DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Application 18/276,131 is a National Stage of International Application No. PCT/US2023/027736 filed July 14, 2023, claiming priority based on Indian Patent Application No. 202321006920 filed February 3, 2023.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1, 11, and 20 were amended in the reply filed January 14, 2026. No claims were cancelled or added.
Response to Arguments
101:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejection made under 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the amended claims recite a practical application that is “determination of an optimization to increase a renewable energy consumption of a user based on the calculated energy consumption value of the user, by directing the user's network connection to network resources that use the renewable energy source” (Remarks p. 8). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “determine an optimization” can include steps such as suggesting or recommending an optimization, which is not a practical application. Furthermore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, “directing a network connection” can include steps such as instructing a user to manually change their network connection, which is also not a practical application. Examiner notes that controlling network resources (e.g. base stations, routers, switches) so that a user’s network connection is automatically re-directed to resources that use renewable energy is potentially a practical application. However, the claims need to recite more than a recommendation or suggestion to do so.
Accordingly, the rejection is maintained.
103:
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent Claims
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 1:
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite, identify that one or more resources of a network use a renewable energy source;
analyze network traffic of a plurality of users on the one or more network resources and identify, based on the analyzed network traffic, a user from among the plurality of users corresponding to the analyzed network traffic;
calculate an energy consumption value particular for a user based on the one or more resources identified as using the renewable energy source and based on the analyzed network traffic;
and determine an optimization for the network based on the calculated energy consumption value, wherein the optimization comprises increasing a renewable energy consumption for the user.
The limitations above are processes that under broadest reasonable interpretation cover “certain methods of organizing human activity” (including sales activities or behaviors, or business relations). Specifically, calculating an energy consumption value for a user is establishing business relationships and performing sales activities. Examiner particularly notes that the energy consumption value is used to allow customers and subscribers to view their individual energy consumption usage and improve customer satisfaction (see Applicant’s Specification paragraph [0005]).
Additionally, the limitations include mental processes (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion) because they can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using pen and paper. Specifically, identifying a resource using a renewable energy source, analyzing network traffic, and calculating an energy consumption value can all be practically performed in the human mind or by a human using pen and paper.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A- Prong 2:
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, 11, and 20 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, or “apply it”; generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use; and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the following additional elements to perform the above recited steps: a memory storage (claim 1), at least one processor (claims 1, 11, and 20), a network (claims 1, 11, and 20), one or more network resources (claims 1, 11, and 20), and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium (claim 20). These additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality, and are recited at a high level of generality. These additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Furthermore, claims 1, 11, and 20 recite the additional element of “directing a network connection of the user device of the user to network resources identified as using the renewable energy”. This additional element is described at high level of generality such that, when viewed as a whole, the additional element does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., network service operations).
Additionally, collecting network traffic for analysis amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., pre-solution activity) such as mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Individually and as a whole, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application because the claims do not: improve the functioning of the computer itself or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; add meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment to transform the judicial exception into patent-eligible subject matter; amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
Independent claims 1, 11, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the additional elements are generic computer components performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
With respect to the extra-solution activity of collecting network traffic for analysis, the collection of network traffic is defined at a high-level of generality and appears to consist of generic computer functions (i.e., transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations) that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known in the industry (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)). Examiner notes that paragraph [0037] of Applicant’s specification, as well as Fig. 2, generically disclose receiving and analyzing network traffic data at a high-level of generality demonstrating the well-understood, routine, conventional nature.
Alone or in combination, the additional elements do not contribute significantly more than the judicial exception and as a result, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-19, recite additional details that merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations, without adding any additional elements for analysis. Thus, claims 2-10 and 12-19 are also ineligible for the reasons stated above with respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 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, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 5, 8, 9, 11-13, 15, 18, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,349,339 to Streete et al. (Streete) in view of NPL “Architecture for Green Mobile Network Powered from Renewable Energy in Microgrid Configuration” by Kwasinski et al. (Kwasinski) and in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0224094 to Klein et al. (Klein).
As to claims 1, 11, and 20, Streete teaches:
(Claim 1) a memory storage storing computer-executable instructions; and at least one processor communicatively coupled to the memory storage, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to (“For example, FIG. 5 is a block diagram illustrating an example of a host or computer system 500 which may be used in implementing the embodiments of the present disclosure. The computer system (system) includes one or more processors 502-506 …” [col. 11, line 26 – col. 12, line 17]):
(Claim 20) a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having recorded thereon instructions executable by at least one processor to cause the at least one processor to perform a method comprising (“The described disclosure may be provided as a computer program product, or software, that may include a machine-readable medium having stored thereon instructions, which may be used to program a computer system (or other electronic devices) to perform a process according to the present disclosure …” [col. 11, lines 10-25]):
identify that one or more network resources of a network use a (“… Systems configured according to this disclosure calculate usage (and by extension, usage costs) of network infrastructure based on the energy consumed by individual networking devices …” and “… Thus, to ensure that the measured power consumption values are obtained from the appropriate device, the power distribution unit 120 may receive unique identifying information (e.g., a serial number) of the equipment device 114 to be monitored, and configure its internal power monitor to measure the power consumption experienced on that equipment device 114.” [col. 1, lines 42-57 and col. 9, lines 6-19]);
calculate an energy consumption value particular for the user based on the one or more network resources identified as using the (“… In another embodiment, the cost usage reporting module 320 may combine the energy consumption values from multiple equipment devices 114 leased by the user to derive a cumulative energy consumption value that can be reported to the user …” [col. 7, lines 27 – col. 8, line 24]);
determine an optimization for the network based on the calculated energy consumption value (“… This approach also provides a power saving solution for large scale computing systems, allowing individual devices to be turned off based on respective usage costs, thereby reducing energy consumption” and “At step 412, the tool 124 generates a report that includes the determined cost information and transmits the generated report to an authorized entity, such as the user. In one embodiment, the tool 124 may further process the estimated energy consumption to determine other factors, such as suggested changes to how the user uses the equipment device 114 so that future energy consumption can be reduced …” [col. 2, line 56 – col. 3. line 31 and col. 10, lines 15-40] Examiner notes that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, optimizing a network includes reducing the energy consumption of devices in the network as taught by Streete).
While Streete teaches, one or more network resources using an energy source, Streete does not teach, one or more network resources using a renewable energy source. However, Kwasinski teaches, one or more network resources using a renewable energy source (“This paper introduces an architecture for powering green mobile networks with a majority of renewable sources …” [Abstract]). Since each individual element and its function are shown in the art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself—that is in the substitution of the one or more network resources using a renewable energy source of Kwasinski for the one or more network resources of Streete. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kwasinski that doing so would increase the use of renewable energy sources even when the traffic is not at a low level [Abstract].
Streete does not teach, wherein the optimization comprises increasing a renewable energy consumption for the user by directing a network connection of the user device of the user to network resources identified as using the renewable energy. However, Kwasinski teaches, wherein the optimization comprises increasing a renewable energy consumption for the user by directing a network connection of the user device of the user to network resources identified as using the renewable energy ( Examine particularly notes “traffic shaping and management techniques so as to power off one cell to increase the use of renewable energy sources even when the traffic is not at a low level” [Abstract, Conclusion] as well as Section IV “SHAPING CELL TRAFFIC TO POWER SUPPLY CONDITIONS” discussing shaping traffic (i.e. directing a network connection of the user device).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, analyze network traffic of a plurality of users on the one or more network resources and identify, based on the analyzed network traffic, a user from among the plurality of users corresponding to the analyzed network traffic; and calculate an energy consumption value particular for the user based on the analyzed network traffic, as taught by Kwasinski with the energy consumption calculation system of Streete. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kwasinski that doing so would increase the use of renewable energy sources even when the traffic is not at a low level [Abstract].
