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
Status of the Application
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communication received on 7/9/2025. Claims 1 and 4-8 are pending in this office action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1 and 4-5 are acknowledged. Applicant’s cancellation of claims 2-3 are acknowledged. Applicant’s addition of new claims 6-8 are acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Based on Applicant’s amendments and arguments (See Remarks page 6), the Examiner has withdrawn the previous 112 sixth/f claim interpretation.
On remarks pages 7-8, Applicant argues the claims recite a processor therefore are not a mental process (as the claims cannot be performed in the mind or with pen and paper). The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea of a processor and server have been addressed under the next portions of the analysis (practical application and or significantly more). Therefore the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
It is further noted MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) clearly states that mental processes as well as certain method of organizing human activities can recite a computer and still be an abstract idea, cited herein:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) Abstract Idea Groupings
An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096.
…….
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer"). Mental processes recited in claims that require computers are explained further below with respect to point C.
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This concept is explained further below with respect to point D.
The following discussion is meant to guide examiners and provide more information on how to determine whether a claim recites a mental process. Examiners should keep in mind the following points A, B, C, and D when performing this evaluation.
……
C. A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
In evaluating whether a claim that requires a computer recites a mental process, examiners should carefully consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification. For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
1. Performing a mental process on a generic computer. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed on a generic computer as an abstract idea is Voter Verified, Inc. v. Election Systems & Software, LLC, 887 F.3d 1376, 1385, 126 USPQ2d 1498, 1504 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification in explaining that the claimed steps of voting, verifying the vote, and submitting the vote for tabulation are "human cognitive actions" that humans have performed for hundreds of years. The claims therefore recited an abstract idea, despite the fact that the claimed voting steps were performed on a computer. 887 F.3d at 1385, 126 USPQ2d at 1504. Another example is Versata, in which the patentee claimed a system and method for determining a price of a product offered to a purchasing organization that was implemented using general purpose computer hardware. 793 F.3d at 1312-13, 1331, 115 USPQ2d at 1685, 1699. The Federal Circuit acknowledged that the claims were performed on a generic computer, but still described the claims as "directed to the abstract idea of determining a price, using organizational and product group hierarchies, in the same way that the claims in Alice were directed to the abstract idea of intermediated settlement, and the claims in Bilski were directed to the abstract idea of risk hedging." 793 F.3d at 1333; 115 USPQ2d at 1700-01.
2. Performing a mental process in a computer environment. An example of a case identifying a mental process performed in a computer environment as an abstract idea is Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d at 1316-18, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. In this case, the Federal Circuit relied upon the specification when explaining that the claimed electronic post office, which recited limitations describing how the system would receive, screen and distribute email on a computer network, was analogous to how a person decides whether to read or dispose of a particular piece of mail and that "with the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper". 838 F.3d at 1318, 120 USPQ2d at 1360. Another example is FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 120 USPQ2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The patentee in FairWarning claimed a system and method of detecting fraud and/or misuse in a computer environment, in which information regarding accesses of a patient’s personal health information was analyzed according to one of several rules (i.e., related to accesses in excess of a specific volume, accesses during a pre-determined time interval, or accesses by a specific user) to determine if the activity indicates improper access. 839 F.3d. at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294. The court determined that these claims were directed to a mental process of detecting misuse, and that the claimed rules here were "the same questions (though perhaps phrased with different words) that humans in analogous situations detecting fraud have asked for decades, if not centuries." 839 F.3d. at 1094-95, 120 USPQ2d at 1296.
3. Using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process. An example of a case in which a computer was used as a tool to perform a mental process is Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. The patentee in Mortgage Grader claimed a computer-implemented system for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The interface prompts a borrower to enter personal information, which the grading module uses to calculate the borrower’s credit grading, and allows the borrower to identify and compare loan packages in the database using the credit grading. 811 F.3d. at 1318, 117 USPQ2d at 1695. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to the concept of "anonymous loan shopping", which was a concept that could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699. Another example is Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), in which the patentee claimed methods for parsing and evaluating data using a computer processing system. The Federal Circuit determined that these claims were directed to mental processes of parsing and comparing data, because the steps were recited at a high level of generality and merely used computers as a tool to perform the processes. 881 F.3d at 1366, 125 USPQ2d at 1652-53.
Therefore based on the above, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
On Remarks page 8, Applicant argues that the claims integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically that the claims calculate CO2 emissions through the transportation process rather than just the production process. The Examiner has carefully considered Applicant’s arguments however the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements beyond the abstract idea merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers, as detailed in the 101 rejection below, which are limitations previously found by the courts to not be enough to qualify as a practical application or significantly more.
Further as to Applicant’s arguments on page 9 that the claims improve system efficiency. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform specifically a human could review a manifest to determine where products are delivered, and then review mileage, and fuel consumption during those transit routes to determine CO2 emissions. The fact that these calculations and determinations a human or human could perform, are instead being performed by additional elements beyond the abstract idea of a processor or server merely results in apply it or generally linking to the field of computers, which are limitations previously found by the courts to not result in a practical application or significantly more.
Applicant’s arguments on pages 9-11 with respect to the prior art are acknowledged, however are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection in this office action below in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) 1, 4 and 6-8 recite machine as the claims recite a management device that includes a processor. Claim 5 is a process as the claims recite a method.
The claims recite calculating a C02 emission for a transported product based on the amount of weight that product is of the overall weight.
The claims are recited at such a high level of generality that they recite observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions that can be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper and according the claims recite a mental process.
Further the claims recite calculating CO2 emissions for transported products which are used to determine how environmentally friendly a product or company is (For example see Applicant’s specification at paragraph 0003) which is subject matter where the commercial or legal interaction is business relations accordingly the claims recite a method of organizing human activities.
Mental processes and certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite:
(1) 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)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Specifically as recited in the claims:
As per claim 1, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human or humans could manage a moving object that transports a first and second product, store information about the amount of energy consumed during transportation, and calculate CO2 emissions for products based on a weight ratio equation. The additional element that these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by a “processor” and “servers” merely results in “apply it.” Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by a “processor” and “servers”, merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 4, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human could store conversion information for converting an amount of energy to CO2 emissions and the use the conversion information to convert the amount of energy properly for the first and second products to CO2 emissions for the transportation. The additional element that this limitation that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by a “processor” like a computer merely results in “apply it” or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
As per claim 5, the claims recite limitations a human or humans could perform. Specifically a human or humans could manage a moving object that transports a first and second product, read information about the amount of energy consumed during transportation, and calculate CO2 emissions for products based on a weight ratio equation.
The additional element that these limitations that could be performed by a human or humans are instead being performed by “servers” merely results in “apply it.” Specifically here the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further limitations that could be performed by a human or humans that are instead recited as being performed by “servers”, merely result in generally linking the use of the judicial exception to the field of computers.
As per claim 6, the claims recite the specific mode of transportation to transport the materials, a user could calculate the above information in the independent claims as broadly recited in the claim regardless of the type of transportation claimed, whether train or otherwise. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 7, the claims recite the type of product transported, a user could calculate the above information in the independent claims as broadly recited in the claim regardless of the type of product transported as claimed, whether train or otherwise. There are no additional elements beyond those previously discussed above.
As per claim 8, the claims recite a calculation that could reasonably and practically be calculated by a human user in the mind or with pen and paper, given the information or variables as broadly recited in the claim. The additional element that this limitation that could be performed by a human or humans is instead being performed by a processor merely results in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claim 1.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite: (1) 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)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above with respect to the practical application step.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aurongzeb et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2024/0028599) further in view of Foster et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2008/0189236).
