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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 were rejected in the Non-Final Office action mailed on 11/14/2025. Applicant’s amended claimset, entered on 02/13/2026, amended Claims 1, 8, and 14. Herein this Final Office Action, Claims 1-20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/13/2026, with respect to Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101 for Claims 1-20, have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
On Pages 15-16, Applicant summarizes the patent eligibility analysis framework and argues that that the instant claims are patent eligible. Examiner does not agree as discussed below.
On Pages 16-17, Applicant argues that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. Specifically, Applicant argues “The improvement achieved by the claimed process is an improvement in a technical field. Claim 1 recites a technical process for interacting with various computing systems (e.g., a sensor, an earthmoving equipment, the system, the battery performance model, the event simulator model, a physics-based degradation model, and the user interface) to obtain data ( e.g., current measurements and historical battery system sensor data), simulate a digital twin, and display, via the user interface, a replacement simulation. These features are for a technical process that produces a determination of when to replace a battery. That the determination is associated with a delivery of a battery does not make the coordination between devices and the multiple simulations not a technical field. The improvements achieved by the claimed process are improvements to a technical field. As demonstrated in various court cases, such an improvement to a technical field signifies that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.” Examiner does not agree.
Examiner responds that the sensors, digital twin, and user interfaces are additional elements. However, the models, simulations, and the limitations of certain information being associated with an earthmoving equipment are a part of the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(a) explicitly requires that a patent eligible improvement must be to the technical field “itself,” not an improvement in the abstract idea itself. To determine this distinction, MPEP 2106.05(a) requires a “technical explanation” in the original disclosure that “must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement [to a technical field, not an abstract idea].” Applicant’s specification does not provide the required technical explanation to demonstrate an improvement to the technology itself, but instead provides advantages of an improved abstract idea, e.g. “better” scheduling of battery deliveries. Thus, the rejection remains.
On Pages 17-19, Applicant argues that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. Specifically, Applicant argues that instant Claim 1 is analogous to PEG Example 42 because instant Claim 1 “recites a combination of additional elements that present a specific, discrete implementation for simulating battery degradation” similar to the additional element of “storing information, providing remote access over a network, converting updated information that was input by a user in a non-standardized form to a standardized format, automatically generating a message whenever updated information is stored, and transmitting the message to all of the users.” in PEG Example 42. Applicant further points to certain claimed features, arguing that these features provide meaningful limitations that prevent the claims “as a whole” from being directed to an abstract idea. Examiner does not agree.
PEG Example 42 includes two example claims, i.e. Claim 1 held to be eligible and Claim 2 held to be ineligible. The background of PEG Example 42 states “During a visit, each medical provider records information about the patient’s condition in their own local patient records. These records are often stored locally on a computer in a non-standard format selected by whichever hardware or software platform is in use in the medical provider’s local office. It is difficult for medical providers to share updated information about a patient’s condition with other health care providers using current patient management systems, due to the above challenges. This can lead to problems with managing prescriptions or having patients duplicate tests, for example. Currently, medical providers must continually monitor a patient’s medical records for updated information, which is often-times incomplete since records in separate locations are not timely or readily-shared or cannot be consolidated due to format inconsistencies as well as physicians who are unaware that other physicians are also seeing the patient for varying reasons. To solve this problem, applicant has invented a network-based patient management method that collects, converts and consolidates patient information from various physicians and health-care providers into a standardized format, stores it in network-based storage devices, and generates messages notifying health care providers or patients whenever that information is updated.” (Emphasis added).
Examiner responds that Applicant has not demonstrated a similar technical problem of trying to access data across multiple local computer system, each with different formatted data, which is embodied in eligible PEG Example 42 Claim 1. Instead, Applicant’s asserted invention can be performed by a computer system that “take[s] any suitable physical form” (Specification ¶57) and does not address data format inconsistences across locally stored data. Thus, the instant claims are distinguishable from PEG Example 42 Claim 1, and the rejection remains.