Streete in view of Kwasinski does not teach, analyze network traffic of a plurality of users on the one or more network resources and identify, based on the analyzed network traffic, a user from among the plurality of users corresponding to the analyzed network traffic; and calculate an energy consumption value particular for the user based on the analyzed network traffic. However, Klein teaches, analyze network traffic of a plurality of users on the one or more network resources and identify, based on the analyzed network traffic, a user from among the plurality of users corresponding to the analyzed network traffic (“… In at least some embodiments, a hardware solution can be implemented to attempt to determine energy consumption for one or more components during a context switch. For example, a component such as a NIC can receive an identifier (ID) associated with a customer, such as an ID associated with a virtual machine (VM) of the customer, such that the NIC can know which customer is using the NIC for an upcoming period of time …” [0041-0044]);
and calculate an energy consumption value particular for the user based on the analyzed network traffic (“… In some embodiments, software can attempt to infer an amount of energy consumption. For example, a power management service can have information about rates of energy consumption for particular activities, and can monitor customer traffic and allocations in order to determine an approximate amount of time that the customer performed each activity. Such an approach can at least provide a reasonable approximation of energy consumption for the user” [0051-0052]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, analyze network traffic of a plurality of users on the one or more network resources and identify, based on the analyzed network traffic, a user from among the plurality of users corresponding to the analyzed network traffic; and calculate an energy consumption value particular for the user based on the analyzed network traffic, as taught by Klein with the energy consumption calculation system of Streete in view of Kwasinski. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Klein that doing so would allow a customer to make adjustments in usage, if desired, to reduce the amount of consumption, purchase environmental credits for the amount of consumption, or perform another such task, workload, etc. [0012].
As to claims 2 and 12, Streete in view of Kwasinski and in further view of Klein teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Streete further teaches, send the energy consumption value to the user (“A cost reporting module 320 generates a report of a cost to be incurred by a user based upon the estimated usage of the equipment device 114. In one embodiment, the cost usage reporting module 320 may transmit the determined energy consumption value to another equipment device, such as the equipment device 114 for which energy consumption values are determined, so that the user of the equipment device 114 may be informed about the usage of the equipment device 114 …” [col. 7, line 63 – col. 8, line 24]).
As to claims 3 and 13, Streete in view of Kwasinski and in further view of Klein teaches all of the limitations of claims 2 and 12 as discussed above. Streete in view of Kwasinski does not teach, wherein the energy consumption value is sent to the user based on the user's request. However, Klein teaches, wherein the energy consumption value is sent to the user based on the user's request (“… A customer can send a request, such as a Web service request, to an API or other interface of the power management service 304. The power management service can utilize information about the amount of energy consumption of the various components, as well as information about the periods of time in which various components were being used for activities related to the customer, to determine an amount of energy consumption attributable to the customer. The power management service can then send a response to the customer network 312 regarding the amount of energy consumption …” and “FIG. 4 illustrates an example process 400 for enabling a customer to view and/or manage energy consumption that can be used in accordance with various embodiments …” [0031-0032 and 0040-0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the energy consumption value is sent to the user based on the user's request, as taught by Klein with the energy consumption calculation system of Streete in view of Kwasinski. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Klein that doing so would allow a customer to make adjustments in usage, if desired, to reduce the amount of consumption, purchase environmental credits for the amount of consumption, or perform another such task, workload, etc. [0012].
As to claims 5 and 15, Streete in view of Kwasinski and in further view of Klein teaches all of the limitations of claims 2 and 12 as discussed above. Streete further teaches, wherein the sent energy consumption value is sent within a report, wherein the report comprises at least one of: a cost associated with usage of the network resources, renewable energy sources, a network slice that operates on renewable energy, usage per network resource function, or tax savings or tax credits associated with usage of the network re- sources (“A cost reporting module 320 generates a report of a cost to be incurred by a user based upon the estimated usage of the equipment device 114. In one embodiment, the cost usage reporting module 320 may transmit the determined energy consumption value to another equipment device, such as the equipment device 114 for which energy consumption values are determined, so that the user of the equipment device 114 may be informed about the usage of the equipment device 114 …” [col. 7, line 62 - col. 8, line 24]).
As to claims 8 and 18, Streete in view of Kwasinski and in further view of Klein teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Streete further teaches, wherein the calculated energy consumption value is based on a defined period of time (“… The tool 124 records, using the power monitor 122 configured in the power distribution units 120, an interval power consumption measurement of each of the equipment devices at ongoing intervals, estimates an energy consumption of the equipment devices over a specified period of time by combining the recorded interval power consumption measurements over the specified period of time, and determines a cost to be assessed to a user of the equipment device according to the determined energy consumption” and “At step 408, the tool 124 estimates an energy consumption of the equipment device 114 based upon the power consumption measurements over a specified period of time …” [col. 4, lines 35-46 and col. 9, line 60 – col. 10, line 3]).
As to claims 9 and 19, Streete in view of Kwasinski and in further view of Klein teaches all of the limitations of claims 8 and 18 as discussed above. Streete further teaches, wherein the calculated energy consumption value is further based an amount of power utilized by the user in connection with the one or more network resources (“… The tool 124 records, using the power monitor 122 configured in the power distribution units 120, an interval power consumption measurement of each of the equipment devices at ongoing intervals, estimates an energy consumption of the equipment devices over a specified period of time by combining the recorded interval power consumption measurements over the specified period of time, and determines a cost to be assessed to a user of the equipment device according to the determined energy consumption” and “At step 408, the tool 124 estimates an energy consumption of the equipment device 114 based upon the power consumption measurements over a specified period of time …” [col. 4, lines 35-46 and col. 9, line 60 – col. 10, line 3]).
Claims 6, 7, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,349,339 to Streete et al. (Streete) in view of NPL “Architecture for Green Mobile Network Powered from Renewable Energy in Microgrid Configuration” by Kwasinski et al. (Kwasinski) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0224094 to Klein et al. (Klein), as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and in further view of NPL “Planning Energy-Efficient and Eco-Sustainable Telecommunications Networks” by Matthews et al. (Matthews).
As to claims 6 and 16, Streete in view of Kwasinski and in further view of Klein teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 11 as discussed above. Streete in view of Kwasinski and in further view of Klein does not teach, receive a selection for one or more types of renewable energy sources from the user. However, Matthews teaches, receive a selection for one or more types of renewable energy sources from the user (“The TPE then provides a selection of energy-saving initiatives based on the choices described in Figure 5 earlier in this paper, allowing the user to choose the most compelling options. The user is then offered alternative power options, again providing the opportunity to choose the most appropriate (reducing energy consumption first generally ensures a stronger business case for alternative power options)” [p. 230]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, receive a selection for one or more types of renewable energy sources from the user, as taught by Matthews with the energy consumption calculation system of Streete in view of Kwasinski and in further view of Klein. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Matthews that doing so would reduce the energy usage and environmental impact of telecommunications networks [Abstract].
As to claims 7 and 17, Streete in view of Kwasinski and in further view of Klein teaches all of the limitations of claims 6 and 16 as discussed above. Streete does not teach, wherein the one or more types of renewable energy sources are comprised of one or more of: wind, solar, hydropower, ocean, geothermal, and bio-energy. However, Kwasinski teaches, wherein the one or more types of renewable energy sources are comprised of one or more of: wind, solar, hydropower, ocean, geothermal, and bio-energy (“Power for the base stations is obtained primarily from PV panels and wind turbines. The cell sites are equipped with batteries so as to manage the variability in the power supplied from the renewable sources. All three components, the solar panels, the wind turbines and the the (sic) batteries may be either located in a centralized location or distributed on the different cell sites, but in all cases they are shared using a microgrid configuration by all the seven cell sites” [Section II “Microgrid for Powering Green Cellular Networks from Renewable Sources”]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the one or more types of renewable energy sources are comprised of one or more of: wind, solar, hydropower, ocean, geothermal, and bio-energy, as taught by Kwasinski with the energy consumption calculation system of Streete. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Kwasinski that doing so would increase the use of renewable energy sources even when the traffic is not at a low level [Abstract].
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,349,339 to Streete et al. (Streete) in view of NPL “Architecture for Green Mobile Network Powered from Renewable Energy in Microgrid Configuration” by Kwasinski et al. (Kwasinski) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0224094 to Klein et al. (Klein), as applied to claims 2 and 12 above, and in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2010/0174643 to Schaefer et al. (Schaefer).
As to claims 4 and 14, Streete in view of Kwasinski and in further view of Klein teaches all of the limitations of claims 2 and 12 as discussed above. Streete in view of Kwasinski and in further view of Klein does not teach, wherein the energy consumption value is sent to the user automatically or based on a defined schedule. However, Schaefer teaches, wherein the energy consumption value is sent to the user automatically or based on a defined schedule (“Although the FIGS. 4-9 provide reporting in either an hour-by-hour or day-by-day basis, it is also contemplated that a user can select other time periods for reporting to include reports based upon time increments as small as minute-by-minute …” and “… The user has the option to view energy data at all levels of an organization ranging from a very broad view of the entire organization down to component level where the user can better manage energy consumption” [0122 and 0135]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the energy consumption value is sent to the user automatically or based on a defined schedule, as taught by Schaefer with the energy consumption calculation system of Streete in view of Kwasinski and in further view of Klein. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Schaefer that doing so would provide a user the ability to observe and control in maximizing the contribution of the renewable energy sources in reducing the cost of the primary energy sources [0005].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 11,349,339 to Streete et al. (Streete) in view of NPL “Architecture for Green Mobile Network Powered from Renewable Energy in Microgrid Configuration” by Kwasinski et al. (Kwasinski) in further view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0224094 to Klein et al. (Klein), as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0275263 to Carlin, Jr. et al. (Carlin).
As to claim 10, Streete in view of Kwasinski and in further view of Klein teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Streete in view of Kwasinski and in further view of Klein does not teach, wherein the calculated energy consumption value is based on a percentage of renewable energy sources used by the user relative to a percentage of non-renewable energy sources used by the user. However, Carlin teaches, wherein the calculated energy consumption value is based on a percentage of renewable energy sources used by the user relative to a percentage of non-renewable energy sources used by the user (“… For example, the utility may specify a User spent $50 on electricity last month and the electricity is sourced from 20% renewable resources and 80% from coal. Utility information may include, but is not limited to, electricity, natural gas, and water utilities” and “The Platform may use one or more of these methods (A1-A5) to acquire User data. The acquired User data may be used with previously disclosed purposes and methods. In addition, upon acquisition, this User data is stored on the server and used from time to time, and upon the request of the User, for one or more of the following purposes: … Measure the impact of potential improvements to the Home with regard to one or more of the following: (i) the usage and/or cost of energy, water or other resource consumption …” [0086-0087 and 0092-0094]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filling date of the invention to include, wherein the calculated energy consumption value is based on a percentage of renewable energy sources used by the user relative to a percentage of non-renewable energy sources used by the user, as taught by Carlin with the energy consumption calculation system of Streete in view of Kwasinski and in further view of Klein. Motivation to do so comes from the teachings of Carlin that doing so would make saving energy easy and attainable for all consumers [0013].
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 STEPHANIE S WALLICK whose telephone number is (703)756-1081. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10am-6pm.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571) 272-5587. 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.
/S.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/RUPANGINI SINGH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628