As per claim 1, Aurongzerb et al. teaches A management device that manages a moving object is configured to transport a first product and a second product from a first station and acquire information from a first server and a second server, the first product being a raw material and the second product being a product set produced from the raw material, the management device comprising: (see paragraphs 0035-0036, 0052, and 0160, Examiner’s note: servers to execute the method (see paragraphs 0035-0036). Transport of raw materials via things like trains (see paragraph 0052). Calculations for raw material, subcomponent or end product (see paragraph 0160).
memory that stores information indicating an amount of energy consumed by the moving object; (see paragraphs 0025-0026, Examiner’s note: storing information in databases to perform the functions in the reference).
and a processor configured to (see paragraphs 0035-0037, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform the functions).
acquire, from the moving object, third information indicating a power consumption of the moving object in the first section at a predetermined interval, acquire, from the moving object, fourth information indicating a power consumption of the moving object in the second section at the predetermined interval, calculate a first power in the first section and second power in the first section by proportionally dividing a total power consumption in the first section based on a weight ratio of the first product and the second product, the first power being a power consumption from transportation of the first product and the second power being a power consumption from transportation of the second product, calculate the first power in the second section based on the fourth information, and calculate C02 emissions from transportation of the first product based on the first power and the C02 emissions from transportation of the second product based on the second power (see paragraphs 0031, 0115, 0131, 0160-0162 and 0164-0165, Examiner’s note: teaches calculating the Co2 emissions based on the total fuel consumed over the transport which is based on the mileage of transportation, and the percentage of the shipment that is attributable to the item being calculated and multiplying that based on a conversion value (see paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-0165), as defined in paragraph 0115).
Aurongzeb et al. does not expressly teach transporting products by loading and unloading multiple different products in different transportation stations in order to be transported or more specifically as recited in the claims of acquire, from the first server, first information indicating a destination of the first product, and determine a second station at which the first product is unloaded based on the first information, acquire, from the second server, second information indicating a destination of the second product, and determine a third station at which the second product is unloaded based on the second information, identify, based on an information on the first station, the second station, and the third station, a first section where the first product and the second product are loaded on the moving object, and a second section where the first product is loaded and the second product is not loaded on the moving object.
However, Foster clearly teaches transporting products by loading and unloading multiple different products in different transportation stations in order to be transported or more specifically as recited in the claims of acquire, from the first server, first information indicating a destination of the first product, and determine a second station at which the first product is unloaded based on the first information, acquire, from the second server, second information indicating a destination of the second product, and determine a third station at which the second product is unloaded based on the second information, identify, based on an information on the first station, the second station, and the third station, a first section where the first product and the second product are loaded on the moving object, and a second section where the first product is loaded and the second product is not loaded on the moving object (see paragraphs 0019-0020, 0026, Examiner’s note: teaches transporting items together through segments and tracking the information where the segments may include things like trains. Further teaches this information may be performed by a distributed server network. Further teaches the total delivery is the sum of the segments).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aurongzerb et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Foster with the motivation of providing a known way that items can be transported and moved through different stations in a delivery network in order to reach a final destination (see Foster paragraphs 0019-0020), when using different modes of transport (see Aurongzerb et al. paragraphs 0052-0053) and the system taking into consideration the total transport of an item through a delivery network based on a transportation manifest (see Aurongzerb et al paragraphs 0071 and 0160-0165) are both known.
As per claim 4, Aurongzerb et al. teaches
The memory stores information on (see paragraphs 0025-0026, Examiner’s note: storing information in databases to perform the functions in the reference).
conversion coefficient that converts an amount of energy to CO2 emissions, and (see paragraphs 0115 and 0160-0165, Examiner’s note: conversion information of converting a transport to Co2 emissions).
The processor is configured to calculate the CO2 emissions of the first product by multiplying the conversion coefficient by the first power, and calculate the CO2 emissions of the second product by multiplying the conversion coefficient by the second power (see paragraphs 0115 and 0160-0165, Examiner’s note: conversion information of converting a transport to Co2 emissions by multiplication as shown in paragraph 0160 equation).
