DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is responsive to Applicant’s amendment filed July 2, 2026. Claims 1, 12, and 20 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 2, 2026 have been considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101, Applicant submits that “[t]he amended claims recite specific machine-to-machine control operations, including transmitting a command that causes a physical asset to update an operational value toward a commanded target value and automatically performing a mitigation action based on that commanded target value. These are not ‘business relations’ or ‘organizing human activity’, instead they are machine-direction control operations that effect a physical change in the operation of industrial equipment.” (Pages 12-13 of Applicant’s response) The independent claims recite “transmitting a command indicative of the at least one recommended mitigation action to the particular poor-performing asset, the command causing the particular poor-performance asset to update an operational value toward a commanded target value for an operational aspect of the particular poor-performance asset; and automatically performing the at least one recommended mitigation action to alter one or more operations of the particular poor-performance asset based on the commanded target value.” The command may simply be an instruction to update an operational value. Additionally, “automatically performing at least one mitigation operation” may simply entail a human user sending information regarding plans to alter operations of an asset. The claims do not present specific technical details regarding closed-loop control operations for a machine. At best, generic processing elements are generally applied to facilitate operations that could otherwise be performed by a human.
The Examiner maintains that, aside from a general recitation of the additional elements at a high level, a human user could indeed perform most of the recited operations, including receiving data, generating information, normalizing metrics, generating an aggregated performance metric, generating a ranking, generating a display of information, and automatically (i.e., in direct response to) making plans to perform a mitigation operation. A human user may also be instructed to execute a mitigation operation, which could involve making a decision to cease an operation or which could involve actively effecting a physical mitigation operation (which is an example of organizing human activity since a human may be instructed to perform a physical mitigation operation). As a matter of fact, dependent claim 11 recites “automatically performing the at least one recommended mitigation action by automatically adjusting one or more operational parameters of the particular poor-performance asset” and a human user can automatically adjust one or more operational parameters.
Regarding the normalization and aggregation, the corresponding analyses may be performed by a human user (in the mind and/or with pen and paper) and are part of the evaluated process related to “monitoring asset performance and generating rankings of assets based at least in part on asset performance” (Spec: ¶ 1), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of business relations (i.e., organizing human activity).
As explained in the rejection, the claims also recite details of mathematical concepts.
Additionally, MPEP § 2106.05(a) states, “An important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology is the extent to which the claim covers a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d at 1102-03; DDR Holdings, 773 F.3d at 1259, 113 USPQ2d at 1107.” Even if the limitation of automatically performing the recommended mitigation action were interpreted as being initiated by an instruction from an additional element, this would still simply present the idea of a solution or outcome (as opposed to a particular technical solution to a technical problem).
On page 15 of the response, Applicant asserts that “[t]he amended claims establish a closed-loop industrial control system.” Again, the command may simply be an instruction to update an operational value. Additionally, “automatically performing at least one mitigation operation” may simply entail a human user sending information regarding plans to alter operations of an asset. The claims do not present specific technical details regarding closed-loop control operations for a machine. At best, generic processing elements are generally applied to facilitate operations that could otherwise be performed by a human.
Applicant states, “The ordered combination of type-specific normalization treatments, equivalent scale configuration, aggregation, ranking, GUI display of poor performance factors with recommended mitigations, command transmission causing a physical asset to update an operational value toward a commanded target value, and automatic mitigation based on that value constitutes significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The claimed steps amount to more than the sum of their parts, resulting in unique technical benefits.” (Page 16 of Applicant’s response) Aside from the mention of the GUI display, the elements of the ordered combination described by Applicant speak to details of the abstract ideas as opposed to an ordered combination of the additional elements and their respective operations. Again, the additional elements referenced in the claims are generic processing devices and they are only generally applied to perform the abstract ideas. Applicant has not presented persuasive evidence to the contrary.
Regarding the art rejections, the Examiner finds the claim amendments and Applicant’s arguments persuasive to overcome the rejections.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claimed invention is directed to “monitoring asset performance and generating rankings of assets based at least in part on asset performance” (Spec: ¶ 1) without significantly more.
Step
Analysis
1: Statutory Category?
Yes – The claims fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter. Process (claims 1-11), Apparatus (claims 12-19), Article of Manufacture (claim 20)
Independent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claims 1, 12, 20] receiving monitored data associated with a plurality of assets;
generating, for each of the plurality of assets and using the monitored data, a plurality of performance metrics;
normalizing the plurality of performance metrics for each of the plurality of assets to generate a plurality of normalized performance metrics for each asset of the plurality of assets, wherein each performance metric of the plurality of normalized performance metrics indicates a level of performance of the corresponding asset, wherein normalizing the plurality of performance metrics comprises applying, to a first performance metric of a first type, a first normalization treatment associated with the first type, and to a second performance metric of a second type that is different from the first type, a second normalization treatment associated with the second type, wherein applying the first normalization treatment to the first performance metric of the first type causes the first performance metric to be configured in an equivalent scale format and applying the second normalization treatment to the second performance metric of the second type causes the second performance metric to be configured in the equivalent scale format such that the first performance metric and the second performance metric may be used to generate an aggregated performance metric;
generating the aggregated performance metric for each particular asset of the plurality of assets based at least in part on a combination of the plurality of normalized performance metrics corresponding to the asset; and
generating a ranking of the plurality of assets based at least in part on the aggregated performance metric for each asset, wherein the ranking of the plurality of assets indicates a level of poor performance for each asset of the plurality of assets;
generating a display based at least in part on the ranking to display one or more poor performance factors for a particular poor-performance asset of the plurality of assets with at least one recommended mitigation action;
transmitting a command indicative of the at least one recommended mitigation action to the particular poor-performing asset, the command causing the particular poor-performance asset to update an operational value toward a commanded target value for an operational aspect of the particular poor-performance asset; and
automatically performing the at least one recommended mitigation action to alter one or more operations of the particular poor-performance asset based on the commanded target value.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user could gather the recited data, perform the various analyses, and display information in accordance with the details cited above. A human user can also automatically (i.e., in direct response to) perform certain mitigation actions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “monitoring asset performance and generating rankings of assets based at least in part on asset performance” (Spec: ¶ 1), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of business relations (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity. A human user can also automatically (i.e., in direct response to) perform certain mitigation actions, such as ones that simply involve providing direction to alter operations, which also means that human users can follow instructions to implement a mitigation action, which is another example of organizing human activity. As a matter of fact, dependent claim 11 recites “automatically performing the at least one recommended mitigation action by automatically adjusting one or more operational parameters of the particular poor-performance asset” and a human user can automatically adjust one or more operational parameters.
Various calculating steps are recited throughout the claims (as implied, for example, by the normalization of the performance metrics, generation of an aggregate performance metric for each asset, and generation of a ranking of the assets, as recited in independent claims 1, 12, and 20, and as further evidenced by the use of an average performance metric (recited in claim 15).
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
Claim 1 and its dependent claims recite that the method is computer-implemented. Claim 1 further recites generating a graphical user interface via a computing device. Claim 1 recites that a command indicative of the at least one recommended mitigation action is transmitted from the computing device.
Claims 12 and its dependent claims recite a computing apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory having computer-coded instructions stored thereon, the computer coded instructions configured to, in execution with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform the recited functions. Claim 12 further recites generating a graphical user interface via a computing device. Claim 12 recites that a command indicative of the at least one recommended mitigation action is transmitted from the computing device.
Claim 20 recites a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, upon execution by at least one processor, configure the computer program product to perform the recited functions. Claim 20 further recites generating a graphical user interface via a computing device. Claim 20 recites that a command indicative of the at least one recommended mitigation action is transmitted from the computing device.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 189-201).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims:
Step
Analysis
2A – Prong 1: Judicial Exception Recited?
Yes – Aside from the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, the claims recite:
[Claim 2] generating an importance-weighted performance metric for each of the plurality of assets based at least in part on a importance factor corresponding to the asset and the aggregated performance metric corresponding to the asset; and
generating the ranking of the plurality of assets based at least in part on the importance-weighted performance metric.
