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 .
This action is in response to communications filed on 05/04/2026.
Claims 15-16 have been added.
Claims 1-16 are pending and have been examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
As per claim 1, “based on and information” in line 7 requires correction.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because a replacement part (e.g. “PART 3”) is now missing in the bottom field in column 501 (“REPLACEMENT PART”). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claim 1, there is lack of antecedent basis for “the new trouble” in line 8. Due at least to their dependency upon claim 1, dependent claims 2-12 and 15-16 also lack written description.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite systems and a medium associated with acquire, generating, re-training and performing.
The limitations “acquire… generate… perform…” as recited in claim 1 are each a process, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covering performance of the limitations in the mind or by pen and paper (See Berkheimer v. HP, Inc., 881 F.3d 1360, 1366, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018)) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “one or a plurality of processors”, the limitation “acquire information related to a trouble and information on maintenance executed for the trouble” in the context of the claim encompasses the user making observations. Other than reciting “one or a plurality of processors”, the limitation “generate a learning model to which the information related to the trouble is input and from which the information on the maintenance is output” in the context of the claim encompasses the user making evaluations (e.g. creating a formula). Other than reciting “one or a plurality of processors” and “where the learning model is re-trained”, the limitation “perform weighting by changing a value of a correct answer label associated with the information on the maintenance output for the new trouble” in the context of the claim encompasses the user making determinations. If a claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional elements. The claim recites “one or a plurality of processors”. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations “re-train the learning model based on information related to a new trouble and information on the maintenance output for the new trouble” and “where the learning model is re-trained” amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements are no more than a generic computer component and/or field of use. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 13 and 14 also recite similar claim language as claim 1, and thus have the same issues. It is noted, with respect to claim 13, that the claim recites “non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing one or a plurality of processors” to perform the limitations. The elements are recited at a high-level of generality, such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)). It is noted, with respect to claim 14, that the claim does not include any additional elements than those noted above. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Regarding claim 2, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim further describes performing weighting, which is a mental step (encompassing a user making a determination) and does not include any additional elements.
Regarding claim 3, the claim does not include any additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim further describes assigning weight, which is a mental step (encompassing a user making a determination) and does not include any additional elements.
Regarding claim 4, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim further describes performing weighting, which is a mental step (encompassing a user making a determination) and does not include any additional elements.
Regarding claim 5, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim further describes performing weighting, which is a mental step (encompassing a user making a determination) and does not include any additional elements.
Regarding claim 6, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim further describes assigning weight, which is a mental step (encompassing a user making a determination) and does not include any additional elements.
Regarding claim 7, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim merely further describes the information, which is part of the mental steps and does not include any additional elements. This similarly applies to claims 8-12.
Regarding claim 15, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim further describes displaying the information and a button, which amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and re-training, which amounts to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Regarding claim 16, the claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For example, the claim further describes assigning a smaller value, which is a mental step (encompassing a user making a determination) and does not include any additional elements.
Response to Arguments
Previous claim interpretations have been withdrawn in view of amendments.
Previous rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn in view of amendments.
With respect to 35 USC 101, applicant argues that a specific machine learning data structure allegedly cannot be performed by the human mind and that the model allegedly suppresses incorrect answer noise. However, examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claims do not recite any machine learning hidden layers and how they function, nor does it describe any specific machine learning data structure. The mental steps appear to be generally tied to a generic learning model (i.e. field of use). Moreover, the claims do not describe any noise suppression. The claims are only generally amended to change a value of a correct answer label, which may not have anything to do with noise suppression.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the newly amended features have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. However, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a weight assigned to inputted training data) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claims merely recite “a correct answer label”. It is noted that Brinkmann teaches “a received current failure notification… When the remedy recommendation system 110 generates another solution proposal, the remedy recommendation system 110 may give the previously rejected proposal a lower score [i.e. weighting] (based on user feedback), when compared to other solution proposals” (e.g. in paragraph 40). A “solution proposal” is reasonably interpreted as “a correct answer label”, of which a value can be changed, e.g. lowering its score, i.e. weight, as seen above. However, in the interest of advancing prosecution, see rejections in view of Foreman (US 20080103996 A1). See also rejections in view of Brennan et al. (US 20180068221 A1) below with respect to new claims 15-16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US 20190123931 A1) in view of Brinkmann et al. (US 20200026632 A1) and Foreman et al. (US 20080103996 A1).