As per claim 5, Aurongzerb et al. teaches A management method for managing a moving object that is configured to transport a first product and a second product from a first station and acquire information from a first server and a second server, the first product being a raw material and the second product being a product set produced from the raw material, the management method comprising: (see paragraphs 0035-0036, 0052, and 0160, Examiner’s note: servers to execute the method (see paragraphs 0035-0036). Transport of raw materials via things like trains (see paragraph 0052). Calculations for raw material, subcomponent or end product (see paragraph 0160)).
acquiring, from the moving object, third information indicating a power consumption of the moving object in the first section at a predetermined interval, acquiring, from the moving object, fourth information indicating a power consumption of the moving object in the second section at the predetermined interval, calculating a first power in the first section and second power in the first section by proportionally dividing a total power consumption in the first section based on a weight ratio of the first product and the second product, the first power being a power consumption from transportation of the first product and the second power being a power consumption from transportation of the second product, calculating the first power in the second section based on the fourth information, and calculating C02 emissions from transportation of the first product based on the first power and the C02 emissions from transportation of the second product based on the second power(see paragraphs 0031, 0115, 0131, 0160-0162 and 0164-0165, Examiner’s note: teaches calculating the Co2 emissions based on the total fuel consumed over the transport which is based on the mileage of transportation, and the percentage of the shipment that is attributable to the item being calculated and multiplying that based on a conversion value (see paragraphs 0160-0162 and 0164-0165), as defined in paragraph 0115).
Aurongzeb et al. does not expressly teach transporting products by loading and unloading multiple different products in different transportation stations in order to be transported or more specifically as recited in the claims of acquiring, from the first server, first information indicating a destination of the first product and determine a second station at which the first product is unloaded based on the first information, acquiring, from the second server, second information indicating a destination of the second product and determine a third station at which the second product is unloaded based on the second information, identifying, based on an information on the first station, the second station, and the third station, a first section where the first product and the second product are loaded on the moving object, and a second section where the first product is loaded and the second product is not loaded on the moving object.
However, Foster clearly teaches transporting products by loading and unloading multiple different products in different transportation stations in order to be transported or more specifically as recited in the claims of acquiring, from the first server, first information indicating a destination of the first product and determine a second station at which the first product is unloaded based on the first information, acquiring, from the second server, second information indicating a destination of the second product and determine a third station at which the second product is unloaded based on the second information, identifying, based on an information on the first station, the second station, and the third station, a first section where the first product and the second product are loaded on the moving object, and a second section where the first product is loaded and the second product is not loaded on the moving object, (see paragraphs 0019-0020, 0026, Examiner’s note: teaches transporting items together through segments and tracking the information where the segments may include things like trains. Further teaches this information may be performed by a distributed server network. Further teaches the total delivery is the sum of the segments).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Aurongzerb et al. with the aforementioned teachings from Foster with the motivation of providing a known way that items can be transported and moved through different stations in a delivery network in order to reach a final destination (see Foster paragraphs 0019-0020), when using different modes of transport (see Aurongzerb et al. paragraphs 0052-0053) and the system taking into consideration the total transport of an item through a delivery network based on a transportation manifest (see Aurongzerb et al paragraphs 0071 and 0160-0165) are both known.
As per claim 6, Aurongzerb et al. teaches
wherein the moving object is a train (see paragraphs 0052-0053, Examiner’s note: trains).
As per claim 7, Aurongzerb et al. teaches
wherein the second product is electronic component (see paragraphs 0054-0055 and 0160, Examiner’s note: teaches calculating for an end product (see paragraph 0160), where end products can be things like mother boards (see paragraphs 0054-0055).
As per claim 8, Aurongzerb et al teaches
wherein the processor is configured to calculate El, that is the first power, based on a weight of the first product W1, a weight of the second product W2, and a total power consumption E by an equation of: E1 = E x W1/(W1 + W2), and calculate the second power E2 based on a weight of the first product W1, the weight of the second product W2, and the power consumption E by an equation of:E2=Ex W2/(W I+ W2) (see paragraph 0160, Examiner’s note: teaches calculating based on a percentage of the total shipment weight so if there are only two products (the one being calculated and another product, the weight would be W1+W2). Further the power consumption could be total fuel consumed or conversion value in paragraph 0160, further since this is multiplication total fuel consumed * conversion value could be E).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Wegner et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 20080040182) teaches determining carbon emissions per product are calculated by allocating the relevant emission to each product (see paragraph 0524)
Maikhuri et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2024/0054436) teaches a system where physical material movement in a logistics chain can be over multiple segments including a train (see Figure 4 and paragraph 0135)
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 KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7-3:30.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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.
/KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626