DETAILED ACTION
This application is being examined under AIA first-to-file provisions.
Status of claims
Canceled:
9
Pending:
1-8 and 10-11
Withdrawn:
none
Examined:
1-8 and 10-11
Independent:
1 and 8
Allowable:
none
Rejections applied
Abbreviations
x
112/b Indefiniteness
PHOSITA
"a Person Having Ordinary Skill In The Art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention"
112/b "Means for"
BRI
Broadest Reasonable Interpretation
112/a Enablement,
Written description
CRM
"Computer-Readable Media" and equivalent language
112 Other
IDS
Information Disclosure Statement
x
102, 103
JE
Judicial Exception
x
101 JE(s)
112/a
35 USC 112(a) and similarly for 112/b, etc.
101 Other
N:N
page:line or column:line
Double Patenting
MM/DD/YYYY
date format
Priority
As detailed on the 10/1/2024 filing receipt, this application claims priority to no earlier than 3/29/2022. All claims have been interpreted as being accorded this priority date.
Claim objections
Claims 3 and 5-7 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required. In each objection the claims are definite with respect to the issues cited here because interpretation would have been sufficiently clear to PHOSITA, but nonetheless the claims are objected to for consistency among the claims or as otherwise indicated. With regard to any suggested amendment below to overcome an objection, in the subsequent examination it is assumed that each amendment is made. However, equivalent amendments also would be acceptable. Any amendments in response to the following objections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate.
The following issues are objected to:
Claim
Recitation
Comment
3
...and the impact...
Each element or step of the claim should begin a new line (608.01(m) Form of Claims). Sub-steps / elements should be indented from their parent step / element. This rule should be applied throughout the claims as needed.
For example, claim 3, is difficult to parse but appears to recite a "wherein" clause comprising two statements. Each statement should begin a new line.
5-7
A method
Should recite "The method..."
6
...pH, a chemical parameter
The list is missing a conjunction.
Claim rejections - 112/b
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 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.
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 112/b, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention. Claims depending from rejected claims are rejected similarly, unless otherwise noted, and any amendments in response to the following rejections should be applied throughout the claims, as appropriate. With regard to any suggested amendment below, for claim interpretation during the present examination it is assumed that each amendment suggested here is made. However equivalent amendments also would be acceptable.
The following issues cause the respective claims to be rejected under 112/b as indefinite:
Claim
Recitation
Comment (suggestions in bold)
1-2, 5, 8
a plurality of cells
Claim 1 instantiates multiple instances of this element, and the relationship is unclear between the instances. If the instances differ, then possibly "first," "second," etc. should be recited. If the instances are all intended to be the same, then later instances should begin with "the" instead of "a." Claim 2 is rejected similarly.
1, 5, 8
the model
There are multiple instances of "the model," and there also are multiple instantiations of "model," and the relationships among the instances are unclear. Possibly "the model" should be amended to be specific as to which model.
1
the production of carbonated sediments
Requires but lacks clear antecedent
1, 3
the environmental factor
Requires but lacks clear antecedent
4
a plurality of thermal springs
The relationship is unclear between the previously instantiated single thermal spring and this plurality.
4
a cell comprised...
The relationship is unclear between this instance the previous instances of a plurality of cells.
4
an area of influence
The relationship is unclear between this instance and the previously recited "distance of influence."
4
...of a plurality of thermal springs
The relationship is unclear between this instantiation and the previous one.
4
respective
The meaning of the term is unclear in the recited context, .e.g. the implied relationships are unclear.
5
high
The recited "high" is a term of relative or vague degree or form of association, neither defined in the specification nor having a well-known and sufficiently particular definition in the art and in the instant context. (MPEP 2173.05(b) pertains.)
5
low
The recited "low" is a term of relative or vague degree or form of association, neither defined in the specification nor having a well-known and sufficiently particular definition in the art and in the instant context. (MPEP 2173.05(b) pertains.)
5
a corresponding distance of influence of the
thermal spring
The relationships are unclear to the previously recited "a distance of influence of the thermal spring" in claim 2.
5
an impact of the thermal spring on the
environment factor
The relationship is unclear to the previous recitation of the same element in claim 2.
5
a value of said environmental factor
The relationship is unclear to the previous recitation of the same element in claim 2.
5
comprised between
Not interpretable. If location is being specified, then this may be made clear.