As per claim 1, Schuster teaches a system comprising: one or a plurality of processors (e.g. in paragraph 64, “memory 408 is communicably connected to processor 406 via processing circuit 404 and includes computer code for executing (e.g., by processing circuit 404 and/or processor 406) one or more processes described herein”) configured to:
acquire information related to a trouble and information on maintenance executed for the trouble (e.g. in paragraphs 89 and 100, “receive a feature vector comprising data of interest (e.g., features) from vibration dataset 602 as input… labels can be applied to vibration dataset 602. These labels can be obtained from historical data and can include machine conditions (e.g., alert condition), component conditions (e.g., motor 504 in alarm condition), root cause faults (e.g., based on maintenance records), and appropriate maintenance procedures”);
generate a learning model to which the information related to the trouble is input and from which the information on the maintenance is output (e.g. in paragraphs 89, 100, and 103, “Models 610 can receive a feature vector comprising data of interest (e.g., features) from vibration dataset 602 as input… machine learning models can be designed… labels can be applied to vibration dataset 602. These labels can be obtained from historical data and can include machine conditions (e.g., alert condition), component conditions (e.g., motor 504 in alarm condition), root cause faults… output of models 610 can include…suggested maintenance actions”);
re-train the learning model based on and information on a maintenance output for the new trouble (e.g. in paragraphs 89-90 and 100, “As more data is collected and associated with a specific component, machine learning models 610 can be retrained with the new data in order to achieve even better performance… machine conditions (e.g., alert condition), component conditions (e.g., motor 504 in alarm condition), root cause faults (e.g., based on maintenance records), and appropriate maintenance procedures”),
but does not specifically teach perform weighting by changing a value of a correct answer label associated with the information on the maintenance output for the new trouble in a case where the learning model is re-trained.
However, Brinkmann teaches perform weighting associated with information on a maintenance output for a new trouble in a case where a learning model is (re)trained (e.g. in paragraphs 17, 40-41, 45, 48, 55, and 65, “a received current failure notification… When the remedy recommendation system 110 generates another solution proposal, the remedy recommendation system 110 may give the previously rejected proposal a lower score [i.e. weighting] (based on user feedback), when compared to other solution proposals… user feedback…may be provided to individual machine learning algorithms…for re-training… remedy the failure… recommended solution including the tasks may be sent to a user equipment 167 associated with a user, such as a maintenance worked… user feedback scoring… determine a score… trained to determine relevance of a remedy recommendation based on user feedback (quantity, or degree, of positive feedback, quantity of negative feedback)”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Schuster to include the teachings of Brinkmann because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of assessing relevance of maintenance,
but does not specifically teach by changing a value of a correct answer label associated with the information.
However, Forman teaches perform weighting by changing a value of a correct answer label associated with information (e.g. in paragraphs 18, 25, 29, and 41-43, “sets the classification parameters (e.g., weights) of classifier 3 using a set of training samples 7 and class labels 8 that have been assigned to such training samples 7… a soft classification score… a particular value… label is correct… provided information then can be incorporated into the prediction model and used, e.g., to inform the training module to put less weight on such sample… user interface for specifying degree of difficulty in assigning a label can be presented”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Forman because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of improving training.
As per claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further teaches perform weighting on the information on the maintenance based on a fact that information on the maintenance is presented for a past trouble (e.g. Brinkmann, in paragraphs 40, 55 and 65, “When the remedy recommendation system 110 generates another solution proposal, the remedy recommendation system 110 may give the previously rejected proposal a lower score [i.e. weighting] (based on user feedback), when compared to other solution proposals… quantity of negative feedback”; note: feedback is given for past troubles).
As per claim 3, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and the combination further teaches assign a smaller weight to the information on the maintenance as a presentation rate of the information on the maintenance presented for the past trouble is increased (e.g. Brinkmann, in paragraphs 40, 55 and 65, “When the remedy recommendation system 110 generates another solution proposal, the remedy recommendation system 110 may give the previously rejected proposal a lower score [i.e. weighting] (based on user feedback), when compared to other solution proposals… score [of] a remedy recommendation… quantity of negative feedback” and formula (1) in paragraph 55 which is a ratio and becomes smaller with increase in “quantity of negative feedback”; note: feedback is given for past troubles).
As per claim 4, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further teaches perform weighting on the information on the maintenance based on a result of execution based on information on the maintenance presented for a past trouble (e.g. Brinkmann, in paragraphs 40, 55, and 65, “When the remedy recommendation system 110 generates another solution proposal, the remedy recommendation system 110 may give the previously rejected proposal a lower score [i.e. weighting] (based on user feedback), when compared to other solution proposals… score [of] a remedy recommendation… quantity of negative feedback” associated with “Was the solution and tasks in the work order notification helpful”, i.e. result of execution; note: feedback is given for past troubles).
As per claim 5, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and the combination further teaches perform weighting on the presented information on the maintenance according to a status of a case where the trouble is resolved by the maintenance executed based on the information on the maintenance presented for the past trouble, and a case where the trouble is resolved by executing maintenance different from the presented information of the maintenance (e.g. Brinkmann, in paragraphs 40, 45, 55 and 65, “When the remedy recommendation system 110 generates another solution proposal, the remedy recommendation system 110 may give the previously rejected proposal a lower score [i.e. weighting] (based on user feedback), when compared to other solution proposals… more similar a reference [i.e. past] notification is to the current [i.e. different] notification”).
As per claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the information related to the trouble is information related to an abnormality of equipment and the information on the maintenance is information on a part to be replaced (e.g. Schuster, in paragraph 101, “abnormal behavior of motor”; Brinkmann, in paragraphs 17 and 29, “physical assets (e.g., machines, parts, production lines, consumables, and/or the like)… maintenance of the assets including…replacing parts (e.g., components of the assets)… notification of failure”).
As per claim 8, the rejection of claim 2 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the information related to the trouble is information related to an abnormality of equipment and the information on the maintenance is information on a part to be replaced (e.g. Schuster, in paragraph 101, “abnormal behavior of motor”; Brinkmann, in paragraphs 17 and 29, “physical assets (e.g., machines, parts, production lines, consumables, and/or the like)… maintenance of the assets including…replacing parts (e.g., components of the assets)… notification of failure”).
As per claim 9, the rejection of claim 3 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the information related to the trouble is information related to an abnormality of equipment and the information on the maintenance is information on a part to be replaced (e.g. Schuster, in paragraph 101, “abnormal behavior of motor”; Brinkmann, in paragraphs 17 and 29, “physical assets (e.g., machines, parts, production lines, consumables, and/or the like)… maintenance of the assets including…replacing parts (e.g., components of the assets)… notification of failure”).
As per claim 10, the rejection of claim 4 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the information related to the trouble is information related to an abnormality of equipment and the information on the maintenance is information on a part to be replaced (e.g. Schuster, in paragraph 101, “abnormal behavior of motor”; Brinkmann, in paragraphs 17 and 29, “physical assets (e.g., machines, parts, production lines, consumables, and/or the like)… maintenance of the assets including…replacing parts (e.g., components of the assets)… notification of failure”).
As per claim 11, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the information related to the trouble is information related to an abnormality of equipment and the information on the maintenance is information on a part to be replaced (e.g. Schuster, in paragraph 101, “abnormal behavior of motor”; Brinkmann, in paragraphs 17 and 29, “physical assets (e.g., machines, parts, production lines, consumables, and/or the like)… maintenance of the assets including…replacing parts (e.g., components of the assets)… notification of failure”).
Claim 13 is the medium claim corresponding to system claim 1, and is rejected under the same reasons set forth and the combination further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing one or a plurality of processors to realize a function (e.g. Schuster, in paragraph 64, “memory 408 is communicably connected to processor 406 via processing circuit 404 and includes computer code for executing (e.g., by processing circuit 404 and/or processor 406) one or more processes described herein”) and the combination further teaches re-train the learning model based on information related to a new trouble (e.g. in paragraphs 89-90 and 100, “As more data is collected and associated with a specific component, machine learning models 610 can be retrained with the new data in order to achieve even better performance… machine conditions (e.g., alert condition), component conditions (e.g., motor 504 in alarm condition), root cause faults (e.g., based on maintenance records), and appropriate maintenance procedures”).
Claim 14 corresponds to method claim 1, and is rejected under the same reasons set forth and the combination further teaches re-train the learning model based on information related to a new trouble (e.g. in paragraphs 89-90 and 100, “As more data is collected and associated with a specific component, machine learning models 610 can be retrained with the new data in order to achieve even better performance… machine conditions (e.g., alert condition), component conditions (e.g., motor 504 in alarm condition), root cause faults (e.g., based on maintenance records), and appropriate maintenance procedures”).
Claims 6 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US 20190123931 A1) in view of Brinkmann et al. (US 20200026632 A1) and Foreman et al. (US 20080103996 A1), and further in view of LuVogt et al. (US 20130290905 A1).
As per claim 6, the rejection of claim 5 is incorporated and the combination further teaches assign a weight to the presented information on the maintenance on a basis of the case where the trouble is resolved by executing the maintenance different from the information on the maintenance presented for the past trouble (e.g. Brinkmann, in paragraphs 40, 45, 55 and 65, “When the remedy recommendation system 110 generates another solution proposal, the remedy recommendation system 110 may give the previously rejected proposal a lower score [i.e. weight] (based on user feedback), when compared to other solution proposals… more similar a reference [i.e. past] notification is to the current [i.e. different] notification”),
but does not specifically teach assigning a smaller weight on a basis as a rate is higher.
However, LuVogt teaches assigning a smaller weight to other possible recommendations as a rate of a different recommendation is higher (e.g. in paragraph 139, “incorporate feedback from such user actions and update content recommendations provided to the user… the item type mixture weight of the particular type of content selected by the user is increased and correspondingly, the item type mixture weights of other content types can be decreased so that the ratio the content type selected by the user in the overall content transmitted to the user is increased”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combination to include the teachings of LuVogt because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of providing more relevant recommendations.
As per claim 12, the rejection of claim 6 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the information related to the trouble is information related to an abnormality of equipment and the information on the maintenance is information on a part to be replaced (e.g. Schuster, in paragraph 101, “abnormal behavior of motor”; Brinkmann, in paragraphs 17 and 29, “physical assets (e.g., machines, parts, production lines, consumables, and/or the like)… maintenance of the assets including…replacing parts (e.g., components of the assets)… notification of failure”).
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuster et al. (US 20190123931 A1) in view of Brinkmann et al. (US 20200026632 A1) and Foreman et al. (US 20080103996 A1), and further in view of Brennan et al. (US 20180068221 A1).
As per claim 15, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated, but the combination does not specifically teach display the information related to the new trouble and the information on the maintenance output for the new trouble on a display unit; display an addition button, wherein the addition button allows the user to add information on the maintenance not presented by the learning model to the information on the maintenance displayed on the display unit; and re-train the learning model by the information on the maintenance added by the addition button as correct answer data. However, Brennan teaches display information and related information on a display unit; display an addition button, wherein the addition button allows the user to add related information not presented by a learning model to the related information displayed on the display unit; and re-train the learning model by the related information added by the addition button as correct answer data (e.g. in paragraph 50, “review candidate training examples 511 displays a dropdown menu listing or group of clustered review candidate training examples… Through user interaction with one or more control buttons 514-517, the user has the option to add, remove or approve the labels for the first group of review candidate training examples”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of the combination to include the teachings of Brennan because one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit of providing more appropriate/relevant labels.
As per claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated and the combination further teaches wherein the one or plurality of processors further configured to: assign a smaller value to the correct answer label associated with the information on the maintenance presented by the learning model for a past trouble than to the correct answer label associated with the information on the maintenance added by the addition button (e.g. Brennan, in paragraph 50, “Through user interaction with one or more control buttons 514-517, the user has the option to add, remove or approve the labels for the first group of review candidate training examples”; Brinkmann, in paragraph 40, “When the remedy recommendation system 110 generates another solution proposal, the remedy recommendation system 110 may give the previously rejected proposal a lower score (based on user feedback), when compared to other solution proposals”; Foreman, in paragraph 43, “allow the user 44 and/or 57 to designate the degree… provided information then can be incorporated into the prediction model and used, e.g., to inform the training module to put less weight on such sample… user interface for specifying degree of difficulty in assigning a label can be presented”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
For example,
Clark (US 20190294922 A1) teaches “The percent of solutions valid is a metric for what percentage of the proposed or suggested solutions for the machine learning algorithm are valid, for example, if only two-thirds of the total solutions are valid then the algorithm with more total solutions may be worse than another algorithm that has fewer solutions but a higher percent valid. Additionally, this is a metric that is updated over time as additional solutions are validated in additional iterations of the process” (e.g. in paragraphs 49-50).
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 WILLIAM WONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, TAMARA KYLE can be reached at (571)272-4241. 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.
/W.W/Examiner, Art Unit 2144 07/16/2026
/TAMARA T KYLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2144
Prosecution Insights