On Pages 19-20, Applicant argues that the claims integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A Prong Two. Specifically, Applicant argues that “the claims recite specific steps for obtaining certain types of data (e.g., current measurements and historical battery system sensor data) and transforming this data into "a digital twin of a life cycle of the first battery." (i.e., a categorically different "thing"),” which satisfies all five factors for eligible transformation under MPEP 2106.05(c). Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.05(c) states “It is noted that while the transformation of an article is an important clue, it is not a stand-alone test for eligibility. . . Examiners may find it helpful to evaluate other considerations such as the mere instructions to apply an exception consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), the insignificant extra-solution activity consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and the field of use and technological environment consideration (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)), when making a determination of whether a claim satisfies the particular transformation consideration.”
MPEP 2106.05(c) states “[I]n Mayo, the Supreme Court emphasized that satisfying the machine-or-transformation test, by itself, is not sufficient to render a claim patent-eligible, as not all transformations or machine implementations infuse an otherwise ineligible claim with an ‘inventive concept.’”
MPEP 2106.05(c) states “For data, mere ‘manipulation of basic mathematical constructs [i.e.,] the paradigmatic “abstract idea,”’ has not been deemed a transformation. CyberSource v. Retail Decisions, 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (quoting In re Warmerdam, 33 F.3d 1354, 1355, 1360, 31 USPQ2d 1754, 1755, 1759 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).”
Examiner responds that the “transformation” of data claimed does not satisfy the “transformation” of an “article” as described in MPEP 2106.05(c). Examiner further emphasizes, that even if Examiner agreed with Applicant, in the satisfaction of the “transformation” analysis in MPEP 2106.05(c), such determination would not overcome the rejection, as the other considerations, i.e. MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h) still demonstrate patent subject matter ineligibility. Thus, the rejection remains.
On Pages 20-22, Applicant argues that the claims recite a combination of features which amount to significantly more under Step 2B. Specifically, Applicant argues that “claim 1 of the instant application recites a combination of additional elements that present a specific, discrete implementation for simulating battery degradation.” Applicant argues that certain claimed steps “cannot reasonably be said to be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper.” Thus, these additional features provide an inventive concept that render the claims patent eligible under Step 2B. Examiner does not agree.
MPEP 2106.05.I.A states “Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)); . . . iv. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, e.g., a claim describing how the abstract idea of hedging could be used in the commodities and energy markets, as discussed in Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 595, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) or a claim limiting the use of a mathematical formula to the petrochemical and oil-refining fields, as discussed in Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 588-90, 198 USPQ 193, 197-98 (1978) (MPEP § 2106.05(h)).”
MPEP 2106.04(a) states “The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as: 1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I); 2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and 3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).”
Examiner responds that Applicant’s argument merely asserts that the claim is not entirely within the mental processes abstract idea grouping, which is not a basis for the rejection. Examiner has identified recited mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and additional elements. Examiner has analyzed the additional elements and claim as a whole in Step 2B and determined that the claims are ineligible under MPEP 2106.05(f) (“apply-it”) and 2106.05(h) (“field of use”). Put plainly, a claimed steps that cannot be performed in the human mind does not demonstrate “significantly more” in Step 2B. Thus, the rejection remains.
