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 . Claims 12-18 cancelled. Claims 1, 6-11, 19-27 pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to the cancellation of claims 12-18, examiner withdraws the rejections associated with those claims.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues the claims cannot be said to be human activity and recites the claim limitations. This amounts to a general allegation that the claims do not recite a judicial exception without specifically pointing out how the language of the claim presents eligible subject matter.
Next, Applicant asserts the claims integrate the elements of the independent claims into a practical application. Applicant alleges the claims reflect feedback-driven reanalysis that includes a dynamic loop that improves decision making. Examiner notes that the features upon which Applicant is relying upon are not recited in the claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. Next Applicant alleges the claims reflect an implementation of different subsystem data integration. Without any additional explanation, it is not clear how this exemplifies statutory subject matter. Further, subsystem data integration is not claimed. Applicant also argues the generation of the transformed actionable event reflects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes, “An "article" includes a physical object or substance. The physical object or substance must be particular, meaning it can be specifically identified. "Transformation" of an article means that the "article" has changed to a different state or thing. Changing to a different state or thing usually means more than simply using an article or changing the location of an article. A new or different function or use can be evidence that an article has been transformed. Purely mental processes in which thoughts or human based actions are "changed" are not considered an eligible transformation. For data, mere "manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic ‘abstract idea,’" has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994))” MPEP 2106.05(c). It is noted that the mere manipulation or reorganization of data does not satisfy the transformation prong.
Lastly Applicant makes the broad assertion that the claim features provide an improvement to the technology of the claims. Per 2106.04(a) I, “When finding that a claim is directed to such an improvement, it is critical that examiners give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) and evaluate both the specification and the claim. The specification should disclose sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement, and the claim itself must reflect the improvement in technology. Other important considerations are the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome, and whether the BRI is limited to computer implementation.” And further, from 2106.05(a), “If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.” Applicant merely suggests that the method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and apparatus that are fundamentally different from generic computing functions or conventional human processes. Examiner disagrees. The specification in at least [0047-0051] does not describe the systems elements as being anything other than generic computing elements and functions. Further the specification describes the improvement as relating to data collection and performance metric generation across a global supply chain to generate actionable events. This might offer an improved business process however, there is no associated improvement to any technology.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) rejected under 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 and as newly amended have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, Moran et al has been introduced which discloses the use of logic to translate (or transform) recommendation data into a compatible format for more efficient sharing of data between applications.
In the previous Office Action mailed 3/07/2025, notice was taken by the Examiner that certain subject matter is old and well known in the art. Per MPEP 2144.03(c), these statements are taken as admitted prior art because no traversal of this statement was made in the subsequent response. Specifically, it has been taken as prior art that: assigning of a work order based on an identified issue, issuing a new work order, and reallocating work orders, as claimed.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6-11, and 19-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim(s) 1, 6-11, and 19-27 is/are directed to a method, computer program product and apparatus. Thus, those claims are within the four potentially eligible categories of invention (a process, a machine and an article of manufacture), satisfying Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (SME) test.
As per Prong One of Step 2A of the §101 eligibility analysis provided in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG), the Examiner notes that the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity. More specifically,
obtaining a performance metric from each facility from amongst a plurality of facilities, wherein the plurality of facilities form a part of a global supply chain, wherein the performance metric is indicative of key performance indicators corresponding to each facility determined based on a set of parameters associated with an integrated database of each facility;
integrating the performance metric obtained from each facility to generate a first integrated analytical output;
analyzing the first integrated analytical output to generate a first global performance metric, wherein the first global performance metric corresponds to the global supply chain;
providing the first global performance metric to a user for managing the global supply chain;
receiving an actionable event from the user for a facility from amongst the plurality of facilities;
transforming the actionable event into a format compatible with a facility management system of the facility associated with the actionable event based on a lookup table or transformation logic;
issuing the transformed actionable event to the facility management system within the facility, wherein the facility management system is configured to cause the transformed actionable event to be executed;
receiving a status update from the facility regarding execution of the actionable event;
generating a second global performance metric reflecting the impact of the actionable event by analyzing a second integrated analytical output; and
providing the second global performance metric.
are Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity since the claim limitations set forth the steps or instructions one would follow to generate a performance metric, provide it to a user, receive an actionable event from the user, transform to a compatible format, execute the actionable event, gather status information and generate and provide a metric reflecting the impact of the actionable event. This is similar to implementing recommendations based on gathered data and determining a performance reflecting the impact of the recommendation which is clearly certain methods of organizing human activity.
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, a claim reciting an abstract idea must be analyzed to determine whether any additional elements in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application include: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a); Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo; Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(b); Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(c); and Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(e) and the Vanda Memo issued in June 2018.
