DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 19 November 2025. Claims 1, 3, and 4 have been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 1, 3, and 4 remain pending in this application.
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
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 6, filed 19 November 2025, with respect to objected claims 1 and 4 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 19 November 2025. The objections of claims 1 and 4 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 6-8, filed 19 November 2025, with respect to rejected claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s arguments,
Existing systems cannot accurately track and allocate emissions when the same production line uses materials with vastly different CO2 profiles, particularly where recycled materials may have near zero emissions if no additional processing is required, as noted in ¶ [0036] of the publication where "a molded article can be used as the raw material 42 as it is.” (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 1)
The claimed features provide a technical solution through a specific system architecture that integrates physical measurement hardware with material tracking systems to monitor actual production processes. As amended, the claims require ''a power meter provided in a production line configured to measure power consumption during production," which the processor must "acquire a power consumption amount measured by the power meter during the production of the specified lot on the production line" (supported by ¶ [0038] of the publication). This physical measurement component is integral to the technical solution, as it captures real-time energy consumption data specific to each production lot rather than relying on estimates or averaged values. (see Remarks, pg. 7, paragraph 2)
This integration of physical measurement hardware with lot-based tracking creates a practical application that solves a concrete problem in manufacturing environments. The power meter provides real-time, lot-specific energy consumption data that, when combined with the differentiated material tracking, enables manufacturers to accurately calculate per-product emissions even when mixing virgin and recycled materials in the same production run. This is not merely using a computer as a tool to perform calculations, but rather integrating physical sensors, production line monitoring, and material tracking systems to solve the technical problem of emission allocation in mixed-material manufacturing environments. The claimed features thus provides a practical application that improves manufacturing emission tracking technology through the integration of physical measurement components with specialized calculation processes. (see Remarks, pg. 8, paragraph 2)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field [R-07.2022]
In determining patent eligibility, examiners should consider whether the claim "purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field." Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). This consideration has also been referred to as the search for a technological solution to a technological problem. See e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1105 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Amdocs (Israel), Ltd. v. Openet Telecom, Inc., 841 F.3d 1288, 1300-01, 120 USPQ2d 1527, 1537 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
While improvements were evaluated in Alice Corp. as relevant to the search for an inventive concept (Step 2B), several decisions of the Federal Circuit have also evaluated this consideration when determining whether a claim was directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A). See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-16, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, an examiner should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) for more information about evaluating improvements in Step 2A Prong Two, and MPEP § 2106.07(b) for more information about improvements in the streamlined analysis context.
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. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. 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. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel"). The full scope of the claim under the BRI should be considered to determine if the claim reflects an improvement in technology (e.g., the improvement described in the specification). In making this determination, it is critical that examiners look at the claim "as a whole," in other words, the claim should be evaluated "as an ordered combination, without ignoring the requirements of the individual steps." When performing this evaluation, examiners should be "careful to avoid oversimplifying the claims" by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313, 120 USPQ2d at 1100.
An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is 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. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107. In this respect, the improvement consideration overlaps with other considerations, specifically the particular machine consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(b)), and the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Thus, evaluation of those other considerations may assist examiners in making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the improvement consideration.
It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). Thus, it is important for examiners to analyze the claim as a whole when determining whether the claim provides an improvement to the functioning of computers or an improvement to other technology or technical field.
During examination, the examiner should analyze the "improvements" consideration by evaluating the specification and the claims to ensure that a technical explanation of the asserted improvement is present in the specification, and that the claim reflects the asserted improvement. Generally, examiners are not expected to make a qualitative judgement on the merits of the asserted improvement. If the examiner concludes the disclosed invention does not improve technology, the burden shifts to applicant to provide persuasive arguments supported by any necessary evidence to demonstrate that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the disclosed invention improves technology. Any such evidence submitted under 37 CFR 1.132 must establish what the specification would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art and cannot be used to supplement the specification. See, e.g. MPEP § 716.09 on 37 CFR 1.132 practice with respect to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). For example, in response to a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, an applicant could submit a declaration under § 1.132 providing testimony on how one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the disclosed invention as improving technology and the underlying factual basis for that conclusion.
The limitations of “a power meter provided in a production line configured to measure power consumption during production …”; and “acquire a power consumption amount measured by the power meter during the production of the specified lot on the production line” in claim 1, and similarly in claim 4, are directed to newly presented limitations (as filed on 19 November 2025) which have addressed in Step 2A, prong two and Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility requirement as set forth below. The Examiner notes the limitations represent a mere means and action for data gathering for use in the abstract ideas of “calculate sixth CO2 emissions”, “… calculate seventh CO2 emissions …”, and “… calculate eighth CO2 emissions …”. The limitations are also recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The limitations are further well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
In addition, the Examiner recognizes the Applicant has set forth an advantage of use (i.e. a benefit of “Existing systems cannot accurately track and allocate emissions when the same production line uses materials with vastly different CO2 profiles, particularly where recycled materials may have near zero emissions if no additional processing is required.”) without providing any arguments/rationales/evidence to why the newly presented additional elements amount to an improvement (i.e. enhancement) in the functioning of a computer or an improvement (i.e. enhancement) to another technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)(II)). Hence, the Applicant’s arguments are found unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 8-10, filed 19 November 2025, with respect to rejected claims 1, 3, and 4 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 19 November 2025. The rejections of claims 1, 3, and 4 have been withdrawn.
Claims 1 and 4 stand objected to and claims 1, 3, and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 4 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the grammatical issue of “the processor is configured to:” in line 16 in light of the preceding recitation of “a processor configured to …” in line 8. Suggested claim language: “the processor is further configured to:” in line 16; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 recites the grammatical issue of “… the specified number to calculate …” in line 32 in light of the preceding of “… a specified number of products … ” in line 10. Suggested claim language: “… the specified number of products to calculate …” in line 32; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 4 recites the grammatical issue of “… the specified number to calculate …” in line 30 in light of the preceding of “… a specified number of products … ” in line 7. Suggested claim language: “… the specified number of products to calculate …” in line 30; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the claim recites “(a) management apparatus”, therefore is a machine, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one, the claim recites “… calculate the CO2 emission amount of the product …”; “the second CO2 emission amount is calculated based on an amount of energy required to produce the second raw material by recycling”; “calculate third CO2 emissions, which are CO2 emissions of the first raw material used in production of the specified lot, from the first CO2 emission amount and a weight of the first raw material used in the production of the specified lot”; “calculate fourth CO2 emissions, which are CO2 emissions of the second raw material used in production of the specified lot, from the second CO2 emission amount and a weight of the second raw material used in the production of the specified lot”; “add the third CO2 emissions and the fourth CO2 emissions to calculate fifth CO2 emissions, which are a total sum of CO2 emissions from the first raw material and the second raw material used in the production of the specified lot”; “calculate sixth CO2 emissions, which are CO2 emissions emitted during production of the specified lot on the production line, based on the power consumption amount”; “add the fifth CO2 emissions to the sixth CO2 emissions to calculate seventh CO2 emissions, which are CO2 emissions emitted due to the production of the specified lot”; and “divide the seventh CO2 emissions by the specified number to calculate eighth CO2 emissions, which are CO2 emissions per unit quantity of the product”.
The limitations of “… calculate the CO2 emission amount of the product …” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069506 A1: pg. 3, par. [0033]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “the second CO2 emission amount is calculated based on an amount of energy required to produce the second raw material by recycling” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069506 A1: pg. 3, par. [0033]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “calculate third CO2 emissions, which are CO2 emissions of the first raw material used in production of the specified lot, from the first CO2 emission amount and a weight of the first raw material used in the production of the specified lot” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069506 A1: pg. 4, par. [0042]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “calculate fourth CO2 emissions, which are CO2 emissions of the second raw material used in production of the specified lot, from the second CO2 emission amount and a weight of the second raw material used in the production of the specified lot” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069506 A1: pg. 4, par. [0042]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “add the third CO2 emissions and the fourth CO2 emissions to calculate fifth CO2 emissions, which are a total sum of CO2 emissions from the first raw material and the second raw material used in the production of the specified lot” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069506 A1: pg. 4, par. [0044]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “calculate sixth CO2 emissions, which are CO2 emissions emitted during production of the specified lot on the production line, based on the power consumption amount” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069506 A1: pg. 4, par. [0046]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “add the fifth CO2 emissions to the sixth CO2 emissions to calculate seventh CO2 emissions, which are CO2 emissions emitted due to the production of the specified lot” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069506 A1: pg. 4, par. [0047]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “divide the seventh CO2 emissions by the specified number to calculate eighth CO2 emissions, which are CO2 emissions per unit quantity of the product” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0069506 A1: pg. 4, par. [0049]), as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the claim recites “a memory storing a first CO2 emission amount that is a CO2 emission amount per unit weight of a first raw material and a second CO2 emission amount that is a CO2 emission amount per unit weight of a second raw material”; “a power meter provided in a production line configured to measure power consumption during production”; “a processor”; “the product is produced in a specified lot including a specified number of products by using the first raw material and the second raw material that are a same kind of raw materials”; “the first raw material is not a recycled product produced by recycling”; “the second raw material is a recycled product”; “the second CO2 emission amount is calculated based on an amount of energy required to produce the second raw material by recycling”; and “acquire a power consumption amount measured by the power meter during the production of the specified lot on the production line”.
The limitations of “a memory …” and “a processor” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… storing a first CO2 emission amount that is a CO2 emission amount per unit weight of a first raw material and a second CO2 emission amount that is a CO2 emission amount per unit weight of a second raw material” represents mere data gathering of information. The limitation of “storing” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “the product is produced in a specified lot including a specified number of products by using the first raw material and the second raw material that are a same kind of raw materials”; “the first raw material is not a recycled product produced by recycling”; “the second raw material is a recycled product”; and “the second CO2 emission amount is calculated based on an amount of energy required to produce the second raw material by recycling” are recited at a high level of generality and merely limits the abstract idea to a field of use (i.e. producing a product). The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “a power meter provided in a production line configured to measure power consumption during production” and “acquire a power consumption amount measured by the power meter during the production of the specified lot on the production line” represent a mere means for gathering data and action of data gathering for use in the abstract ideas of “calculate sixth CO2 emissions”, “… calculate seventh CO2 emissions …”, and “… calculate eighth CO2 emissions …”. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements neither individually nor in combination integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the addition of the elements of “a memory …” and “a processor” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The limitation of “… storing a first CO2 emission amount that is a CO2 emission amount per unit weight of a first raw material and a second CO2 emission amount that is a CO2 emission amount per unit weight of a second raw material”, as discussed above, amounts to no more than mere data gathering. In addition, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “the product is produced in a specified lot including a specified number of products by using the first raw material and the second raw material that are a same kind of raw materials”; “the first raw material is not a recycled product produced by recycling”; “the second raw material is a recycled product”; and “the second CO2 emission amount is calculated based on an amount of energy required to produce the second raw material by recycling” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “a power meter provided in a production line configured to measure power consumption during production” and “acquire a power consumption amount measured by the power meter during the production of the specified lot on the production line”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
The limitation of claim 3 merely further details the calculating of the second CO2 emission amount; and is herein addressed for the rationale set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 4:
Claim 4 represents an equivalent method claim to claim 1 and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for the same rationale as set forth in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to manufacturing systems and calculating emissions.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0116803 A1 discloses carbon footprint management for structures.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0108327 A1 discloses determining a carbon footprint of a product in a production process in a production plant, in particular of a product in interconnected production processes.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2023/0280731 A1 discloses a production management system that acquires and analyzes an operation performance in the target production process.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2024/0054422 A1 discloses a management device includes a communication unit that communicates with a company and a processor that calculates an amount of carbon dioxide emitted by manufacturing a product using a predetermined calculation method.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0155950 A1 discloses systems, methods, and apparatuses for carbon footprint reporting.
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 JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117