DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. The following office action is a Final Office Action in response to the communications received on 12/18/2025.
Claims 1, 5, 10, 13, 17, 24 and 36 are amended; claims 2-4, 6, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, 20-23 and 25-34 have been canceled. Therefore, claims 1, 5, 7-10, 13, 17, 19, 24 and 35-39 are currently pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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 1, 5, 7-10, 13, 17, 19, 24 and 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.112(b), or second paragraph (pre-AIA ), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
(a) Each of claims 1, 13 and 24 recites, “a student in answering a word problem as an open-ended unstructured-text question . . . and assigning a full score value for a given word problem based on the determination of an exact match” (emphasis added).
Accordingly, it is unclear whether the term, “a given word problem”, is referring to the same “word problem” (i.e., word problem as an open-ended unstructured-text question), which the student is assumed to be answering.
(b) Each of claims 1, 13 and 24 also recites, “determin[ing] . . . whether the symbols and associated sequence of the submitted sub-expressions match the symbols and associated sequence of the rubric sub-expressions . . . and assigning a full score value for a given word problem based on the determination of an exact match . . . in response to a non-exact algebraic equivalence match . . . assigning a full score value for a given word problem based on the determination of an exact match for the expanded submitted sub-expression” (emphasis added).
Thus, given the context of the term, “a given word problem”, as used in the two different evaluation phases above, it appears that the claimed method/system is evaluating (a) a first word problem using only a first evaluation phase (e.g., the phase applicable to an exact match) and (b) a second word problem using only a second evaluation phase (e.g., the phase applicable to a non-exact match).
Thus, when an answer for a given word problem is received, it is unclear whether the claimed method/system simply proceeds to the second evaluation phase (e.g., the phase applicable to a non-exact match) even before considering the applicability of the first evaluation phase (i.e., the phase applicable to an exact match).
Note that making a proper amendment, -- for [[a]] the given word problem --, as applied to the term in the second evaluation phase, may be required. However, such amendment may not be sufficient to overcome the ambiguity issue due to the discrepancy noted in part (a) above.
(c) Each of claims 5, 10 depends on claim 1; and each of claims 5 and 10 recites the term, “for a given open-ended unstructured-text question” (emphasis added).
Similarly, claim 17 is dependent on claim 13; and claim 17 also recites the term, “for a given open-ended unstructured-text question” (emphasis added).
However, given the ambiguity pointed out above regarding each of the independent claims (e.g., each of claims 1 and 13), it is unclear whether the term; namely, “a given open-ended unstructured-text question”, identified above per each of claims 5, 10 and 17, is referring to the same question/problem recited per each respective independent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. Non-Statutory (Directed to a Judicial Exception without an Inventive Concept/Significantly More)
35 U.S.C.101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
● Claims 1, 5, 7-10, 13, 17, 19, 24 and 35-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Step 1)
The current claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (MPEP 2106.03).
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-One:
The claim(s) recite a judicial exception, namely an abstract idea, as shown below:
— Considering each of claims 1, 13 and 24 as representative claims, the following claimed limitations recite an abstract idea:
receive at least one answer data object and corresponding answer rubric for a plurality of open-ended unstructured-text questions, wherein each answer is acquired from a student in answering a word problem as open-ended unstructured-text question comprising (i) a set of fixed elements having at least one of text, symbol, and equations and (ii) a set of selectable elements having at least one of text, symbol, and equations interspersed within the set of fixed elements, wherein the set of selectable elements are selectable to construct a plurality of sub-expressions, composed of the selected symbols and mathematical operators, wherein each answer data object includes a set of symbols in a sequence corresponding to a plurality of submitted sub-expressions, and wherein each rubric data object has one or more rubric solutions that includes a plurality of rubric sub-expressions each having (i) a set of symbols in a sequence to define a sub-expression, (ii) an assignable score value and partial score value for each of the plurality of rubric sub-expressions, and (iii) a list of pre-requisite steps, wherein grading comprises determining algebraic equivalence for algebraic expressions and simplified version thereof, wherein the algebraic equivalent has different symbol sets to the plurality of rubric sub-expressions;