[Claim 3] determining an asset type of each of the plurality of assets; and
generating the plurality of performance metrics for each particular asset of the plurality of assets based at least in part on the asset type corresponding to the particular asset.
[Claim 4] determining the importance factor for each particular asset of the plurality of assets based at least in part on the asset type corresponding to the particular asset.
[Claim 5] identifying the particular poor-performance asset from the plurality of assets based at least in part on the ranking; and
determining at least one poor performance factor for the particular poor-performing asset based at least in part on the plurality of normalized performance metrics associated with the particular poor-performance asset.
[Claim 6] generating a second ranking of the plurality of normalized performance metrics associated with the particular poor-performing asset, wherein the second ranking of the plurality of normalized performance metrics indicates a degree of difference between each normalized performance metric from a reference value corresponding to the performance metric; and
determining the at least one poor performance factor based at least in part on the second ranking of the plurality of normalized performance metrics.
[Claim 7] determining at least one poor performance factor for the particular poor-performing asset based a comparison between one or more predetermined thresholds and at least one performance metric of the plurality of performance metrics associated with the particular poor-performance asset.
[Claim 8] adjusting the one or more predetermined thresholds based at least in part on at least one of a downtime metric, a criticality metric, a cost metric, or other user-inputted metric.
[Claim 9] generating, using a model and the at least one poor performance factor, at least one recommended mitigation action associated with the particular poor-performing asset.
[Claim 10] wherein the model is a decision tree.
[Claim 11] automatically performing the at least one recommended mitigation action by automatically adjusting one or more operational parameters of the particular poor-performance asset.
[Claim 13] wherein an ordering of the plurality of assets in the ranking indicates poor-performing assets.
[Claim 14] wherein top-ranked entries of the ranking indicate poorest-performing assets.
[Claim 15] wherein the aggregated performance metric is an average performance metric.
[Claim 16] identify one or more poor-performing assets based at least in part on the ranking.
[Claim 17] provide the display to at least one user.
[Claim 18] wherein the display comprises at least one poor performance factor for at least one of the plurality of assets in the ranking.
[Claim 19] wherein the display further comprises at least one recommended action for mitigation of the at least one of the plurality of assets.
The dependent claims further present details of the abstract ideas identified above in regard to the independent claims.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify the abstract idea(s) of a mental process (since the details include concepts performed in the human mind, including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). As explained in MPEP § 2106(a)(2)(C)(III), “The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that ‘can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper’ to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, ‘methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’’ 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)).” The limitations reproduced above, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the additional elements identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind and/or by a human using a pen and paper. For example, but for the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the respectively recited steps/functions of the claims, as drafted and set forth above, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind and/or with the use of pen and paper. A human user could gather the recited data, perform the various analyses, and display information in accordance with the details cited above. A human user can also automatically (i.e., in direct response to) perform certain mitigation actions. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (and/or with pen and paper) but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Aside from the additional elements, the aforementioned claim details exemplify a method of organizing human activity (since the details include examples of commercial or legal interactions, including advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and/or business relations and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). More specifically, the evaluated process is related to “monitoring asset performance and generating rankings of assets based at least in part on asset performance” (Spec: ¶ 1), which (under its broadest reasonable interpretation) is an example of business relations (i.e., organizing human activity); therefore, aside from the recitations of generic computer and other processing components (identified in Step 2A – Prong 2 below), the limitations identified in the more detailed claim listing above encompass the abstract idea of organizing human activity. A human user can also automatically (i.e., in direct response to) perform certain mitigation actions, such as ones that simply involve providing direction to alter operations, which also means that human users can follow instructions to implement a mitigation action, which is another example of organizing human activity. As a matter of fact, dependent claim 11 recites “automatically performing the at least one recommended mitigation action by automatically adjusting one or more operational parameters of the particular poor-performance asset” and a human user can automatically adjust one or more operational parameters.
Various calculating steps are recited throughout the claims (as implied, for example, by the normalization of the performance metrics, generation of an aggregate performance metric for each asset, and generation of a ranking of the assets, as recited in independent claims 1, 12, and 20, and as further evidenced by the use of an average performance metric (recited in claim 15).
2A – Prong 2: Integrated into a Practical Application?
No – The judicial exception(s) is/are not integrated into a practical application.
The dependent claims incorporate the additional elements of the independent claim from which each depends.
Claim 1 and its dependent claims recite that the method is computer-implemented. Claim 1 further recites generating a graphical user interface via a computing device. Claim 1 recites that a command indicative of the at least one recommended mitigation action is transmitted from the computing device.
Claim 9 recites generating, using a machine learning model and the at least one poor performance factor, at least one recommended mitigation action associated with the particular poor-performing asset.
Claim 10 recites wherein the machine learning model is a decision tree.
Claims 12 and its dependent claims recite a computing apparatus comprising at least one processor and at least one non-transitory memory having computer-coded instructions stored thereon, the computer coded instructions configured to, in execution with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform the recited functions. Claim 12 further recites generating a graphical user interface via a computing device. Claim 12 recites that a command indicative of the at least one recommended mitigation action is transmitted from the computing device.
Claim 17 recites wherein the one or more processors are further configured to:
generate a user interface based at least in part on the ranking; and
provide the user interface to at least one computing device.
Claim 18 recites wherein the user interface comprises at least one poor performance factor for at least one of the plurality of assets in the ranking.
Claim 19 recites wherein the user interface further comprises at least one recommended action for mitigation of the at least one of the plurality of assets.
Claim 20 recites a computer program product comprising at least one non-transitory, computer-readable storage medium including instructions that, upon execution by at least one processor, configure the computer program product to perform the recited functions. Claim 20 further recites generating a graphical user interface via a computing device. Claim 20 recites that a command indicative of the at least one recommended mitigation action is transmitted from the computing device.
The claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the abstract idea(s) in a computer environment. The claimed processing elements are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea(s). Simply implementing the abstract idea(s) on a general-purpose processor is not a practical application of the abstract idea(s); Applicant’s specification discloses that the invention may be implemented using general-purpose processing elements and other generic components (Spec: ¶¶ 189-201).
The use of a processor/processing elements (e.g., as recited in all of the claims) facilitates generic processor operations. The use of a memory or machine-readable media with executable instructions facilitates generic processor operations.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processing elements performing generic computer functions) such that the incorporation of the additional processing elements amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception(s) using generic computer components. There is no indication in the Specification that the steps/functions of the claims require any inventive programming or necessitate any specialized or other inventive computer components (i.e., the steps/functions of the claims may be implemented using capabilities of general-purpose computer components). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea(s).
The processing components presented in the claims simply utilize the capabilities of a general-purpose computer and are, thus, merely tools to implement the abstract idea(s). As seen in MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I) and § 2106.05(f)(2), the court found that accelerating a process when the increased speed solely comes from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality and it amounts to a mere invocation of computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process (see FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Claim 9 recites generating, using a machine learning model and the at least one poor performance factor, at least one recommended mitigation action associated with the particular poor-performing asset. Claim 10 recites wherein the machine learning model is a decision tree. Considering that the implementation of the machine learning model and/or the training of the model is performed using processing elements, such an implementation is presented as a generic recitation of machine learning in the claims and as a general link to technology. The machine learning-based processing elements are simply tools to generally automate the underlying process that could be performed by a human. It is further noted that, as described in Applicant’s Specification, the machine learning operations are generic machine learning operations (Spec: ¶¶ 61, 164). The Specification presents no assertion that there is any improvement in the automated machine learning process itself. Such a generic recitation of machine learning, as recited in the claims, is little more than automating an analogous process that can be performed by a human.
There is no transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing recited in the claims.
Additionally, even when considering the operations of the additional elements as an ordered combination, the ordered combination does not amount to significantly more than what is present in the claims when each operation is considered separately.
2B: Claim(s) Provide(s) an Inventive Concept?
No – The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea(s) into a practical application, the use of the additional elements to perform the steps identified in Step 2A – Prong 1 above amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exceptions using a generic computer component(s). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component(s) cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SUSANNA M DIAZ whose telephone number is (571)272-6733. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8 am-4:30 pm.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at (571) 270-5389. 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.
/SUSANNA M. DIAZ/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625A
Prosecution Insights