6
the environmental parameter comprises at least one of
It is unclear how one environmental parameter can comprise more than one. The "parameter" was instantiated as "at least one," however in claim 6, as in other preceding claims, "the... parameter" is interpreted as referring to only one.
8
the geological gridded model of the immersed area
Requires but lacks clear antecedent, noting that "of the immersed area" did not apply to the previous instantiation of "a geological gridded model"
11
A computer, configured for implementing the method according to
claim 1.
Claim 11 is to a 101 machine or manufacture, i.e. a "computer" in this instance, interpreted by statute according to its claimed physical structure, but it is not clear what is the structure associated with the recited "implementing..." and similar steps. Therefore, it is not clear whether the claim is limited according to these steps. MPEP 2106.03, 5th-6th paras. pertain. The recited "computer" is interpreted as not clearly requiring structure linking the "computer" to the recited steps in a structural sense appropriate to a claim to a machine or manufacture. While the recited elements may comprise unrecited software storage in some embodiments, it is not clear that all embodiments of these elements must comprise software storage corresponding to the recited process steps. Structure should be recited specifically corresponding to stored software. The recited process steps are not properly claimed without corresponding structure. This rejection might be overcome by, for example, reciting a data storage device, comprised by the "computer," and instructions stored therein and configured according to the recited elements and steps. MPEP 2173.05(p).II pertains regarding a claim directed to both product and process.
Claim rejections - 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 8 and 10-11
Claims 1-2, 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Borgomano (as cited on the 7/26/2023 IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Borgomano discloses a computer-implemented method for modelling production of carbonated sediments in an immersed area (Abstract: "Improving carbonate reservoir prediction, field development and production forecasts, especially in zones lacking data, requires novel reservoir modelling approaches including process-based methods"), comprising:
a setup step comprising defining:
a model of said immersed area comprising a plurality of cells (§Process-based carbonate stratigraphic forward modelling: "From initial conditions and a set of parameters, the software produces a deterministic grid"),
at least one environmental parameter having a value in a plurality of cells of the model (§Urgonian carbonate reservoir characterization in the ALBION project: "The physical and ecological parameters that can be associated to these facies (e.g. bathymetry, energy, distance to shore, nutrients, etc.) are estimated on the basis of modern carbonate environments and previous sedimentological studies (Tendil, 2018; Tendil et al., 2018). These parameters can be input in process-based modeling softwares dedicated to carbonate sedimentary systems as illustrated by several studies on," where the parameters are used in §Process-based carbonate stratigraphic forward modelling: "From initial conditions and a set of parameters, the software produces a deterministic grid"),
at least one carbonate production model comprising a carbonate sediments production function depending on said environmental parameter, said model being applied in a plurality of cells (§Process-based carbonate stratigraphic forward modelling), and
at least one thermal spring having a defined localization within the model (§Process-based carbonate stratigraphic forward modelling: "One of the advantages of SEO-RES is to consider marine and lacustrine carbonates in relation to various parameters such as nutrients, ecological conditions or distances to hydrothermal sources". It is thus implicit that the hydrothermal sources are within the model and have a known localization),
and
modelling the production of carbonate sediments originating from the carbonate production model over a period of time, wherein said modelling comprises determining an impact of the thermal spring on said at least one environmental parameter in at least one cell of the immersed area and taking into account said impact in the production of sediments in said cell (Section Process-based carbonate stratigraphic forward modelling: "SEO-RES simulates sedimentary processes as functions of time and space" and "One of the advantages of SEO-RES is to consider marine and lacustrine carbonates in relation to various parameters such as nutrients, ecological conditions or distances to hydrothermal sources". The impact of the hydrothermal sources on the input parameter is thus considered in the modelling).
The art is applied to claims 8 and 10-11 as described for claim 1.
Further regarding claim 8, Borgomano discloses at least one water current type occurring within the immersed area (§Process-based carbonate stratigraphic forward modelling: "The transport is simulated in SEO-RES through a cellular automaton which mimics the displacement of sediment particles. This lattice gas method allows the flow of sediments at each point in the basin to be linked to the velocity field induced by the currents, to the slope and to the water flows").
Borgomano further discloses simulating the evolution of the geological gridded model over a period of time, comprising:
determining a transport of at least one produced particle induced by the water current (§Process-based carbonate stratigraphic forward modelling: "The transport is simulated in SEO-RES through a cellular automaton which mimics the displacement of sediment particles. This lattice gas method allows the flow of sediments at each point in the basin to be linked to the velocity field induced by the currents, to the slope and to the water flows"), and
updating the geological gridded model of the area according to the transport of the particle (§Process-based carbonate stratigraphic forward modelling: "Mass conservation makes it possible to calculate at each point of the basin the quantity of sediments deposited and eroded. In this context, the software application is an iterative work loop").
Regarding claim 2, Borgomano discloses (§Process-based carbonate stratigraphic forward modelling: "SEO-RES simulates sedimentary processes as functions of time and space" and "One of the advantages of SEO-RES is to consider marine and lacustrine carbonates in relation to various parameters such as nutrients, ecological conditions or distances to hydrothermal sources").
Claim rejections - 35 USC 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC 102 and 103 is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 USC 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 USC 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 USC 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Borgomano (as cited on the 7/26/2023 IDS).
Borgomano is applied to claims 1-2 as described above.
Regarding claims 3-4, Borgomano discloses a plurality of hydrothermal sources (§Process-based carbonate stratigraphic forward modelling). In order to obtain a realistic contribution of every source, it is obvious for the skilled person to consider the contribution of every hydrothermal source according to the distance between the cell and the source.
Claim 5
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Borgomano (as cited on the 7/26/2023 IDS) in view of Massonnat 863 (WO 2020/229863 as cited on the 7/26/2023 IDS).
Borgomano is applied to claim 1 as described above.
Regarding claim 5, Massonnat 863 pertains at 8:20-25. The two successive periods of time can obviously be considered as a one with high water level and the other one with low water level, due to seasonal water level variations.
Combining Borgomano and Massonnat 863
In the absence of a secondary consideration to the contrary, it would have been prima facie obvious for PHOSITA to modify the teaching of Borgomano using the related teaching of Massonnat 863. PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify Borgomano using the techniques of Massonnat 863 in order to achieve the above advantage. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Borgomano and Massonnat 863 are generally drawn to related teaching, and PHOSITA would have understood how to and would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Massonnat 863 to the related teaching of Borgomano.
Claims 6-7
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as unpatentable over Borgomano (as cited on the 7/26/2023 IDS) in view of Massonnat 864 (WO 2020/229864 as cited on the 7/26/2023 IDS).
Borgomano is applied to claim 1 as described above.
Regarding claim 6, Massonnat 864 pertains at 9:5-17.
Regarding claim 7, Massonnat 864 pertains at 8:7-28.
Combining Borgomano and Massonnat 863
In the absence of a secondary consideration to the contrary, it would have been prima facie obvious for PHOSITA to modify the teaching of Borgomano using the related teaching of Massonnat 864. PHOSITA would have been motivated to modify Borgomano using the techniques of Massonnat 864 in order to achieve the above advantage. One would have had a reasonable expectation of success in doing so because Borgomano and Massonnat 864 are generally drawn to related teaching, and PHOSITA would have understood how to and would have been motivated to apply the teaching of Massonnat 864 to the related teaching of Borgomano.
Claim rejections - 101
35 USC 101 reads:
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.
For each rejection below, dependent claims are rejected similarly as not remedying the rejection, unless otherwise noted.
Judicial exceptions (JE) to 101 patentability
Claims 1-8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed inventions are not directed to patent eligible subject matter. After consideration of relevant factors with respect to each claim as a whole, each claim is directed to one or more JEs (i.e. an abstract idea, a natural phenomenon, a law of nature and/or a product of nature), as identified below. Any elements or combination of elements beyond the JE(s) (i.e. "additional elements") are conventional and do not constitute significantly more than the JE(s). Thus, no claim includes additional elements amounting to significantly more than the JE(s), as explained below.
In Alice, citing Mayo and Bilski, two Mayo/Alice questions determine eligibility under 101: First, is a claim directed to a JE? And second, if so, does the claim recite significantly more than the JE?
MPEP 2106 organizes JE analysis into Steps 1, 2A (1st & 2nd prongs) and 2B as follows below.
MPEP 2106 and the following USPTO website provide further explanation and case law citations: www.uspto.gov/patent/laws-and-regulations/examination-policy/examination-guidance-and-training-materials.
Step 1: Are the claims directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter? -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.03
[Step 1: claims 1-8 and 10-11: YES]
Step 2A, 1st prong: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? -- abstract idea -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.04
Preliminarily, in a 1st prong of Step 2A, elements of independent claim 1 are interpreted as directed to the abstract idea of modelling production of carbonated sediments including the JE elements of "defining...," "modelling...," "determining..." and "taking...," each of which, including all recitation within each listed element, in at least some embodiments within a BRI, involves only manipulation of data. While manipulation of data is not per se directed to an abstract idea, in this instance the above-identified elements are directed to the abstract ideas identified below.
Claims 8 and 10-11 are analyzed similarly.
BRIs of the claims are analogous to an abstract idea in the form of at least a mental process, at least equivalent to a computer-implemented process, including obtaining and comparing intangible data (e.g. Cybersource, Synopsys and Electric Power Group). In a BRI, it is not clear that the claim embodiments are limited so as to require complexity precluding analogy to a mental process.
BRIs of the claims also are analogous to an abstract idea in the form of a mathematical concept, including mathematical relationships and calculations, as found in the following case law, as cited and discussed above: collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis (Electric Power Group) and/or obtaining and comparing intangible data (e.g. Cybersource, Ambry and Myriad CAFC) and/or execution of an algorithm to implement mathematical relationships and/or formulas, including image processing (e.g. TLI, Digitech, Benson, Flook, Diehr, FuzzySharp, In re Grams and In re Abele all as cited in MPEP 2106).
Instant examples of math concepts include the carbonated sediments production function and the recited modelling, as well as relationships inherent in recitations as the only supported embodiments.
The preceding case law examples are cited for the basic form of their identified abstract ideas, and analogy to these example abstract ideas need not be within the same technology field, 101 analysis generally being assumed to be neutral with respect to technology field.
Regarding inherency of abstract ideas, MPEP 2106.04.II.A.1 includes: "the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank, 'described' the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words 'intermediated' or 'settlement'" (emphasis added, p. 1). Similarly, inherency can effectively be recitation, as in, for example, "By claiming simply 'crystalline paroxetine hydrochloride hemihydrate' with no reference to how it was produced, SKB effectively claimed 'crystalline paroxetine hydrochloride hemihydrate whether non-naturally occurring or arising through natural conversion.' Claim 1, as issued, therefore combines patentable and unpatentable subject matter, and is invalid under Section 101." (capitalization added, SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Apotex Corp., 365 F.3d 1306, 1321-33, Fed. Cir. 2004).
In the instant type of data processing claims, the specification is not merely adding background explanation as to how a claimed process works, e.g. a physical process based on, involving or further explained by abstract ideas and natural laws. Rather, the specification is detailing the only disclosed way that a programmer may proceed from the recited inputs to the recited outputs, e.g. through actual performance of the disclosed judicial exceptions (JEs).
Regarding the "Meaning of 'Recites,'" MPEP 2106.04.II.A.1 states:
In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception, i.e. whether a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea is set forth or described in the claim. While the terms "set forth" and "described" are thus both equated with "recite", their different language is intended to indicate that there are two ways in which an exception can be recited in a claim. For instance, the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. at 178 n. 2, 179 n.5, 191-92, 209 USPQ at 4-5 (1981), clearly stated a mathematical equation in the repetitively calculating step, and the claims in Mayo, 566 U.S. 66, 75-77, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1967-68 (2012), clearly stated laws of nature in the wherein clause, such that the claims "set forth" an identifiable judicial exception. Alternatively, the claims in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 218, 110 USPQ2d at 1982, described the concept of intermediated settlement without ever explicitly using the words "intermediated" or "settlement."
While the "set forth" language approximates explicit recitation, it also is fundamental that all recitation must be interpreted and that to be patent eligible a claim must satisfy 101 according to its properly interpreted scope, e.g. for all embodiments on which the claim reads, e.g. according to any inherency pertinent to a given claim and disclosure accompanying that claim, i.e. consistent with the "described" meaning of "recites" as in the MPEP. Thus, within a BRI, the identified abstract idea elements read on one or more embodiments which only involve manipulation of data. It is not clear than any improvement argument clearly on the record causes a claim not to be directed to a JE for all embodiments within the scope of the claim.
As in Alice (at 306, as cited in the MPEP above) and Bilski (as cited in Alice, id), an abstract idea may comprise multiple abstract elements or steps (i.e. from Alice: "a series of steps" at 306) and need not be a single equation, relationship or principle.
It is not clear that the identified elements must represent other than an abstract idea according to any relevant analysis or case law.
[Step 2A, 1st prong, abstract idea: claims 1, 8 and 10-11: YES]
Step 2A, 1st prong: Do the claims recite a judicially recognized exception, i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea? -- law of nature -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.04
Preliminarily, at this 1st step of the analysis, elements of independent claim 1 are directed to a law relating an environmental parameter to a thermal spring, including the JE element of "determining an impact..."
Claims 8 and 10-11 are analyzed similarly.
A BRI of the instant claims is analogous to a law of nature as found, for example, in Mayo (as cited in the MPEP above). It is not clear than any improvement argument clearly on the record causes a claim not to be directed to a JE for all embodiments within the scope of the claim. It is not clear that the above identified law of nature including the identified elements, taken together and within a BRI, must in all embodiments represent other than a law of nature according to any relevant analysis or case law. Therefore, in answer to the 1st Mayo/Alice question, the above elements are directed to a law of nature.
[Step 2A, 1st prong, natural law: claims 1, 8 and 10-11: YES]
Step 2A, 2nd prong: If the claims recite a judicial exception under the 1st prong, then is the judicial exception integrated into a practical application? -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.04(d)
MPEP 2106.04(d).I lists the following example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In Step 2A, 1st prong above, claim steps and/or elements were identified as part of one or more judicial exceptions (JEs).
In Step 2B below, any remaining steps and/or elements are therefore in addition to the identified JE(s). Any such additional steps and additional elements are further discussed in Step 2B.
Here in Step 2A, 2nd prong, no additional step or element clearly demonstrates integration of the JE(s) into a practical application.
At this point in examination it is not yet the case that any of the Step 2A, 2nd prong considerations enumerated above clearly demonstrates integration of the identified JE(s) into a practical application. Referring to the considerations above, none of 1. an improvement, 2. treatment, 3. a particular machine or 4. a transformation is clear in the record.
For example, regarding the first consideration at MPEP 2106.04(d)(1), the record, including for example the specification, does not yet clearly disclose an explanation of improvement over the previous state of the technology field. The claims do not yet clearly result in such an improvement (e.g. specification: pp. 1-2).
[Step 2A, 2nd prong: claims 1, 8 and 10-11: NO]
Step 2B: Do the claims recite a non-conventional arrangement of additional elements in addition to the identified JEs? -- MPEP 2106.I and 2106.05
Addressing the second Mayo/Alice question, all elements of claims 1, 8 and 10-11 are part of one or more identified JEs (as described above), except for elements identified here as conventional elements in addition to the above judicial exceptions:
The recited "storage medium" and "computer" are conventional elements of a laboratory and/or computing environment and/or conventional data gathering/input/output elements, as exemplified in MPEP 2106.05(d).II and 2106.05(f-g).
It is emphasized that, outside of an improvement argument, analysis of what is conventional generally pertains to the above-identified additional elements and not to elements identified as part of a JE.
[Step 2B: claims 1, 8 and 10-11: NO]
Summary and conclusion regarding claims 1, 8 and 10-11
Summing up the above analysis of claims 1, 8 and 10-11, each viewed as a whole and considering all elements individually and in combination, no claim recites limitations that transform the claim, finally interpreted as directed to the identified JE(s), into patent eligible subject matter, and it is not clear that any claim is sufficiently analogous to controlling case law identifying an example of an eligible claim.
Remaining claims
Claims 2-7 add elements which also are part of the identified JEs for the same reasons described above regarding the independent claims and therefore do not provide the something significantly more necessary to satisfy 101.
None of the dependent claim elements provides the something significantly more than the identified JE(s) necessary to satisfy 101.
Citations to art
In the above citations to documents in the art, rejections refer to the portions of each document cited as example portions as well as to the entirety of each document, unless otherwise noted in the situation of lengthy, multi-subject documents. Other passages not specifically cited within a document may apply as well.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
A shortened statutory period for reply is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
Inquiries
Information regarding the filing, management and status of patent applications which are published (available to all users) or unpublished (available to registered users) may be obtained from the Patent Center: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Further information is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center, and information about filing in DOCX format is available at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx.
The Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free) is available for additional questions, and assistance from a Customer Service Representative is available at 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
The examiner for this Office action, G. Steven Vanni, may be contacted at:
(571) 272-3855 Tu-F 8-7 (ET). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Larry D. Riggs, II, may be reached at (571) 270-3062.
/G. STEVEN VANNI/Primary patents examiner, Art Unit 1686
Prosecution Insights