determine, for each answer data object corresponding to the plurality of open-ended unstructured-text questions, whether the symbol and associated sequence of the submitted sub-expressions match the symbols and associated sequence of the rubric sub-expressions for one or more solutions in the rubric in algebraic equivalence and assign a full score value for a given word problem based on the determination of an exact match, wherein the match in algebraic equivalence includes the submitted sub-expressions in a single consolidated expression, wherein the single consolidated expression and each of the plurality of rubric sub-expressions are respectively converted to a list of sum or product symbol terms to be matched to each other to account for associative and commutative properties of addition and multiplication;
in response to a non-exact algebraic match, (i) expand the submitted sub-expression for each answer data object corresponding to the plurality of open-ended unstructured-text questions and (ii) search for each expanded answer data object to determine whether the symbols and associated sequence of the submitted sub-expressions match the symbols and associated sequence of the rubric sub-expressions for one or more solutions in the rubric in algebraic equivalence and assign a full score value for a given word problem based on the determination of an exact match for the expanded submitted sub-expression;
in response to the non-exact algebraic equivalence match, (i) recursively search, for each of the one or more solutions, via algebraic comparison, the single consolidated expression (a) for each of the plurality of rubric sub-expressions of the one or more solutions, (b) for pre-requisite steps in the one or more solutions, (c) for closed or open matches of symbolic elements of the plurality of rubric sub-expressions for each of the one or more solutions and (ii) assign a partial score for each of the recursive searches;
determine and assign an associated credit or score value for each answer using (i) the full score value for the given word problem based on the determination of the exact match, (ii) the full score value for the given word problem based on the determination of the exact match for the expanded submitted sub-expression, or (iii) a maximum score for the partial score for each of the recursive searches; and
report the overall credit or score value for the plurality of open-ended unstructured-text questions.
Thus, the limitations identified above recite an abstract idea since the limitations correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or mental processes, which are part of the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas identified according to the current eligibility standard (see MPEP 2106.04(a)).
For instance, the current claims correspond to presenting a teaching—or an assessment—material for evaluating the skill of a subject, wherein the assessment material is in the form of an open-ended question(s) or a word problem that comprises text, symbol and/or an equation(s) is presented to a student; and wherein, after receiving—from the student—a response/answer (e.g., one or more inputs or selections) in the form of sub-expressions, a comparison of the sub-expressions with one or more rubric response models and/or algebraic equivalences (each associated with a determined credit/score) is performed in order to determine whether there is an exact or non-exact match, so that (A) a full credit is assigned if there is an exact match, and (B) if there is no exact match, one or more equivalent algebraic expressions can be searched and compared with the received answer in order to provide a full or partial score (e.g., expanding the submitted sub-expression for each answer data object corresponding to the plurality of open-ended unstructured-text questions, searching for each expanded answer data object to determine whether the symbols and associated sequence of the submitted sub-expressions match the symbols and associated sequence of the rubric sub-expressions for one or more solutions in the rubric in algebraic equivalence and assigning a full score value; recursively searching, for each of the one or more solutions, via algebraic comparison, the single consolidated expression (a) for each of the plurality of rubric sub-expressions of the one or more solutions, (b) for pre-requisite steps in the one or more solutions, (c) for closed or open matches of symbolic elements of the plurality of rubric sub-expressions for each of the one or more solutions and (ii) assigning a partial score for each of the recursive searches); and thereby an overall credit/score value is assigned to each answer based on the results obtained above; and furthermore, a report is presented regarding the overall credit/score, etc.
Similarly, given the limitations that recite the process of: determining, for each answer data object corresponding to the plurality of open-ended unstructured-text questions, whether the symbols and associated sequence of the submitted sub-expressions match the symbols and associated sequence of the rubric sub-expressions for one or more solutions in the rubric in algebraic equivalence; expanding the submitted sub-expression for each answer data object corresponding to the plurality of open-ended unstructured-text questions and searching for each expanded answer data object to determine whether the symbols and associated sequence of the submitted sub-expressions match the symbols and associated sequence of the rubric sub-expressions for one or more solutions in the rubric in algebraic equivalence; recursively searching, for each of the one or more solutions, via an algebraic comparison, the single consolidated expression (a) for each of the plurality of rubric sub-expressions of the one or more solutions, (b) for pre-requisite steps in the one or more solutions, (c) for closed or open matches of symbolic elements of the plurality of rubric sub-expressions for each of the one or more solutions, etc., the current claims also correspond to a mental process—such as, an evaluation, an observation, and/or a judgment process.
