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 Amendment
The amendment filed July 20, 2026 has been entered.
Claims 16-30 remain pending in the application. Claims 1-15 are canceled.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 20, 2026. However, new 112(b) rejections are outstanding, as detailed in the Claim Rejections-35 USC 112(b) section below.
Based on Applicant’s amendments and remarks, the previous prior art rejection and 101 rejection have been modified to address the claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 30 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 30, Lns. 6-7 recite, “cause the control unit configured to”, which is grammatically incorrect. The above limitation needs to be amended to recite, “cause the control unit to” to be grammatically correct. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 22-23 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 22, Lns. 2-3 recite, “initiating a maintenance procedure, a comparison and calibration procedure, for the sensor device”. However, it is unclear which of these procedures would need to be present in order to satisfy the claim. Does either of a maintenance procedure or a comparison and calibration procedure need to be present, or do both procedures need to be present? Further clarification is needed. For purposes of compact prosecution, the above limitation has been examined as requiring that either or both of the procedures be present in order to satisfy the claim.
Claim 23 similarly recites, “initiating a maintenance procedure, a comparison and calibration procedure”, and claim 29 similarly recites, “initiate a maintenance procedure, a comparison and calibration procedure”, and are similarly rejected and examined.
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 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The subject matter eligibility test for the claims is shown below:
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 1
Independent claim 16 is drawn to a method. Independent claim 24 is drawn to a control unit, which is a machine. Claim 30 is drawn to a computer-readable storage device, which is a machine. All are statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong One
In Step 2A Prong One, it is determined if the claims recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. Independent claims 16, 24, and 30 recite receiving sensor information, performing a verification model based on other related information to determine an expected sensor information, comparing the expected sensor information with received sensor information, and outputting a verification signal when it is determined that the received sensor information deviates from the expected sensor information, where the verification signal triggers at least one of switching the control unit to a safe control mode, or initiating a maintenance or calibration procedure for the sensor device. The act of performing a verification model to determine an expected sensor information based on related information is a mathematical calculation-type abstract idea that can be practically performed in the human mind, particularly as the step is performed as a high level of generality, and does not recite a specialized computer for performing the verification model. Further, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the act of performing a verification model could also be considered merely the act of verifying, which is a mental process-type abstract idea that can be practically performed in the human mind. Further, the acts of receiving sensor information, comparing the expected sensor information with the received sensor information, and outputting a verification signal if the received sensor information deviates from the expected sensor information, are evaluation/determination-type mental processes, which are abstract ideas. Finally, the act of deciding whether to switch the control unit to a safe control mode or initiating a maintenance or calibration procedure is a determination/evaluation-type mental process abstract idea. The independent claims therefore recite an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2A Prong Two
In step 2A Prong Two, it is determined if the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The independent claims 16, 24, and 30 further recite receiving sensor information by a control unit, and receiving at least one other information related to the plant process having a relationship to the sensor information (used to perform the verification model). Both of these steps amount to mere data-gathering, which is insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Further, as previously stated in Step 2A Prong One, the act recited in claims 16, 24, and 30 of deciding whether to switch the control unit to a safe control mode or initiating a maintenance or calibration procedure is a determination/evaluation-type mental process abstract idea, and further, the act of actually switching to a safe control mode or initiating a maintenance/calibration procedure amounts merely to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The independent claims additionally recite “a control unit”, “a sensor device”, and “a plant process for water treatment”, which corresponds to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, i.e. a plant process environment that performs the judicial exception via a general computer or the like. Accordingly, the additional elements recited do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Test, Step 2B
In step 2B, it is determined if the claim recites additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this case, the independent claims 16 and 24 additionally recite “a control unit”, “a sensor device”, and “a plant process for water treatment”. These elements are well-known and conventional within the art. Further, the application of these mental processes into a plant process environment is nothing more than generally linking the mental process judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2106.05(d) and 2106.05(e). Still further, the act of “outputting a verification signal” is merely insignificant extra-solution activity, and amounts to an insignificant application of the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(g). Still further, the act of actually switching to a safe mode or initiating a maintenance/calibration procedure after determining that such is necessary based on a deviation of the sensor information from the expected sensor information amounts merely to the words “apply it”. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further, with regards to the generically recited control unit, sensor device, and plant process for water treatment being nothing more than well-understood, routine, and conventional components that are well-known in the art, the following prior art is relied upon to show that the above elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional:
Cella et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0129404; hereinafter Cella; already of record) teaches a control unit ([0757], [0765], see Fig. 101 at controller 9702), a sensor device ([0758], [0765], see Fig. 101 at sensors 9706), and a plant process for water treatment ([1334]).
Su et al. (US Pub. No. 2016/0124399; hereinafter Su; already of record) teaches a control unit ([0065], see Fig. 7 at processing component 702) and a sensor device ([0065], see Fig. 7 at sensor 712).
Claims 17-23 and 25-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as depending on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 16-20, 22, and 24-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cella.
Regarding claim 16, Cella discloses a method for verifying the plausibility of sensor information sensed by a sensor device associated with a plant process for water treatment, wherein the sensor information relates to the plant process ([0298], [0462], [0765], [1334], see Fig. 1). The method comprises:
receiving, by a control unit, the sensor information ([0757]-[0758], [0765], see Fig. 101 at controller 9702, sensor 9706).
Performing, by the control unit, a verification model, the verification model determining an expected sensor information which the sensor device shall provide, wherein the verification model determines the expected sensor information based on at least one other information related to the plant process and having a relationship to the sensor information ([0765], the sensor fault detection circuit can include anticipated state information, sensor models, and the like. See at least [0308], which states that the model may be trained on based on models created by human or machine analysis of data previously collected by sensors, and [0311], which shows that the anticipated states can be based on historical data).
Comparing the expected sensor information with the received sensor information (implicitly disclosed in [0765], either in the comparison of the value detected by the sensor with a value detected by a sensor having a greater range/lower resolution monitoring the same component/attribute, or by the comparison of the sensor data with anticipated state information. This is further evidenced by [0780], which states that the sensor overload status is determined in response to a plurality of detection values and an anticipated state information, and [0311], which shows that the anticipated states can be based on historical data via machine learning).
Upon determining that the sensor information deviates from the expected sensor information, outputting, by the control unit, a verification signal that causes the control unit to switch to a safe control mode using alternative process parameters or redundant sensor data to continue controlling the plant process and/or to initiate an event-based maintenance or calibration procedure for the sensor device ([0492]).
Regarding claim 17, Cella discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the at least one other information is not originated from the sensor device ([0765], [0308], [0311]).
Regarding claim 18, Cella discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the at least one other information is at least one of a second sensor information of a second sensor device associated with the plant process, a process parameter related to the plant process, a plant process constraint and a control activity related to the plant process ([0765], particularly at detecting sensor overload based on evaluating data collected by other sensors).
Regarding claim 19, Cella discloses the method of claim 16, wherein the verification model includes at least one rule for determining the expected sensor information based on the at least one other information ([0308], [0311]).
Regarding claim 20, Cella discloses the method of claim 19, wherein the at least one rule is determined based on historical data related to the plant process ([0308], [0311]).
Regarding claim 22, Cella discloses the method of claim 16, further comprising in response to the verification signal, initiating a maintenance procedure, a comparison and calibration procedure, for the sensor device ([0492]).
Regarding claim 24, Cella discloses a control unit for controlling a plant process for water treatment, the control unit being communicatively coupled to a sensor device associated with the plant process and sensing sensor information related to the plant process ([0298], [0462], [0757]-[0758], [0765], [1334], see Figs. 1, 101 at controller 9702, sensor 9706). The control unit is configured to:
receive the sensor information ([0757]-[0758], [0765], see Fig. 101 at controller 9702, sensor 9706).
Perform a verification model, the verification model for determining an expected sensor information which the sensor device shall provide, wherein the verification model determines the expected sensor information based on at least one other information related to the plant process and having a relationship to the sensor information ([0765], the sensor fault detection circuit can include anticipated state information, sensor models, and the like. See at least [0308], which states that the model may be trained on based on models created by human or machine analysis of data previously collected by sensors, and [0311], which shows that the anticipated states can be based on historical data).
compare the expected sensor information with the received sensor information (implicitly disclosed in [0765], either in the comparison of the value detected by the sensor with a value detected by a sensor having a greater range/lower resolution monitoring the same component/attribute, or by the comparison of the sensor data with anticipated state information. This is further evidenced by [0780], which states that the sensor overload status is determined in response to a plurality of detection values and an anticipated state information, and [0311], which shows that the anticipated states can be based on historical data via machine learning).
Output a verification signal upon determining that the sensor information deviates from the expected sensor information, wherein the verification signal triggers at least one of: switching the control unit to a safe control mode that maintains operation of the plant process using alternative parameters or redundant sensors, or initiating a maintenance or calibration procedure for the sensor device ([0492]).
Regarding claim 25, Cella discloses the control unit of claim 24, wherein the at least one other information is not originated from the sensor device, wherein the at least one other information is at least one of a second sensor information of a second sensor device associated with the plant process, a process parameter related to the plant process, a plant process constraint and a control activity related to the plant process ([0765], particularly at detecting sensor overload based on evaluating data collected by other sensors, [0308], [0311]).
Regarding claim 26, Cella discloses the control unit of claim 24, wherein the verification model includes at least one rule for determining the expected sensor information based on the at least one other information ([0308]).
Regarding claim 27, Cella discloses the control unit of claim 26, wherein the at least one rule is determined from historical data related to the plant process ([0308], [0311]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 21, 23, and 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella, as applied to claims 16-20, 22, and 24-27 above, in view of Su.
Regarding claim 21, Cella discloses the method of claim 16.
Cella fails to explicitly disclose that the method further comprises, in response to the verification signal, switching the control unit in a safe control mode for controlling the plant process using one or more predefined safe control activities or redundant measurements.
Su is in the analogous field of sensor processing (Su; [0065], see Fig. 7). Su teaches switching a control unit in a safe control mode for controlling a process using a safe control activity based on receiving a signal (Su [0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Cella with the teaching of Su so that the method comprises, in response to the verification signal, switching the control unit in a safe control mode for controlling the plant process using one or more predefined safe control activities or redundant measurements, in order to avoid any potential safety hazards associated with a faulty sensor (Su [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 23, modified Cella discloses the method of claim 21. Modified Cella further discloses: in response to the verification signal, initiating a maintenance procedure, a comparison and calibration procedure, for the sensor device (Cella [0492]).
Modified Cella fails to explicitly disclose that the method further comprises, after completing the maintenance procedure, switching the control unit from the safe control mode back to a normal control mode.
Su further teaches, after completing a maintenance procedure, switching an appliance from a safe control mode back to a normal control mode (Su; [0034]-[0050], see Fig. 4 where an appliance detects whether an operation status is abnormal in step 402, operates in the safe mode if so in steps 403/404, and recovers operation at the abnormality position in step 414. Particularly, see [0046], which states that when a foreign object is discovered in a door with blades, the blades are powered off, i.e. the appliance is in safe control mode, and after a foreign object is removed from a top door with blades, i.e. a maintenance procedure, the blades are powered on again, i.e. the appliance is switched back to a normal control mode). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of modified Cella with the further teachings of Su so that the method further comprises, after completing the maintenance procedure, switching the control unit from the safe control mode back to a normal control mode. The motivation would have been to be able to restore normal operation to the control unit after a maintenance procedure, as the normal operation is typically more efficient than a safe control mode, thereby improving efficiency in the process.
Regarding claim 28, Cella discloses the control unit of claim 24. Cella further discloses that the verification signal uses alternative process parameters derived from other sensors or historical data (implicitly disclosed in [0765], either in the comparison of the value detected by the sensor with a value detected by a sensor having a greater range/lower resolution monitoring the same component/attribute, or by the comparison of the sensor data with anticipated state information. This is further evidenced by [0780], which states that the sensor overload status is determined in response to a plurality of detection values and an anticipated state information, and [0311], which shows that the anticipated states can be based on historical data via machine learning).
Cella fails to explicitly disclose that the control unit is configured to switch in a safe control mode for controlling the plant process in response to the verification signal.
Su is in the analogous field of sensor processing (Su; [0065], see Fig. 7). Su teaches a control unit that is configured to switch in a safe control mode for controlling a process based on receiving a signal (Su [0004]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control unit of Cella with the teaching of Su so that the control unit is configured to switch in a safe control mode for controlling the plant process in response to the verification signal, in order to avoid any potential safety hazards associated with a faulty sensor (Su [0003]-[0004]).
Regarding claim 29, modified Cella discloses the control unit of claim 28. Modified Cella further discloses that the control unit is further configured to initiate a maintenance procedure, a comparison and calibration procedure, for the sensor device (Cella [0492]).
Modified Cella fails to explicitly disclose that the control unit is configured to switch from the safe control mode to a normal control mode of the plant process, after receiving an indication that the maintenance procedure has been completed.
Su further teaches a control unit that is configured to switch from a safe control mode to a normal control mode of an appliance, after receiving an indication that a maintenance procedure has been completed (Su; [0034]-[0050], see Fig. 4 where an appliance detects whether an operation status is abnormal in step 402, operates in the safe mode if so in steps 403/404, and recovers operation at the abnormality position in step 414. Particularly, see [0046], which states that when a foreign object is discovered in a door with blades, the blades are powered off, i.e. the appliance is in safe control mode, and after a foreign object is removed from a top door with blades, i.e. a maintenance procedure, the blades are powered on again, i.e. the appliance is switched back to a normal control mode). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the control unit of modified Cella so that the control unit is configured to switch from the safe control mode to a normal control mode of the plant process, after receiving an indication that the maintenance procedure has been completed. The motivation would have been to be able to restore normal operation to the control unit after a maintenance procedure, as the normal operation is typically more efficient than a safe control mode, thereby improving efficiency in the process.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cella in view of Su.
Regarding claim 30, Cella discloses instructions which, when the instructions are executed by a control unit for controlling a plant process for water treatment, the control unit being communicatively coupled to a sensor device associated with the plant process and sensing sensor information related to the plant process ([0298], [0462], [0757]-[0758], [0765], [1334], see Figs. 1, 101 at controller 9702, sensor 9706), cause the control unit to:
receive, by the control unit, the sensor information ([0757]-[0758], [0765], see Fig. 101 at controller 9702, sensor 9706).
Perform, by the control unit, a verification model, the verification model determining an expected sensor information which the sensor device shall provide, wherein the verification model determines the expected sensor information based on at least one other information related to the plant process and having a relationship to the sensor information ([0765], the sensor fault detection circuit can include anticipated state information, sensor models, and the like. See at least [0308], which states that the model may be trained on based on models created by human or machine analysis of data previously collected by sensors, and [0311], which shows that the anticipated states can be based on historical data).
Compare the expected sensor information with the received sensor information (implicitly disclosed in [0765], either in the comparison of the value detected by the sensor with a value detected by a sensor having a greater range/lower resolution monitoring the same component/attribute, or by the comparison of the sensor data with anticipated state information. This is further evidenced by [0780], which states that the sensor overload status is determined in response to a plurality of detection values and an anticipated state information, and [0311], which shows that the anticipated states can be based on historical data via machine learning).
Upon determining that the sensor information deviates from the expected sensor information, outputting, by the control unit, a verification signal ([0767]), wherein the verification signal triggers at least one of: switching the control unit to a safe control mode that maintains operation of the plant process using alternative parameters or redundant sensors, or initiating a maintenance or calibration procedure for the sensor device ([0492]).
Cella fails to explicitly disclose a computer-readable storage device that stores executable code that, when executed by a processor, causes the code to be executed by the control unit.
Su is in the analogous field of sensor processing (Su; [0065], see Fig. 7). Su teaches a computer-readable storage device that stores executable code that, when executed by a processor, causes the code to be executed by a control unit (Su [0069]-[0070]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the instructions of Cella with the teachings of Su to include a computer-readable storage device that stores executable code that, when executed by a processor, causes the code to be executed by the control unit, in order to automatically perform the instructions via a computer, thereby reducing the potential for human error and improving throughput.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pgs. 8-11 of their Remarks that the claims are not drawn to an abstract idea, as the claims are not directed merely to “thinking” of a verification of a sensor, but address the problem of drifting sensor readings in plant processes. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner’s position is that the claims are still directed to a mental process. The verification model may be considered a mathematical calculation, or, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the act of verifying, which is a determination/evaluation-type mental process abstract idea. Further, the comparison of expected sensor information to received sensor information is an evaluation/determination-type mental process, and determination that the received sensor information deviates from the expected sensor information is also an evaluation/determination-type mental process. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea judicial exception.
Applicant further argues on Pgs. 11-12 of their Remarks that the verification model, which can predict how the phosphorus concentration should develop over time, is not a generic mathematical calculation or mental observation that can be performed in the human mind. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees, as algorithms can still be abstract ideas, particularly when recited at a high level of generality. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C) clearly shows that algorithms can be mathematical calculation-type abstract ideas when recited at a high level of generality. Further, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the verification model itself is merely the act of verifying, which is itself a determination/evaluation mental process-type abstract idea, that can be practically performed in the human mind. Still further, the verification model for predicting phosphorus concentration, present in the Specification, is not reflected in the claims.
Applicant further refers throughout the Remarks to a color maintenance scheme present in the Specification. However, the Examiner was unable to identify where such a color maintenance scheme is present.
Applicant further argues on Pgs. 13-15 of their Remarks that, even if the claims do recite a judicial exception, that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims rather appear to seek to monopolize determining that sensors have inaccurate readings, and performing actions to correct this inaccuracy. The act of determining if sensors are inaccurate is a mental process type abstract idea, and performing actions to correct this inaccuracy amounts merely to apply it. The claims are therefore drawn to a judicial exception.
Applicant further argues on Pgs. 15-17 of their Remarks that, even if the claims do recite a judicial exception, that the claims recite additional elements which amount to significantly more, and therefore amount to an inventive concept. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Any additional elements in the claims beyond the previously discussed judicial exceptions amount merely to "apply it", and are insignificant extra-solution activity. The decision to move to a safe mode or initiate maintenance or calibration if a sensor is faulty is a mental process-type abstract idea, and actually performing the corrective action amounts to "apply it". Further, with regards to Applicant’s arguments that the claims improve the technological field of water quality testing by solving the error-prone nature of reliable sensor readings, the Examiner’s position is that the claims are trying to monopolize the judicial exception of determining faulty sensor readings, and then generally linking the judicial exception to water treatment. The physical plant process merely links the judicial exception to a technical field, and the process data amounts to mere data-gathering. The actual acts of switching to a safe control mode and/or initiating a maintenance or calibration procedure for the sensor device amount to “apply it”.
Applicant further argues on Pgs. 18-19 of their Remarks that the claims recite an inventive concept that is unconventional, as conventional approaches relied on periodic lab calibrations or basic self-tests. However, the Examiner’s position is that using a model instead of these approaches is, at best, the additional incorporation of a mathematical calculation type abstract idea into the claim, and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In fact, the model itself is a judicial exception of the act of verification, particularly when recited at a high level of generality, as it is in the claims as currently constructed.
Applicant further argues on Pgs. 19-22 of their Remarks that Cella does not teach “comparing the expected sensor information with the received sensor information; and upon determining that the sensor information deviates from the expected sensor information, outputting, by the control unit, a verification signal”. Applicant points to [0765] of Cella, which states in part that the response circuit may compare the detected sensor value with the sensor value of another sensor having a greater range/lower resolution monitoring the same component/attribute. The Applicant argues that this is patentably distinct from “comparing the expected sensor information with the received sensor information”, as Cella does not describe any comparison between a model-predicted excepted value and the actual received sensor value for plausibility verification. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the verification model may not be a mathematical model at all, and may just be obtaining values from a second sensor, and comparing the values from the first sensor to the second sensor's values. this is disclosed in [0765]. Further, [0765] states that the sensor fault may be determined based on an anticipated state of the sensors, [0308] states that a model may be trained based on previously collected sensor data, and [0311] states that an anticipated state of the sensors can be determined based on historical data via machine learning, i.e. the rule for anticipated state of the sensors is based on historical data. Therefore, the Examiner maintains their position that the limitations in question are taught by Cella.
Applicant further argues on Pgs. 22-24 of their Remarks that Su, when combined with Cella, does not teach “in response to the verification signal, switching the control unit in a safe control mode for controlling the plant process”, as Su is drawn to appliance abnormality detection and safe mode switching, and lacks any teaching of sensor plausibility verification. However, as previously stated, the Examiner’s position is that Cella does teach sensor plausibility verification in [0765], [0308], and [0311], and Su teaches that when a device is behaving abnormally, that it should be placed in safe mode, and would therefore be expected to apply to a variety of devices, such as a sensor that is behaving abnormally. Further, as previously stated, although the verification model itself is not recited as predictive in the claims, and therefore merely requires the act of verification, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Cella does teach both the act of verification and a verification model that uses predictive information, meaning that Su is not relied upon to teach this limitation. Cella in view of Su is therefore suitable to teach the claimed limitations in question.
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 John McGuirk whose telephone number is (571)272-1949. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-530pm.
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, Charles Capozzi can be reached at (571) 270-3638. 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.
/JOHN MCGUIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights