclosed herein, and/or a data store of a plurality of data items describing one or more remote computing devices as further disclosed herein. Executable code 125 may be any executable code, e.g., an application, a program, a process, task or script.” As additional evidence of conventional computer implementation, it is noted in the MPEP, the courts have recognized that additional elements that “receive or transmit data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data” and “performing repetitive calculations” to be well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (See MPEP 2106.05(d)). From the interpretation of the MPEP and the Specification, one would reasonably deduce that the additional elements are merely embodies generic computers and generic computing functions.
With respect to the dependent claims, claims 2-8, 10-16 and 18-20 recite elements that narrow the metes and bounds of the abstract idea but do not provide ‘something more’. Specifically, claims 2-3, 8, 10-11, 16 and 18 further narrow the calculation and processing of a monotony or frequency of a task of a particular task type. Claims 4-7, 12-15, 19-20 further narrow the receiving and transmitting of calculated monotony index in formation and scheduling data. The dependent claims do not remedy these deficiencies.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Paul et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2010/0049574, hereinafter referred to as Paul).
As per Claim 17, Paul discloses a method for identifying monotony, the method comprising: in a computerized-system comprising one or more processors, a communication interface to communicate via a communication network with one or more remote computing devices, and a memory including a data store of a plurality of data items describing one or more of the remote computing devices, wherein one or more of the data items describe one or more interactions involving one or more of the remote computing devices, the one or more interactions associated with one or more interaction types (Paul: ¶0045-0046: A computer processing unit hosting and executing the web-based application is in communication with the database and allows designated users to interface with the system to perform tasks such as editing attributes of the workforce personnel, or assembly task requirements. See ¶0034 where the database identifies what type of task is being performed.):
computing, by one or more of the processors, a monotony index for a remote computing device based on one or more of the interactions and one or more timeframes (Paul: ¶0035 and 0039: An algorithm inputs a repetitive task factor to be evaluated against a predetermined threshold for a predetermined work period for each task to determine an optimal schedule and workforce. Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification, ¶0034-0035 describe the calculation of monotony indices as calculating a plurality of subcomponents such as a task type and monotony frequency. Therefore, the use of the calculated repetitive task factor and burden value for consecutive work assignments in a predetermine work period would be a calculation of a monotony indices.); and
automatically publishing one or more of the calculated monotony indices, the publishing including changing one or more of: fields included in a database, or metadata linked to the database (Paul: ¶0040: According to the calculated monotony with respect to the repetitive task and burden thresholds, an assignment list is updated in the database and schedule is generated.).
As per Claim 18, Paul discloses the method of claim 17, wherein the computing of one or more monotony indices comprises calculating one or more monotony frequency indices, each monotony frequency index quantifying a consecutive handling of tasks belonging to the same type within one or more timeframes (Paul: ¶0034-0035: A repetitive task factor is a weight assigned to a task performed on consecutive work assignments by a user. See ¶0039 where consecutive tasks are calculated for a given period.).
As per Claim 19, Paul discloses the method of claim 17, comprising sending one or more instructions to a given remote computer based on the publishing of one or more of the monotony indices, the one or more instructions to automatically assign at least one interaction to the remote computer (Paul: ¶0041-0044: The graph algorithm utilizes the weighted factors of the job types to minimize the total value of factors creating an optimal schedule for the worker. See ¶0047 where the created optimal schedule utilizing the graph algorithm is transmitted to the user’s device for automatic assignment.).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Paul et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2010/0049574, hereinafter referred to as Paul) in view of Sekar et al. (United States Patent Application Publication, 2021/0201359, hereinafter referred to as Sekar).
As per Claim 1, Paul discloses a method for controlling a computer system based on quantifying repetitive computer-based tasks, the method comprising: in a computerized-system comprising one or more processors, a communication interface to communicate via a communication network with one or more remote computing devices, and a memory including a data store of a plurality of data items describing one or more of the remote computing devices, wherein one or more of the data items describe one or more tasks executed by one or more of the remote computing devices, the one or more tasks associated with one or more tasks types (Paul: ¶0045-0046: A computer processing unit hosting and executing the web-based application is in communication with the database and allows designated users to interface with the system to perform tasks such as editing attributes of the workforce personnel, or assembly task requirements. See ¶0034 where the database identifies what type of task is being performed.):
calculating, by one or more of the processors, one or more monotony indices for one or more of the selected remote computing devices based on one or more of the tasks and one or more time windows (Paul: ¶0035 and 0039: An algorithm inputs a repetitive task factor to be evaluated against a predetermined threshold for a predetermined work period for each task to determine an optimal schedule and workforce. Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification, ¶0034-0035 describe the calculation of monotony indices as calculating a plurality of subcomponents such as a task type and monotony frequency. Therefore, the use of the calculated repetitive task factor and burden value for consecutive work assignments in a predetermine work period would be a calculation of a monotony indices.); and
automatically documenting one or more of the calculated monotony indices in a database, the documenting including changing one or more of: fields included in the database or metadata linked to the database (Paul: ¶0040: According to the calculated monotony with respect to the repetitive task and burden thresholds, an assignment list is updated in the database and schedule is generated.).
Paul discloses the selection of a worker, but does not explicitly disclose; however, Sekar discloses:
selecting, by one or more of the processors, one or more of the remote computing devices based on one or more of the stored data items (Sekar: ¶0050: An appropriate agent device may be selected for a tasked based on a stored workbin including the deferable activity involving the task. See ¶0026 where the agent devices are remote.);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Paul with Sekar’s transmission of assignment to a worker because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features for optimizing workforce by analyzing scheduled tasks, and because incorporating Sekar’s transmission of assignment to a worker in Paul would have served Paul’s pursuit of providing an interface where optimized schedules and assignments can be viewed (See Paul, ¶0046); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9 recites the same limitations already addressed by the rejection of Claim 1; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 2, Paul in view of Sekar discloses the method of claim 1. wherein the calculating of one or more monotony indices comprises calculating one or more task type indices, each task type index to quantify a relative weight of one or more of the tasks of a given type among one or more of the tasks (Paul: ¶0042: Weights are calculated according to various task types (e.g. job 1, job 2, etc.) for assignments to workers in the index.)
Claim 10 recites the same limitations already addressed by the rejection of Claim 2; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 3, Paul in view of Sekar discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the calculating of one or more monotony indices comprises calculating one or more time window indices, each time window index to quantify a relative weight of one or more consecutive tasks of a given type within one or more time windows (Paul: ¶0034-0035: A repetitive task factor is a weight assigned to a task performed on consecutive work assignments by a user. See ¶0039 where consecutive tasks are calculated for a given period.).
Claim 11 recites the same limitations already addressed by the rejection of Claim 3; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 4, Paul in view of Sekar discloses the method of claim 1, comprising generating one or more reports, the one or more reports describing the execution of tasks by one or more of the remote computing devices, based on at least one of: one or more of the stored data items, one or more conditions, and one or more predetermined thresholds (Paul: ¶0039: A report may be generated describing tasks given to a worker according to a threshold predetermined number of times within a predetermined work period. See ¶0037 for additional descriptions of the predetermined thresholds, stored items and conditions. See also ¶0045-0046 where computer processing unit hosting and executing the web-based application is in communication with the database and allows designated users to interface with the system to perform tasks [remote devices].).
Claim 12 recites the same limitations already addressed by the rejection of Claim 4; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 5, Paul in view of Sekar discloses the method of claim 4, comprising determining a time window length based on one or more of the data items; and wherein at least one of: the generating of one or more reports, the selecting of one or more of the remote computing devices, the calculating of one or more monotony indices, and the documenting of one or more of the calculated monotony indices is performed periodically based on the time window (Paul: ¶0039: A report may be generated describing tasks given to a worker according to a threshold predetermined number of times within a predetermined work period [time window].).
Claim 13 recites the same limitations already addressed by the rejection of Claim 5; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 6, Paul in view of Sekar discloses the method of claim 1, comprising transmitting one or more instructions to a remote computer based on the documenting of one or more of the calculated monotony indices, the one or more instructions to automatically execute at least one computer operation on the remote computer (Paul: ¶0041-0044: The graph algorithm utilizes the weighted factors of the job types to minimize the total value of factors creating an optimal schedule for the worker. See ¶0047 where the created optimal schedule utilizing the graph algorithm is transmitted to the user’s device.).
Claim 14 recites the same limitations already addressed by the rejection of Claim 6; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 7, Paul in view of Sekar discloses the method of claim 6, comprising minimizing one or more inefficiency functions for one or more block scheduling options; and choosing an optimal scheduling option based on the minimization, wherein the transmitting one or more instructions is performed based on the chosen optimal scheduling option (Paul: ¶0041-0044: The graph algorithm utilizes the weighted factors of the job types to minimize the total value of factors creating an optimal schedule for the worker. See ¶0047 where the created optimal schedule utilizing the graph algorithm is transmitted to the user’s device.).
Claim 15 recites the same limitations already addressed by the rejection of Claim 7; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 8, Paul in view of Sekar discloses the method of claim 7.
Paul does not explicitly disclose; however, Sekar discloses wherein one or more of inefficiency functions comprise one or more coefficients; and wherein the method comprises generating, using a neural network, one or more of the coefficients (Sekar: ¶0250: Neural networks are used to schedule the workforce through the use of predictor coefficients related to a worker’s ability to handle a task efficiently.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to combine Paul with Sekar’s neural networks to schedule workforce because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features for optimizing workforce by analyzing scheduled tasks, and because incorporating Sekar’s neural networks to schedule workforce in Paul would have served Paul’s pursuit of automatically creating a workforce schedule using an algorithm (See Paul, ¶0035); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 16 recites the same limitations already addressed by the rejection of Claim 8; therefore, the same rejection applies.
As per Claim 20, Paul in view of Sekar discloses the method of claim 19… and selecting a scheduling option based on the comparison, wherein the sending of one or more instructions is performed based on the selected scheduling option (Paul: ¶0041-0044: The graph algorithm utilizes the weighted factors of the job types to minimize the total value of factors creating an optimal schedule for the worker. See ¶0047 where the created optimal schedule utilizing the graph algorithm is transmitted to the user’s device.).
Paul does not explicitly disclose; however, Sekar discloses comprising comparing one or more values calculated using inefficiency functions for one or more scheduling options (Sekar: ¶0250: Neural networks are used to schedule the workforce through the use of predictor coefficients related to a worker’s ability to handle a task efficiently.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to combine Paul with Sekar’s neural networks to schedule workforce because the references are analogous/compatible since each is directed toward features for optimizing workforce by analyzing scheduled tasks, and because incorporating Sekar’s neural networks to schedule workforce in Paul would have served Paul’s pursuit of automatically creating a workforce schedule using an algorithm (See Paul, ¶0035); and further obvious since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON MICHELLE NEAL whose telephone number is (571)272-9334. The examiner can normally be reached 9-2pm ET, M-F.
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 5712705389. 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.
ALLISON MICHELLE NEAL
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/ALLISON M NEAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625