(Step 2A) [Wingdings font/0xE0] Prong-Two:
The claim(s) recite additional elements, wherein a processor, a graphical user interface (GUI), a memory, etc., are utilized to perform the recited steps/functions regarding: collecting one or more inputs from a user via a GUI (“receiving, by a processor of a grading engine, at least one answer data object and corresponding answer rubric data object corresponding to a plurality of open-ended unstructured-text questions . . . wherein the grading engine comprises a computer algebra system solver configured to determine algebraic equivalence and parse for algebraic expressions and simplified versions thereof, wherein the computer algebra system solver determines via symbolic processing functions algebraic equivalence and parses for algebraic expressions and simplified versions thereof, wherein the algebraic equivalence has different symbol sets to the plurality of rubric sub-expressions”) analyzing the received input(s) and/or stored data using one or more algorithms (“determining, via a grading pipeline operation of the processor of the grading engine, for each answer data object corresponding to the plurality of open-ended unstructured-text questions, whether the symbols and associated sequence of the submitted sub-expressions match. . . a list of sum or product symbol terms to be matched to each other to account for associative and commutative properties of addition and multiplication; in response to a non-exact algebraic equivalence match, (i) expanding, via the grading pipeline operation, the submitted sub-expression . . . assigning a full score value for a given word problem based on the determination of an exact match for the expanded submitted sub-expression; in response to the non-exact algebraic equivalence match, (i) recursively searching . . . and (ii) assigning a partial score for each of the recursive searches ”); determining one or more results based on the above analysis (“determining and assigning, by the grading engine, an associated credit or score value for each answer using (i) the full score value for the given word problem based on the determination of the exact match, (ii) the full score value for the given word problem based on the determination of the exact match for the expanded submitted subexpression, or (iii) a maximum score for the partial score for each of the recursive searches ”); generating or presenting one or more results (“outputting, via the graphical user interface, report, or database, the overall credit or score value for the plurality of open-ended unstructured-text questions”), etc.
However, the claimed additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application since the additional elements are utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea.
Thus, when each claim is considered as a whole, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application since they fail to impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. For instance, when each of the current claims is considered as a whole, none of the claims provides a technological improvement over the relevant existing technology.
The observations above confirm that the claims are indeed directed to an abstract idea.
(Step 2B)
Accordingly, when the claim(s) is considered as a whole (i.e., considering all claim elements both individually and in combination), the claimed additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim(s) amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself (also see MPEP 2106). The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions. Accordingly, none of the current claims, when considered as a whole, recites an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept.
It is also worth noting, per the original disclosure, that claimed system/method is directed to a conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. For instance, the specification describes that “a well-known computing system” ([0141]), which is in the form of one or more well-known commercially available conventional devices—such as, a personal computer, a server ([0141] to [0145])—is utilized to facilitate the claimed/disclosed process of generating, presenting and grading of one or more open-ended unstructured-text test question.
It is further worth to note that the utilization of the conventional computer/network technology to facilitate educational activities, including the process of generating, presenting and grading of one or more assessment materials that involve open-ended unstructured question(s), etc., is directed to a well-understood, routine or conventional activity in the art (e.g., US 2011/0065082; US 2002/0161732; US 2003/0200077, etc.).
The above observation confirms that the current claimed invention fails to amount to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
It is worth noting that the above analysis already encompasses each of the current dependent claims (i.e., claims 5, 7-10, 17, 19 and 35-39). Particularly, each of the dependent claims also fails to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea since each dependent claim is directed to a further abstract idea, and/or a further conventional computer element/function utilized to facilitate the abstract idea.
Accordingly, none of the claims—when considered as a whole—is implementing an element—or a combination of elements—directed to an inventive concept (e.g., none of the claims is reciting an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing/conventional technology).
► Applicant’s arguments directed to section §101 have been fully considered (the arguments field on 12/18/2025). However, the arguments are not persuasive at least for the following reasons:
Firstly, while attempting to summarize the eligibility steps established per the MPEP (e.g. MPEP 2106), Applicant is asserting that “even if claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A (which Applicant does not concede), claim 1 provides ‘[a]n improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field.’ . . . MPEP §2106.04(d) provides a non-exhaustive list of additional claim elements or combinations of claim elements found by courts to have integrated an abstract idea into a practical application . . . it is important to note that the technological improvement need not be an improvement in operation of a computer or computer network per se and can be an improvement in a computer-related technology (which includes computer-implemented processes such as software). MPEP §2106.04(d)(l). Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp . . . Ancora Techs. v. HTC Am., Inc., 908 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (software licensing restrictions) are all cases where the technology improvement was not limited to computer hardware or hardware functionality” (emphasis added).
However, despite alleging an improvement in the functioning of a computer (or an improvement to other technology or technical field), Applicant does not appear to identify the technological improvement (if any) that the claimed (or disclosed) system/method is providing over the relevant existing technology. It is important to note that the currently claimed—and originally disclosed—system/method is relying on the existing computer and/or network technology. Thus, if Applicant assumes a technological improvement (per prong-two of Step 2A), Applicant should demonstrate a claimed (or a disclosed) element (if any)—or a combination of elements (if any)—that provides a technological improvement over the existing computer/network technology. So far, Applicant does not appear to provide any evidence regarding the above eligibility test. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
It is also true that a computer-related technological improvement is not limited merely to a hardware-based technological improvement; instead, software-based technological improvement (if any) also corresponds to a computer-related technological improvement. In fact, most of the patent-eligible court cases appear to be related to software-based technological improvement (e.g., Enfish, McRO, etc.).
Applicant also appears to emphasize the benefit, which the claimed system/method is allegedly providing to the user, to substantiate the alleged eligibility of the claimed system/method. Applicant asserts, “claim 1 provides a specific and substantial utility that ‘provide[s] a well-defined and particular benefit to the public’ in accordance with MPEP §2107.01 . . . the method of claim 1 is deterministic, which results in providing consistent scoring across multiple situations. For instance, the program will give the same partial credit grade to separate students that each meet the criteria for that grade. In other words, the method results in a grading variance of zero, which is a known problem with human graders. For example, a human grader may give different grades to students that have substantially the same answer, or multiple human graders may grade differently for various reasons. Thus, the technology here is a practical application to ensure non-variant grading for a class, a school, across a system, etc. This also varies from a large language model (LLM), as the iterative learning nature of an LLM can result in grading variance over time, whereas the deterministic process here will not vary” (emphasis added).
However, the eligibility analysis is not disputing the benefit that the claimed (or the disclosed) system/method is providing to the user/public. In fact, the Office already acknowledges that the claimed system/method provides benefits to users. Note that when evaluating a given claim for eligibility, the Office first determines the usefulness of the claims at the very first/initial step (i.e., Step 1) of the eligibility analysis. Of course, once the usefulness of the claim is determined, the eligibility test proceeds to prong-one of Step 2A in order determine whether the claim recites any of the judicial exceptions. If the above test is true, the analysis proceeds to the subsequent step (i.e., prong-two of Step 2A) in order to determine whether the claim—considered as a whole—integrates the judicial exception into a patent-eligible practical application. Of course, depending on the subject matter being claimed, different types of tests can be applied to evaluate whether the claim is integrating the judicial exception into patent-eligible practical application. For instance, if the claim is related to a method/system for treating a patient, the test evaluates whether the claim—when considered as a whole—recites additional elements that apply/use the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition. In contrast, if the claim relates to a computer-based system/method for facilitating social activities—such as, tasks or activities related to education, entertainment, etc., the test evaluates whether the claim—considered as a whole—provides a technological improvement over the existing computer/network technology. In the instant case, given the fact that the current claims
correspond to a computer-based system/method that facilitates tasks/activities related to education; namely, a computer-based grading system/method, prong-two of Step 2A evaluates whether any of the current claims—when considered as a whole—provides a technological improvement over the existing computer/network technology. So far, due to the lack of technological improvement per the claimed (or disclosed) system/method, none of the current claims—when considered as a whole—integrates the abstract idea into a patent-eligible practical application.
Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. In particular, simply emphasizing the benefit that the claimed (or the disclosed) system/method is providing to the public is not sufficient to show whether any of the current claims is patent-eligible. It may also be true that a given teacher, or different teachers, may assign different grades to two or more students (e.g., due to human bias, etc.) even though the two or more students have very similar (or even identical) solution to the same word problem. Of course, depending on the manner in which it is programmed, a computer-based grading system may minimize—or worsen—such bias. Nevertheless, a computer-based system intended to minimize bias does not necessarily represent a technological improvement. This is because the claimed (and the disclosed) system/method is still utilizing the existing computer/network technology—merely as a tool—to facilitate a new plan/theory for grading word problems, regardless of whether the main objective is directed to minimizing grading bias, and/or minimizing the amount of grading task that the teacher may face (e.g., a techier handling a large number of students). Consequently, Applicant’s arguments in this regard are also not persuasive.
Secondly, while referring to the analysis presented under prong-two of Step 2A, Applicant asserts that “the § 101 rejection is improper because the examiner fails to make a prima facie case of subject matter ineligibility. The rationale contained in the Office Action fails to provide ‘sufficiently clear and specific’ information to allow Applicant to respond effectively . . . Applicant notes that the "additional elements" analysis on pages 6-7 of the Office Action is improper . . . The MPEP, however, instructs examiners to exclude consideration of whether ‘additional elements’ are ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity’ at Step 2A, Prongs One and Two. (MPEP §2106.04(d)(I)). In other words, examiners must give weight to the ‘additional elements,’ whether conventional or not, when analyzing the claims at Step 2A. For this reason alone, the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of ineligibility due to its failure to properly analyze the claims under Step 2A, Prongs One and Two” (emphasis added).
However, the argument above is not even relevant since it is Applicant’s burden to demonstrate whether any of the additional elements, alone or in combination, provides a technological improvement over the existing computer/network technology. Of course, Applicant’s excuse regarding the alleged lack of clarity/specificity is also irrelevant since Applicant fails to even articulate why clarity/specificity is assumed to be lacking, much less demonstrate one. Moreover, instead of addressing the Office’s analysis as presented in the office-action, Applicant is mischaracterizing the Office’s findings while cherry-picking few lines out of context. For instance, unlike Applicant’s assertion, the Office’s analysis, under prong-two of Step 2A, does not make any conventional or well-understood assertions regarding the additional elements. In contrast, while simply disregarding the above fact, Applicant asserts, “[t]he Step 2A, Prong Two analysis sets out the alleged ‘additional elements’ recited in claim 1 and concludes that the ‘additional elements’ are ‘utilized merely as a tool to facilitate the abstract idea’. The MPEP, however, instructs examiners to exclude consideration of whether ‘additional elements’ are ‘well-understood, routine, conventional activity’ at Step 2A, Prongs One and Two. (MPEP §2106.04(d)(I))” (emphasis added). Thus, Applicant’s argument is not even valid, much less persuasive.
Similarly, regarding the findings under Step 2B, Applicant asserts, “after improperly omitting the analysis at Step 2A, Prong Two, on page 7 the Office Action's analysis under Step 2B states that ‘The claimed additional elements are directed to conventional computer elements, which are serving merely to perform conventional computer functions . . . the above statement is conclusory and fails to evaluate or explain why the ‘additional elements’ fail to amount to significantly more than the alleged abstract idea as part of the Step 2B analysis. The MPEP requires the examiner to consider the additional claim elements both individually and in combination. (MPEP §2106.05(1)). The Office Action completely lacks explanation as to why any ordered combination of elements in independent claim 1 fails to amount to something significantly more than the alleged abstract idea . . . the Office Action fails to establish a prima facie case of ineligibility due to its failure to properly analyze the claims under Steps 2A and 2B” (emphasis added).
However, the above appears to be yet another excuse due to the difficulty to negate the Office’s findings. Note that the eligibility analysis, under Step 2B, already points out the reason why the claims lack an inventive concept. In particular, the Office already points out that the claim(s), when considered as a whole, is directed to the conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements.
Accordingly, if Applicant assumes that any of the current claims is implementing an inventive concept, it is Applicant’s burden to demonstrate why/how the claim is considered to be beyond the conventional and generic arrangement of the additional elements. So far, except for simply cherry-picking some lines out of context, Applicant once again fails to even consider—much less articulate—the above basic eligibility test. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Note also that the lack of inventive concept is also evident given the lack of technological improvement since, besides prong-two of Step 2A, Step 2B also considers whether the claim provides a technological improvement in order to determine an inventive concept (if any) that the claim is implementing (see MPEP 2106.05(a), emphasis added),
While improvements were evaluated in Alice Corp. as relevant to the search for an inventive concept (Step 2B), several decisions of the Federal Circuit have also evaluated this consideration when determining whether a claim was directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A). See, e.g., Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 2016); McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-16, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1102-03 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Visual Memory, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., 867 F.3d 1253, 1259-60, 123 USPQ2d 1712, 1717 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Thus, an examiner should evaluate whether a claim contains an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field at Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B, as well as when considering whether the claim has such self-evident eligibility that it qualifies for the streamlined analysis.
So far, Applicant fails to demonstrate whether any of the current claims implements an element—or a combination of elements—that provides a technological improvement over the existing computer/network technology. Consequently, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Thus, at least for the reasons discussed above, the Office concludes that none of the current claims amounts to “significantly more” than an abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented in this final 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 filled 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3079. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:00AM-3:00PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, DAVID LEWIS can be reached on (571) 272-7673. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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.
/BRUK A GEBREMICHAEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715