In this case, the independent claims do not include limitations that meet the criteria listed above, thus the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claim 1 recites a facility management system which merely amounts to a general link to a technological environment or using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. The processor executing non-transitory computer-readable medium instructions and facility management system in claim 19 amount to instruction to implement an abstract idea on a computer and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Similarly, independent claim 21 recites an apparatus comprising memory and one or more processors to perform the claimed steps. This and the facility management system amount to using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. There is no improvement to any technology or computer. There is no integration into a practical application.
The dependent claims further limit the abstract idea and some recite additional elements that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 6 and 22 recite generating a recommended action based on the performance metric and providing it to a user which is certain methods of organizing human activity without additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 7 and 23 are directed to analyzing the output includes performing a comparative analysis which is certain methods of organizing human activity without additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 8 and 24 add details to the abstract idea identified in claims 1 and 21 without additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 9 and 25 are directed to filtering the performance metric which is certain methods of organizing human activity without additional limitations that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 10 and 26 describe the systems from which data is collected. Collecting data from a system amounts to using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract data gathering step. The use of a computer does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claims 11, 20 and 27 describe the actionable events from claims 1, 19 and 21, respectively. These claims add additional detail to the abstract idea without any additional computer elements to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. When considered individually and in combination, the system and software claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. The invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense.
Lastly and in accordance with Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component. Mere instruction to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept.
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) 1-10 and 12-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by
Claim(s) 1, 6-10 and 19, 21-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabarti et al, US 2023/0401643 in view of Moran et al, US 2010/0306126.
As per claim 1, Chakrabarti et al teaches a method for global supply chain management, the method comprising: obtaining a performance metric from each facility from amongst a plurality of facilities, wherein the plurality of facilities form a part of a global supply chain, wherein the performance metric is indicative of key performance indicators corresponding to each facility determined based on a set of parameters associated with an integrated database of each facility ([0109] – multiple warehouses/facilities generate data regarding data associated with key performance indicators);
integrating the performance metric obtained from each facility to generate a first integrated analytical output ([0109-0111] – an exemplary user interface dashboard displays performance tracking data for warehouse including KPIs, etc.);
analyzing the first integrated analytical output to generate a first global performance metric, wherein the first global performance metric corresponds to the global supply chain ([0112] – dashboard presents regional performance summaries associated with a region or plurality of regions (a plurality of regions is indicative of global consideration);
providing the first global performance metric to a user for managing the global supply chain ([0112] – dashboard data indicating global performance metrics);
receiving an actionable event from the user for a facility from amongst the plurality of facilities ([0069, 0070, 0104] – actions are presented to user and decision to take action is made by the user; includes corrective actions, adjusting set-points or schedules, etc.);
transforming the actionable event into a format compatible with a facility management system of the facility associated with the actionable event ([0104] – actions may be automatically taken by the system; system may automatically optimize assets based on data); [0114] - portfolio throughput indicator 602 of the dashboard 600 includes a recommendation in textual form, but recommendations can be provided to the regional operations manager in any format, including audio);
issuing the transformed actionable event to the facility management system within the facility, wherein the facility management system is configured to cause the transformed actionable event to be executed ([0075, 0109, 0114] – recommendations are provided to the manager).
receiving a status update from the facility regarding execution of the actionable event ([0069, 0070, 0104] – actions are presented to user and decision to take action is made by the user; includes corrective actions, adjusting set-points or schedules, etc.);
generating a second global performance metric reflecting the impact of the actionable event by analyzing a second integrated analytical output ([0088] – data aggregation component repeatedly scans edge devices to determine new data for storage and conversion into KPI metrics [0090]); and
providing the second global performance metric (KPI metrics [0090]).
Chakrabarti et al fails to explicitly disclose the transformation into a compatible format is based on a lookup table or transformation logic. In an analogous goal and recommendation system, Moran et al discusses logic to translate (transform) data representing recommendations in a first format to a second data format compatible with an application [0025-0028]. Also see [0002] describing limitations of tools with different data formats. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention modify Chakrabarti et al to transform or translate the recommendation data into a compatible format based on transformation logic to allow for more efficient sharing between applications.
As per claim 6, Chakrabarti et al teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 comprises generating a recommended action based on the first global performance metric and providing the recommended action to the user ([0114] – global recommendations are generated and provided to manager).
As per claim 7, Chakrabarti et al teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein analyzing the first integrated analytical output includes performing a comparative analysis of the performance metric obtained from each facility, amongst the plurality of facilities ([0110, 0115] - In some embodiments, the past and current total downtimes may be tracked and comparisons to previous cycles may be used to measure current performance [0121] – various KPIs graphically compare various site over time).
As per claim 8, Chakrabarti et al teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the plurality of facilities are located at different geographical locations ([0085-0086, 0112] – the dashboard presents regional performance summaries from data associated with a region or plurality of regions).
As per claim 9, Chakrabarti et al teaches the method as claimed in claim 1 comprises filtering the first global performance metric based on a key performance indicator, a location of a facility, and a time window, in response to a request received from the user ([0005-0006, 0091-0092, figure 6, 7 and 9] – request submitted to system to filter data by asset, location, metric and time).
As per claim 10, Chakrabarti et al teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the integrated database includes data collected from a plurality of sub-systems associated with each facility, wherein the plurality of sub-systems include workforce intelligence system, an asset performance management system, a yard management system, an inventory management system, an operation management system, a warehouse execution system, a control system, an energy sustainability system, and a labor management system ([0048] – computer system form an Internet-of-Things platform which connects any type of internet-connected device; systems include any type or quantity of one or more processors/systems).
As per claim 11, Chakrabarti et al teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the actionable event includes issuing a notification ([0104] – issuing notifications based on recommendations), but fails to explicitly teach assigning of a work order based on an identified issue, issuing a new work order, and reallocating work orders. Examiner takes official notice that in the context of making recommendations in response to KPI analysis which include optimizing processes and adjusting schedules as taught by Chadkrabarti et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include work orders, as claimed. The inclusion of work orders, as claimed, to be included in recommended actionable events would ensure remediation of processes based on KPI metrics.
As per claim 19, Chakrabarti et al teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions for global supply chain management, the instructions being executable by a processor to [0049]
obtain a set of parameters from each database of an integrated database associated to each facility from amongst a plurality of facilities, wherein the plurality of facilities form a part of a global supply chain ([0109] – multiple warehouses/facilities generate data regarding data associated with key performance indicators);
determine key performance indicators corresponding to each facility based on the set of parameters ([0109] – multiple warehouses/facilities generate data regarding data associated with key performance indicators);
generate a performance metric obtained from each facility to generate a first integrated analytical output ([0109-0111] – an exemplary user interface dashboard displays performance tracking data for warehouse including KPIs, etc.);
integrate the performance metric obtained from each facility to generate an integrated analytical output ([0109-0111] – KPI dashboard)
analyze the integrated analytical output to generate a global performance metric, wherein the global performance metric corresponds to the global supply chain ([0112] – dashboard presents regional performance summaries associated with a region or plurality of regions (a plurality of regions is indicative of global consideration);
provide the global performance metric to a user for managing the global supply chain ([0112] – dashboard data indicating global performance metrics);
receive an actionable event from the user for a facility from amongst the plurality of facilities ([0069, 0070, 0104] – actions are presented to user and decision to take action is made by the user; includes corrective actions, adjusting set-points or schedules, etc.);
transforming the actionable event into a format compatible with a facility management system of the facility associated with the actionable event ([0104] – actions may be automatically taken by the system; system may automatically optimize assets based on data); [0114] - portfolio throughput indicator 602 of the dashboard 600 includes a recommendation in textual form, but recommendations can be provided to the regional operations manager in any format, including audio);
issuing the transformed actionable event to the facility management system within the facility, wherein the facility management system is configured to cause the transformed actionable event to be executed ([0075, 0109, 0114] – recommendations are provided to the manager).
receiving a status update from the facility regarding execution of the actionable event ([0069, 0070, 0104] – actions are presented to user and decision to take action is made by the user; includes corrective actions, adjusting set-points or schedules, etc.);
generating a second global performance metric reflecting the impact of the actionable event by analyzing a second integrated analytical output ([0088] – data aggregation component repeatedly scans edge devices to determine new data for storage and conversion into KPI metrics [0090]); and
providing the second global performance metric (KPI metrics [0090]).
Chakrabarti et al fails to explicitly disclose the transformation into a compatible format is based on a lookup table or transformation logic. In an analogous goal and recommendation system, Moran et al discusses logic to translate (transform) data representing recommendations in a first format to a second data format compatible with an application [0025-0028]. Also see [0002] describing limitations of tools with different data formats. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention modify Chakrabarti et al to transform or translate the recommendation data into a compatible format based on transformation logic to allow for more efficient sharing between applications.
As per claim 21, Chakrabarti et al teaches an apparatus comprising memory and one or more processors communicatively coupled to the memory, the one or more processors configured to perform operations comprising: [0048-0049]
obtaining a performance metric from each facility from amongst a plurality of facilities, wherein the plurality of facilities form a part of a global supply chain, wherein the performance metric is indicative of key performance indicators corresponding to each facility determined based on a set of parameters associated with an integrated database of each facility from amongst a plurality of facilities, wherein the plurality of facilities form a part of a global supply chain ([0109] – multiple warehouses/facilities generate data regarding data associated with key performance indicators);
integrating the performance metric obtained from each facility to generate a first integrated analytical output ([0109-0111] – KPI dashboard);
analyzing the first integrated analytical output to generate a first global performance metric, wherein the first global performance metric corresponds to the global supply chain ([0112] – dashboard presents regional performance summaries associated with a region or plurality of regions (a plurality of regions is indicative of global consideration);
providing the first global performance metric to a user for managing the global supply chain ([0112] – dashboard data indicating global performance metrics);
receiving an actionable event from the user for a facility from amongst the plurality of facilities ([0069, 0070, 0104] – actions are presented to user and decision to take action is made by the user; includes corrective actions, adjusting set-points or schedules, etc.);
transforming the actionable event into a format compatible with a facility management system of the facility associated with the actionable event ([0104] – actions may be automatically taken by the system; system may automatically optimize assets based on data; [0114] - portfolio throughput indicator 602 of the dashboard 600 includes a recommendation in textual form, but recommendations can be provided to the regional operations manager in any format, including audio);
issuing the transformed actionable event to the facility management system within the facility, wherein the facility management system is configured to cause the transformed actionable event to be executed ([0075, 0109, 0114] – recommendations are provided to the manager).
receiving a status update from the facility regarding execution of the actionable event ([0069, 0070, 0104] – actions are presented to user and decision to take action is made by the user; includes corrective actions, adjusting set-points or schedules, etc.);
generating a second global performance metric reflecting the impact of the actionable event by analyzing a second integrated analytical output ([0088] – data aggregation component repeatedly scans edge devices to determine new data for storage and conversion into KPI metrics [0090]); and
providing the second global performance metric (KPI metrics [0090]).
Chakrabarti et al fails to explicitly disclose the transformation into a compatible format is based on a lookup table or transformation logic. In an analogous goal and recommendation system, Moran et al discusses logic to translate (transform) data representing recommendations in a first format to a second data format compatible with an application [0025-0028]. Also see [0002] describing limitations of tools with different data formats. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention modify Chakrabarti et al to transform or translate the recommendation data into a compatible format based on transformation logic to allow for more efficient sharing between applications.
As per claim 22, Chakrabarti et al teaches wherein the one or more operations further comprise generating a recommended action based on the first global performance metric and providing the recommended action to the user ([0114] – global recommendations are generated and provided to manager).
As per claim 23, Chakrabarti et al teaches wherein analyzing the first integrated analytical output includes performing a comparative analysis of the performance metric obtained from each facility, amongst the plurality of facilities ([0110, 0115] - In some embodiments, the past and current total downtimes may be tracked and comparisons to previous cycles may be used to measure current performance [0121] – various KPIs graphically compare various site over time).
As per claim 24, Chakrabarti et al teaches wherein the plurality of facilities are located at different geographical locations ([0085-0086, 0112] – the dashboard presents regional performance summaries from data associated with a region or plurality of regions).
As per claim 25, Chakrabarti et al teaches filtering the first global performance metric based on a key performance indicator, a location of a facility, and a time window, in response to a request received from the user ([0005-0006, 0091-0092, figure 6, 7 and 9] – request submitted to system to filter data by asset, location, metric and time).
As per claim 26, Chakrabarti et al teaches wherein the integrated database includes data collected from a plurality of sub-systems associated with each facility, wherein the plurality of sub-systems include workforce intelligence system, an asset performance management system, a yard management system, an inventory management system, an operation management system, a warehouse execution system, a control system, an energy sustainability system, and a labor management system ([0048] – computer system form an Internet-of-Things platform which connects any type of internet-connected device; systems include any type or quantity of one or more processors/systems).
As per claim 27, Chakrabarti et al teaches wherein the actionable event includes issuing a notification ([0104] – issuing notifications based on recommendations), but fails to explicitly teach assigning of a work order based on an identified issue, issuing a new work order, and reallocating work orders. Examiner takes official notice that in the context of making recommendations in response to KPI analysis which include optimizing processes and adjusting schedules as taught by Chadkrabarti et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include work orders, as claimed. The inclusion of work orders, as claimed, to be included in recommended actionable events would ensure remediation of processes based on KPI metrics.
Claim(s) 11, 20 and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakrabarti et al, US 2023/0401643 and admitted prior art.
As per claim 11, 20 and 27, Chakrabarti et al wherein the actionable event includes issuing a notification ([0104] – issuing notifications based on recommendations), but fails to explicitly teach assigning of a work order based on an identified issue, issuing a new work order, and reallocating work orders. Examiner takes as admitted prior art that in the context of making recommendations in response to KPI analysis which include optimizing processes and adjusting schedules as taught by Chadkrabarti et al, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to include work orders, as claimed. The inclusion of work orders, as claimed, to be included in recommended actionable events would ensure remediation of processes based on KPI metrics.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHNNA LOFTIS whose telephone number is (571)272-6736. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-3:30pm.
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 571-270-5389. 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.
JOHNNA LOFTIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JOHNNA R LOFTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights