DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the amendments filed on 05/26/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 5-11, 15,17, and 20 are currently amended.
Claims 3, 4, 13, and 14 are currently cancelled.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, and 15-20 are currently pending in this application and have been examined.
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 .
Response to Arguments
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 8-10 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101:
The Office Action rejects claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for allegedly being directed to a judicial exception and failing to recite "significantly more." The rejection is respectfully traversed.
As amended, claim 1 no longer recites a single, isolated act of generating one artificial scenario and determining one score. Rather, amended claim 1 recites generating a plurality of artificial scenarios that are all absent from the first historical customer scenario data, and determining a respective discrimination score for each one. A human could not practically generate multiple graph-structured scenarios while simultaneously ensuring that each is absent from a preexisting dataset.
Moreover, the claim recites "updating ... the scenario generation model based on scenario discrimination scores of the plurality of artificial scenarios," which presupposes that a computational model, not a human, is generating the scenarios. If a human were performing the generation step, there would be no model to update. Accordingly, a human could not perform the generation step, and the identified limitations do not fall within the mental process category, and the claims are eligible at Step 2A, Prong One.
Even if the claims recite a judicial exception, the claims are not "directed to" that exception because the additional elements integrate it into a practical application. As a threshold matter, the amended independent claims recite several limitations not addressed in the Office Action, including updating the scenario generation model, generating an artificial fraudulent scenario for a particular new product, determining a risk estimate for a node, and generating an outcome report. Each of these limitations must be evaluated at Step 2A, Prong Two. See MPEP 2106.04(d). None of these steps can reasonably be characterized as "mere instructions to apply" the purportedly abstract ideas of generating a single artificial scenario or determining a single discrimination score.
Considered together, these additional elements demonstrate an improvement to computer functionality. Amended claim 1 recites a two-phase computational pipeline in which the scenario generation model is first trained, then used to generate a plurality of artificial scenarios absent from historical data, after which the predictive outcome system updates the model based on discrimination scores "such that subsequent artificial scenarios generated by the scenario generation model are less distinguishable by the scenario discrimination model from the second historical customer scenario data." This adversarial feedback loop produces an expressly recited improvement in the internal operation of the scenario generation model itself, not merely the application of a generic model to a particular dataset.
In any event, the claims satisfy Step 2B. The amended claims recite a specific ordered combination (including generating and individually scoring a plurality of artificial scenarios absent from historical data, updating the scenario generation model based on aggregate discrimination scores, deploying the updated model to generate an artificial fraudulent scenario for a particular new product, determining a new discrimination score and risk estimate, and generating an outcome report) that is not well-understood, routine, or conventional. Notably, the risk estimation and outcome report generation steps correspond to subject matter the Examiner has acknowledged to be novel and nonobvious. The Examiner bears the evidentiary burden to establish that such an ordered combination is conventional. See MPEP 2106.07(a)(III). Because no such evidence exists, the claims recite an inventive concept and satisfy Step 2B.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are found to be not persuasive.
Applicant argues that a human could not practically perform the actions of generating a plurality of graph structured artificial scenarios, nor could they determine a discrimination score for each scenario. Examiner disagrees. Specifying that more than one scenario is to be generated does not preclude the action of generating said scenarios, and determining the discrimination score of each scenario, from being performed by a human. Likewise, ensuring that any newly generated scenario is absent from a preexisting dataset is as simple as checking they existing dataset either prior to or subsequent to a scenario being generated.
Applicant argues that the inclusion of the “updating the model” limitation necessarily means that a human cannot perform the action. Examiner disagrees. Updating a model based on determined scores can be as simple as tweaking a parameter or adding/removing data from a dataset. As such, without any provided detail as to how the model is updated, the limitation in question can be reasonably interpreted as being able to be performed in the human mind, and the inclusion of the model simply directs the judicial exception towards being applied via a generic computer component.
Applicant argues that the newly added limitations of generating a new fraudulent scenario, determining a discrimination score for that scenario, determining a risk estimate for that scenario, and generating an outcome report based on all of the prior information cannot be seen as "mere instructions to apply" the purportedly abstract ideas. Examiner agrees. The newly added limitations (that is, limitations that were previously addressed as a part of the cancelled dependent claims) can be reasonably performed in the human mind and therefore recite an abstract idea of a mental process.
Applicant argues that the additional elements as a whole provide a technological improvement. Examiner disagrees. A technological improvement cannot arise from an abstract idea, in this case the generation of artificial data and the determinations made based on said generated data all of which are deemed to be mental processes.
Applicant argues that the specific ordering of limitations in the claims is unconventional and therefore recites an inventive concept. Examiner disagrees. While the ordering of the limitations may be unique, conventionality does not preclude a claim limitation or a claim as a whole from reciting abstract ideas. Furthermore, Examiner has admitted to the unconventionality of the claim limitations, as was cited in the previous Office Action.
In light of the amendments made on the claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are maintained and updated below.
In reference to Applicant’s arguments on page(s) 10-11 regarding rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103:
The Office Action rejects claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-13, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. @ 103 over Pandey (U.S. PGPub No. 2021/0374756) in view of Breen (U.S. PGPub No. 2023/0289586). The rejections are respectfully traversed.
The Office Action does not reject claims 4 and 14, and agreed-to during the Examiner interview on February 20, 2026, these claims recite allowable subject matter. This allowable subject matter has been incorporated into independent claims 1, 11, and 20, so independent claims 1, 11, and 20 are allowable over the applied art. The remaining claims are all dependent from one of the independent claims, and thus all pending claims are allowable over the applied art. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the art rejections.
Examiner’s response:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are found to be persuasive.
Applicant has rolled up dependent claims that were previously flagged as allowable over the prior art.
In light of the amendments made on the claims, the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 2, 5-12, and 15-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they are directed toward an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 analysis:
Independent Claim 1 recites, in part, a computer implemented method, therefore falling into the statutory category of process. Independent Claim 11 recites, in part, an apparatus, therefore falling into the statutory category of machine. Independent Claim 20 recites, in part, a computer program product, therefore falling into the statutory category of manufacture.
Regarding Claim 1:
Step 2A: Prong 1 analysis:
Claim 1 recites in part:
“generating a plurality of artificial scenarios that are absent from the first historical customer scenario data, wherein each artificial scenario comprises a combination of one or more nodes and one or more edges, wherein each node is associated with an action and each edge is associated with a decision weight”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses creating a node and an edge with associated weight and action values and making sure that the exact node does not exist in a preexisting dataset.
“determining a respective scenario discrimination score for each artificial scenario”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a score for the generated scenario.
“updating the scenario generation model based on scenario discrimination scores of the plurality of artificial scenarios, such that subsequent artificial scenarios generated by the scenario generation model are less distinguishable by the scenario discrimination model from the second historical customer scenario data”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses updating a model.
“after updating the scenario generation model, generating an artificial fraudulent scenario for a particular new product”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses creating a node and an edge with associated weight and action values.
“determining a new scenario discrimination score for the artificial fraudulent scenario”. s drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses determining a score for the generated scenario.
“determining a risk estimate for a node of the artificial fraudulent scenario”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses estimating the risk of the action of the node of the scenario.
“generating an outcome report comprising the artificial fraudulent scenario, the new scenario discrimination score, and the risk estimate”. As drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation covers performance of the limitation in the mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, or opinion) or with the aid of pencil and paper. For example, this limitation encompasses creating a report about the scenario(s).
Accordingly, at Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“receiving first historical customer scenario data”. This additional element amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g)): i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“by scenario generator circuitry of a predictive outcome system”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (machine learning circuitry) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“training a scenario generation model using the first historical customer scenario data”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a model) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
“using the scenario generation model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (machine learning model) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“receiving second historical customer scenario data”. This additional element amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g)): i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“by scenario discriminator circuitry of the predictive outcome system”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (machine learning circuitry) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“training a scenario discrimination model using the second historical customer scenario data”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a model) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
“receiving the artificial scenario”. This additional element amounts to extra-solution activity of receiving data (MPEP 2106.05(g)): i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process.
“using the scenario discrimination model”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (machine learning model) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“by the predictive outcome system”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (machine learning circuitry) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
“wherein the scenario generation model is further trained with the scenario discrimination score and the artificial scenario”. This additional elements is recited at a high level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a model) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished.
“by communications hardware”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (machine learning circuitry) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “receiving first historical customer scenario data”, “receiving second historical customer scenario data”, and “receiving the artificial scenario” is/are recited at a high level of generality and amount(s) to extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e., pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process. The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory").
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “by scenario generator circuitry of a predictive outcome system”, “using the scenario generation model”, “by scenario discriminator circuitry of the predictive outcome system”, “using the scenario discrimination model”, “by the predictive outcome system” , and “by communications hardware” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “training a scenario generation model using the first historical customer scenario data”, “training a scenario discrimination model using the second historical customer scenario data”, and “wherein the scenario generation model is further trained with the scenario discrimination score and the artificial scenario” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (training a model) i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 2:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the second historical customer scenario data comprises transactions labeled as fraudulent or non-fraudulent”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (financial data) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of ““wherein the second historical customer scenario data comprises transactions labeled as fraudulent or non-fraudulent” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (financial data) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 5:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the scenario discrimination score is related to a probability of fraudulent activity”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (fraud) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of ““wherein the scenario discrimination score is related to a probability of fraudulent activity” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (fraud) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 6:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein each artificial scenario of the plurality of artificial scenarios further comprises one or more starting conditions comprising a credit score, a physical location, a debt-to-income ratio, a transaction amount, and an interest rate”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (financial data) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein each artificial scenario of the plurality of artificial scenarios further comprises one or more starting conditions comprising a credit score, a physical location, a debt-to-income ratio, a transaction amount, and an interest rate” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (financial data) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 7:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“the scenario generation model and the scenario discrimination model are neural networks”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
“and the scenario generation model and the scenario discrimination model are part of a scenario outcome prediction generative adversarial network (scenario outcome prediction GAN) that further comprises an objective function, wherein the objective function is based on a difference between the second historical customer scenario data and a set of generated scenarios comprising the plurality of artificial scenarios”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (adversarial neural networks) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “the scenario generation model and the scenario discrimination model are neural networks” and “and the scenario generation model and the scenario discrimination model are part of a scenario outcome prediction generative adversarial network (scenario outcome prediction GAN) that further comprises an objective function, wherein the objective function is based on a difference between the second historical customer scenario data and a set of generated scenarios comprising the plurality of artificial scenarios” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (neural networks and adversarial neural networks) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 8:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the scenario outcome prediction GAN causes the scenario generation model to minimize the objective function and the scenario discrimination model to maximize the objective function”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (objective functions) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the scenario outcome prediction GAN causes the scenario generation model to minimize the objective function and the scenario discrimination model to maximize the objective function” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (objective functions) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 9:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the first historical customer scenario data and the second historical customer scenario data are different”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (customer data) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the first historical customer scenario data and the second historical customer scenario data are different” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (customer data) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 10:
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“wherein the first historical customer scenario data and the second historical customer scenario data are identical”. This limitation merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (customer data) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05(h).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
The additional element(s) of “wherein the first historical customer scenario data and the second historical customer scenario data are identical” is/are directed to particular field(s) of use (customer data) (MPEP 2106.05(h)) and therefore do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea, and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible.
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding Claim 11:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 1, Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 12:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 2, Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 15:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 5, Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 5.
Regarding Claim 16:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 6, Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 6.
Regarding Claim 17:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 7, Claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 7.
Regarding Claim 18:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 8, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 8.
Regarding Claim 19:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claim 9, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claim 9.
Regarding Claim 20:
Due to claim language similar to that of Claims 1 and 11, Claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons as presented above in the rejection of Claims 1 and 11, with the exception of the limitation(s) covered below.
Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis:
The judicial exception is not integrated into practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of:
“comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing software instructions”. This additional element is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (storage) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly at Step 2A: Prong 2, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B analysis:
In accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more that the judicial exception.
As discussed above, the additional element(s) of “comprising at least one non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing software instructions” is/are recited at a high-level of generality such that it/they amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, at Step 2B, the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210374756 A1 – methods and systems for detecting frauds in payment transactions made by payment instrument using spend patterns of multiple payment instruments associated with user
US 20230289586 A1 – techniques for determining a graph-based prediction based at least in part on a cross-entity relationship graph data object and using a hybrid graph-based processing machine learning framework
US 12354139 B1 – Systems and methods for receiving an enterprise resource dataset associated with a customer from an enterprise application associated with the customer
US 20230029415 A1 – methods and systems for predicting and generating impacted scenarios based on a defined set of attributes
US 20220245643 A1 – apparatus and methods for identifying fraudulent transactions
US 20210174366 A1 – apparatus and methods for identifying fraudulent transactions
US 8768379 B2 – methods and systems that record the location of a user and determine the corresponding physical named location (e.g. business location) visited by the user
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 COREY M SACKALOSKY whose telephone number is (703)756-1590. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-3:30pm EST.
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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached at (571) 272-2589. 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.
/COREY SACKALOSKY/Examiner, Art Unit 2128
/OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights