The present application, filed on or after 16 March 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s submission filed on 23 July 2026. THIS ACTION IS NON-FINAL.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22 are pending.
Claims 3 and 13 are cancelled
Claim 1-2, 4-12, 14-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for being directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
There is no art rejection for claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22.
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.
Judicial Exception
Claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22 of the claimed invention are directed to a judicial exception, an abstract idea, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1-10
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 1, the claim recites a process, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites
(a) “ …. determining … based on the output, that the one or more answers a particular answer to the one or more of the questions represent represents a failure of the large language model” (mental process), which, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “determining”, in the limitation citied above encompasses evaluating / testing a data analysis model to identify / classify failure of the model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea;
(b) “… classifying …. the failure of the large language model as belonging to particular type of failure” (mental process), which, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “classifying”, in the limitation citied above encompasses evaluating / testing a data analysis model to identify / classify failure of the model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) generic computer elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., “using, by a device, a large language model associated with a network controller for a computer network to generate answers to questions regarding the computer network”. “causing, by the device, execution of at least one of a script or code associated with a predefined test case to obtain output”), which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f); (b) “… providing, by the device, an indication of the particular type of failure for display”, these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution data output as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of generic computer element merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “… providing, by the device, an indication of the particular type of failure for display”, is insignificant extra solution activity of post-solution data output (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining or transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). The courts have found similar case not eligible, e.g. Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 2-10 are dependent on claim 1 and include all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-10 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 2, the claim recites additional element of “uses a machine learning-based classifier to classify the failure of the large language model”, which is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea (MPEP2106.05(f)) and/or merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “uses a machine learning-based classifier to classify the failure of the large language model” is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea (see MPEP2106.05(f)) and/or merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 4, the claim recites additional element of “wherein at least one of the script or code is executed by the network controller”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 5, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the particular type of failure is at least one of: a hallucination failure, an over-confidence failure, a bias failure, a high variance failure, or a lack of reproducibility failure”, recites further steps of model evaluation / testing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator., which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 6, the claim recites further limitation of “determining … that a particular second answer from among the one or more answers cannot be validated …”, recites further steps of model evaluation / testing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator., which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim recited additional element “obtaining, by the device, user feedback regarding whether the particular answer is valid”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “obtaining, by the device, user feedback regarding whether the particular answer is valid”, is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 7, the claim recited additional element “… obtains the user feedback based on a probability associated with the particular answer”, which is extra-solution activity of data input/output (MPEP 2106.05(g)) and/or WURC (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 8, the claim recites additional element of “wherein the large language model generates the one or more answers in part by issuing an additional script or code to the network controller for execution”, which is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea (MPEP2106.05(f)) and/or merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 9, the claim recited additional element “… storing, by the device, a summary of a group of failures in a library”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “… storing, by the device, a summary of a group of failures in a library”, is insignificant extra solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 10, the claim recites additional element of “wherein the device uses the library to classify the failure”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claims 11-19
(Independent Claims) With regards to claim 11, the claim recites a machine, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites
(a) “ …. determine based on the output, that the one or more answers to the one or more questions represent failure of the large language model” (mental process), which, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “determine”, in the limitation citied above encompasses evaluating / testing a data analysis model to identify / classify failure of the model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea;
(b) “… classify, by the device, the failure of the large language model as belonging to particular type of failure” (mental process), which, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “classify”, in the limitation citied above encompasses evaluating / testing a data analysis model to identify / classify failure of the model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) generic computer elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function, such as device, controller, “use a large language model associated with a network controller for a computer network to generate answers to questions regarding the computer network”, “cause execution of at least one of a script or code associated with a predefined test case to obtain output”), which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f); (b) “… provide an indication of the particular type of failure for display”, these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of data input/output as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of generic computer element merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “… provide an indication of the particular type of failure for display”, is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 12-19 are dependent on claim 11 and include all the limitations of claim 11. Therefore, claims 12-19 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 12, the claim recites additional element of “uses a machine learning-based classifier to classify the failure of the large language model”, which is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea (see MPEP2106.05(f)) and/or merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 14, the claim recites additional element of “wherein the predefined test case comprises a at least one of the script or code is executed for execution by the network controller”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 15, the claim recites further limitation of “wherein the particular type of failure is at least one of: a hallucination failure, an over-confidence failure, a bias failure, a high variance failure, or a lack of reproducibility failure”, recites further steps of model evaluation / testing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator., which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 16, the claim recites further limitation of “determine that it cannot validate a second a particular answer from among the one or more answers cannot be validated; and obtain user feedback regarding whether the particular second answer is valid”, recites further steps of model evaluation / testing, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator., which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Except citing generic computer elements to implement the abstract idea, there is no additional element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The claim recited additional element “obtaining user feedback regarding whether the second answer is valid”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “obtaining user feedback regarding whether the second answer is valid”, is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 17, the claim recited additional element “… obtains the user feedback based on a probability associated with the particular answer”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of pre-solution data gathering (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of “… obtains the user feedback based on a probability associated with the particular answer”, is insignificant extra solution activity of pre-solution data gathering and/or post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 18, the claim recites additional element of “wherein the large language model generates the one or more answers in part by issuing [[a]] an additional script or code to the network controller for execution”, which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using generic computing device, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 19, the claim recited additional element “… storing, by the device, a summary of a group of failures in a library”, which is recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of post-solution data output (MPEP.2106.05(g)). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of ““… storing, by the device, a summary of a group of failures in a library”, is insignificant extra solution activity of post-solution data output (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining or transmitting information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
The claim is not patent eligible.
Regarding claim 20, the claim recites a process, which falls into one of the statutory categories.
2A – Prong 1: the claim, in part, recites
(a) “ ….determining … based on the output, that the one or more answers to the one or more questions represent a failure of the large language model” (mental process), which, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “determining”, in the limitation citied above encompasses evaluating / testing a data analysis model to identify / classify failure of the model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea;
(b) “… classifying …. the failure of the large language model as belonging to particular type of failure” (mental process), which, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting generic computer elements, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the language about generic computer elements, “classifying”, in the limitation citied above encompasses evaluating / testing a data analysis model to identify / classify failure of the model, which is based on observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion, that could be performed by human using paper / pen / calculator. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
2A – Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of: (a) generic computer elements which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function, such as device, controller, “using, by the device, a large language model associated with a network controller for a computer network to generate answers to questions regarding the computer network”, “causing execution of at least one of a script or code associated with a predefined test case to obtain output”), which is mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f); (b) “… providing, by the device, an indication of the particular type of failure for display”, these steps are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to extra-solution activity of data input/output as described in MPEP.2106.05(g). Accordingly, at Step 2A, prong two, the additional elements individually or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
2B Analysis: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional element of generic computer element merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The additional element of “… providing, by the device, an indication of the particular type of failure for display”, is insignificant extra solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g). The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). Accordingly, at Step 2B the additional elements individually or in combination do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim is not patent eligible.
(Dependent claims)
Claims 21-22 are dependent on claim 20 and include all the limitations of claim 20. Therefore, claims 21-22 recite the same abstract ideas.
With regards to claim 21, the claim recites additional element of “wherein the large language model generates the one or more answers in part by issuing an additional script or code to the network controller for execution”, which is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea (see MPEP2106.05(f)). The claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to claim 22, the claim recites additional element of “wherein at least one of the script or code is executed by the network controller”, which is mere instruction to implement an abstract idea (see MPEP2106.05(f)) and/or merely indicates a field of use or technological environment in which the judicial exception is performed (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim is not patent eligible.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 23 July 2026 has been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding 101 rejections,
1)Applicant argued that (p.6) ….
PNG
media_image1.png
163
731
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner replies: No prior-art rejection does not automatically make the claim patent eligible. An abstract novel idea is still not patent eligible even there is no prior-art reference. The 101 rejection is maintained.
2) Applicant argued that (p.6-7) ….
PNG
media_image2.png
516
776
media_image2.png
Greyscale
…
Examiner replies: As shown in last OA, the claim does include abstract idea, e.g., the step of determining if an answer is error. The added limitation in the amended claim “causing, by the device, execution of at least one of a script or code …” is mere application of judiciary using general computer. The 101 rejection is maintained.
3) Applicant argued that (p.7-8) ….
PNG
media_image3.png
994
744
media_image3.png
Greyscale
…
Examiner replies: As stated in last OA, the claim does include element which is an abstract idea. The additional elements are mere application of judiciary application using generic computer or insignificant extra-solution activities. There is no inventive element showing integration into a practical application or adding something significantly more to the abstract idea. The 101 rejection is maintained.
4) To overcome the issues, suggest Applicant to include additional inventive concept elements into claims: (1) to show integration into a practical application; and/or (2) to show a specific physical implementation that is not WURC; (3) that is not practical for human mind to process and not WURC.
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 extension fee 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 TSU-CHANG LEE whose telephone number is 571-272-3567. The fax number is 571-273-3567.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Omar Fernandez Rivas, can be reached 571-272-2589.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TSU-CHANG LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2128
Prosecution Insights