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 an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-7 recite non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (i.e. a machine or manufacture), and Claims 8-13 recite a method (i.e. a process), and Claims 14-20 recite a system (i.e. a machine or manufacture). Therefore, Claims 1-20 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent Claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
“obtain state of health (SOH) associated with a first battery powering earthmoving equipment,
wherein the SOH indicates capability of the first battery to retain charge compared to a rated value of the first battery;
obtain historical use associated with the first battery including how many hours a day the first battery is powering the earthmoving equipment or how much energy is drained from the first battery;
based on the SOH and the historical use associated with the first battery, determine a future SOH associated with the first battery;
obtain an indication of a requested SOH associated with the earthmoving
equipment;
based on the indication of the requested SOH and the future SOH associated with the first battery, determine a first time indicating when the earthmoving equipment will need a second battery by:
receiving, from a [source] associated with the first battery of the earthmoving equipment, one or more current measurements
simulating, via a battery performance model, a [model] of a life cycle of the first battery in two parts:
in a first part, create a physics-based degradation model using the one or more current measurements received from the [source] associated with the first battery of the earthmoving equipment;
in a second part, predict remaining battery life associated with the first battery based on the requested SOH and the historical battery system sensor data associated with the first battery of the earthmoving equipment;
based on the simulation, determine the first time indicating when the earthmoving equipment will need the second battery;
determine, based on a replacement simulation performed by an event simulator model, a second time indicating when the second battery is available to replace the first battery and an uncertainty quantification associated with the second time,
wherein the second time occurs before the first time, by:
receiving feedback indicating whether a prior delivery of a third battery was timely;
determine whether the prior delivery of the third battery was timely;
upon determining that the prior delivery of the third battery was not timely, increase the uncertainty quantification; [[and]]
display, . . . , the replacement simulation that includes a first location of the first battery, a second location of the second battery, a third location of the third battery, and one or more predicted delivery schedules for the second battery or the third battery; and
request a delivery of the second battery occurring when the second time is prior to the first time.”
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers (1) obtaining health of a battery powering earthmoving equipment that indicates capability to retain charge, (2) obtaining historical use of the battery including certain information, (3) obtaining an indication of a requested health of the equipment, (4) determining when the equipment will need a second battery by (4a) receiving current measurements and historical data of the first battery and (4b) simulating life cycle of the first battery using a battery performance model and a physics based degradation model with the received current measurements and historical data in two parts, (5) based on the simulation determine a time when the second battery would be needed, (6) determining, based on a replacement simulation performed by an event simulator model, when the second battery is available such that it arrives before the equipment needs a second battery by (6a) using an uncertainty quantification which increases based on untimely prior deliveries, (6b) receiving feedback of prior battery deliveries, and (6c) determining timeliness of prior deliveries, (7) displaying the replacement simulation including certain information, and (8) requesting a delivery so that the second battery arrives prior to the time when the equipment will need the replacement battery, all of which are: mathematical relationships (i.e. battery performance model, physics-based degradation model, event simulator model, and resulting times and metrics) and mathematical calculations (i.e. simulations and use of uncertainty quantification and timing), which are mathematical concepts, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)I, managing personal behavior by following rules and interacting between people (i.e. delivering the item before its needed is “following rules or instructions”) and commercial or legal interactions (i.e. determining the need and availability of an item and requesting, displaying, and scheduling the delivery by simulating degradation and accounting for uncertainty are “marketing or sales activities or behaviors”), which are certain methods of organizing human activity, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)II, and observations (i.e. obtaining the SOH of the battery and historical use and current measurements) and evaluations (i.e. determining future SOH), which are mental processes, an abstract idea, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.
The mere the recitation of generic computer components (i.e., the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, data processor, and system, sensor, digital twin, and user interface) implementing the identified abstract idea does not take the claim out of the mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, or mental processes groupings. MPEP 2106.04(d). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people,” “commercial or legal interactions,” “observations,” and “evaluations,” but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls in the mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity, and mental processes groupings of abstract ideas. MPEP 2106.04. Therefore, Claim 1 “recites” an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 as a whole amounts to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally links the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of:
(i) non-transitory computer-readable storage medium,
(ii) data processor,
(iii) system,
(iv) sensor,
(v) digital twin, and
(vi) user interface.
The additional elements of (i) non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Fig. 5 and ¶57 shows “The computer system 500 can take any suitable physical form.” ¶59 shows “machine-readable medium 523.”), (ii) data processor (Fig. 5 and ¶57 shows “The computer system 500 can take any suitable physical form.” ¶56 shows “one or more processors 502.”), (iii) system (Fig. 5 and ¶57 shows “The computer system 500 can take any suitable physical form.”), (iv) sensor (¶32 shows “sensor installed with the battery 130.”), (v) digital twin (¶49 discloses a “digital twin” being created, but does not provide a further definition. To the extent a “digital twin” is a component of a computer, it is an additional element.), and (vi) user interface (Fig. 5 and ¶57 shows “The computer system 500 can take any suitable physical form.” ¶56 shows “display device 518.”), are recited at a high-level of generality, such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination (Fig. 5 shows elements in combination.), they amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The (i) non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, (ii) data processor, (iii) system, (iv) sensor, (v) digital twin, and (vi) user interface (Fig. 5 shows elements in combination.), does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. computer environment) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 5 shows elements in combination.), do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent) and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of the (i) non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, (ii) data processor, (iii) system, (iv) sensor, (v) digital twin, and (vi) user interface do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (Fig. 5 shows elements in combination), nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims 2-7 recite the abstract idea of:
“categorize the SOH associated with the first battery into multiple categories including a first category and a second category, wherein the first battery can be initially categorized in the first category and subsequently in the second category, and wherein the first battery cannot be initially categorized in the second category and subsequently in the first category; obtain the indication of the requested SOH associated with the earthmoving equipment, wherein the requested SOH indicates the second category; and determine the second time indicating when the second battery is available to replace the first battery by: obtaining an SOH associated with the second battery operating a second earthmoving equipment, wherein the SOH associated with the second battery operating the second earthmoving equipment indicates the first category; determining a third time indicating when the second battery will be categorized in the second category; obtaining a delivery speed from a location of the second battery to a location configured to accommodate the second battery replacing the first battery; and based on the third time and the delivery speed, determining the second time indicating when the second battery is available to replace the first battery.” (Claim 2);
“determine the future SOH associated with the first battery by creating a first [model] of the first battery including simulating degradation of the SOH associated with the first battery based on the SOH and the historical use associated with the first battery; and create a second [model] of multiple deliveries associated with multiple batteries by: obtaining multiple delivery schedules associated with multiple suppliers of the multiple batteries; obtaining multiple forecasted demands associated with the multiple batteries; and simulating the multiple deliveries associated with the multiple batteries based on the multiple forecasted demands and the multiple delivery schedules.” (Claim 3);
“wherein the instructions to determine the second time indicating when the second battery is available to replace the first battery comprise instructions to: obtain a location associated with the second battery; obtain a location configured to accommodate the second battery replacing the first battery; determine a distance between the location associated with the second battery and the location configured to accommodate the second battery replacing the first battery; obtain a delivery speed associated with the second battery; and based on the distance between the location associated with the second battery and the location configured to accommodate the second battery replacing the first battery and the delivery speed, determine the second time indicating when the second battery is available to replace the first battery” (Claim 4);
“based on the indication of the requested SOH and the future SOH associated with the first battery, determine the first time indicating when the earthmoving equipment will need the second battery and an uncertainty time window, wherein the uncertainty time window is configured to adjust the first time to an earlier time; and request a delivery of the second battery when the second time matches the earlier time” (Claim 5);
“obtain multiple times associated with multiple used batteries, wherein a time among the multiple times indicates when a used battery among the multiple used batteries needs to be replaced; obtain multiple delivery times associated with multiple replacement batteries, wherein a delivery time among the multiple delivery times indicates when a replacement battery among the multiple replacement batteries can be delivered to a location where a replacement of the used battery with the replacement battery can occur; based on the multiple times and the multiple delivery times, create a delivery schedule to the location where the replacement of the used battery with the replacement battery can occur; and request a delivery of the multiple replacement batteries by providing the delivery schedule” (Claim 6); and
“obtain the delivery of the second battery at a location configured to accommodate a replacement of the first battery by the second battery; determine whether the delivery of the second battery occurred within a predetermined time window before the first battery needed to be replaced; and upon determining that the delivery of the second battery did not occur within the predetermined time window, provide feedback indicating that the delivery of the second battery was not satisfactory” (Claim 7).
Dependent Claims 2-7, have been given the full two-prong analysis including analyzing the further elements and limitations, both individually and in combination. When analyzed individually and in combination, these claims are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The further limitation of Claims 2-7 fail to establish claims that are not directed to an abstract idea because the further limitations merely further limit the abstract idea of Claim 1 and recite additional elements similar to those of Claim 1. The organization of the further limitations of Claims 2-7 fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application just as discussed above for Claim 1. Additionally, performing the abstract idea of Claim 1 as recited in each of the further limitations of Claims 2-7, individually or in combination, does not (1) impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas, or (2) provide improvements to the functioning of computing systems or to another technology or technical field, just as discussed above regarding Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-7 amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea (1) using generic computer components—using the computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea, and (2) generally linked to a particular technology or field of use. Because the claims merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity in a particular field of use, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept, the elements and limitations of Claims 2-7 fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept, just as in Claim 1. Therefore, Claims 2-7 fails the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 8-13 recite elements and limitations that are substantially similar to Claims 1-4 and 6-7. Claims 8-13 recites a method that could be implemented by the instructions of Claims 1-4 and 6-7. Therefore, Claims 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 just as Claims 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
Claims 14-20 recite elements and limitations that are substantially similar to Claims 1-7. Claims 14-20 recites elements and limitations that are substantially similar to those of Claims 1-7. Therefore, Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 just as Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as discussed above.
Reasons for Removal of Art Rejection
The art rejection was removed in a prior office action.
Claims 1-20 are not rejected over the prior art of record.
The Closest prior art of record is:
US-20240202618-A1 (“Altaf” with priority to EP4390793A1 filed on 12/19/2022);
WO-2024019120-A1 (“Sone” with priority to JP 2022-115228 filed on 07/20/2022);
US-20030149674-A (“Good”);
US-20210365350-A1 (“Fujita”);
US-20240020620-A1 (“Rendahl”);
US-20180121863-A1 (“Lin”);
“Digital twin for battery systems: Cloud battery management system with online state-of-charge and state-of-health estimation” (“Li” June 23, 2020, Elsevier Ltd. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352152X20308495);
US 12033109 B1 (“Wang”); and
US-20230288489-A1 (“Jin”).
The Following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for removal of art rejection:
Altaf shows battery replacement monitoring and scheduling for trucks (i.e. earthmoving equipment).
Sone shows applying an uncertainty value to the delivery of batteries.
Good shows tracking package to identify packages delivered past the scheduled time, and optimizing future delivery practices based on historical shipping data.
Fujita shows modeling resource usage and issuing an alarm when the quality of the resource goes below a predetermined quality value.
Rendahl shows digital twins of logistical operations and deliveries.
Lin shows scheduling delivery of liquified petroleum gas such that delivery occurs within a specific time window.
Wang shows training a model that predicts the maximum delivery time, which utilizes an “error term.”
Li shows use of a digital twin to model battery system to estimate a future state of health.
Jin shows modeling vehicle battery degradation based on measured battery performance and providing an “alarm” that indicates that a battery will reach its end of life during a time window.
Generally, the closest prior art teaches (1) monitoring and scheduling battery replacement in equipment, optimized to minimize downtime (Altaf, Sone, and Jin), (2) using quantified delivery time uncertainty to optimize delivery (Sone, Lin, and Wang), (3) provide feedback of prior deliveries (Good and Wang), (4) modeling delivery of item (Rendahl and Wang), (4) modeling degradation of a batteries (Fujita and Jin).
With respect to independent Claims 1, 8, and 14, the closest prior art, taken individually and in an ordered combination, does not explicitly or implicitly disclose the specific ordered combination of elements. Although the prior art of record may teach each feature claimed, when viewed as a whole, the claims, in light of their complexity and specificity, are novel and non-obvious over the prior art.
Dependent Claims 2-7 depend on Claim 1, dependent Claims 9-13 depends on Claim 8, and dependent Claims 15-20 depends on Claim 14, and therefore are also not rejected via dependency.
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 MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN whose telephone number is (571) 272-5698. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 9:30 AM ET to 6:00 PM ET. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Zimmerman, can be reached at telephone number (571) 272-4602. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR
system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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.
/MATTHEW PARKER GOODMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/JEFF ZIMMERMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights