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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to an amendment filed on 10/09/2025. Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, and 19 have been amended. Claims 3, 10, and 17 have been cancelled. Claims 21-23 have been added. Therefore, claims 1, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
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, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea), and does not include additional elements that either: 1) integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or 2) that provide an inventive concept — i.e. element that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The Claims are directed to an abstract idea because, when considered as a whole, the plain focus of the claims is on an abstract idea.
STEP 1
The claims are directed to a device, non-transitory computer-readable medium, and method which are included in the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A PRONG ONE
The claims recite the abstract idea of:
A device comprising: receive profile information associated with at least one neonate, the profile information comprising a unique identifier; generate an evaluation plan for the at least one neonate, the evaluation plan comprising a listing of evaluation parameters and a set of score mappings for the set of evaluation parameters; receive sensor measurements indicated by the listing of evaluation parameters associated with the evaluation plan; and generate an evaluation metric based on the received sensor measurements.
The claims, as illustrated by the limitations of Claim 1 above, recite an abstract idea within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping — managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
The claims recite generating an evaluation metric from an evaluation plan based on received sensor measurements. Generating an evaluation metric from an evaluation plan based on received sensor measurements is a process that merely organizes human activity, as it involves following rules and instructions to receive data, generate evaluation plan, receive sensor measurements from evaluation plan, and generate evaluation metric based on received sensor measurements. It also involves an interaction between a person and a computer. Interaction between a person and computer qualifies as interaction under certain methods of organizing human activity. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). As such, the claims recite an abstract idea within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity.
The dependent claims 2, 4-7, 9, 11-14, 16, 18-23 recite further abstract concepts of organizing human activity because they recite following rules and instructions, such as 2/9/16 the profile information includes a neonate type and listing of evaluation parameters is associated with the neonate type; 4/11/18 the evaluation metric comprises summing the score mappings for each evaluation parameter in the listing of evaluation parameters; 5/12/19 generating the evaluation metric based on the received sensor measurements comprises identifying a particular evaluation parameter from the listing of evaluation parameters that is associated with each received sensor measurement from the received sensor measurements; 6/13/19 generating the evaluation metric further comprises applying the score mapping for the particular evaluation parameter from the listing of evaluation parameters; 7/14/20 generate at least one care recommendation based on the evaluation metric; 21/22/23 the sensor measurements are received from a set of sensors including a scale for measuring weight, a camera, a thermometer, and a heart rate monitor and wherein the received sensor measurements comprise at least one image.
STEP 2A PRONG TWO
The claims recite additional elements beyond those that encompass the abstract idea above including:
Independent claim 1:
one or more processors configured to:
Dependent claim 7:
the one or more processors further configured to
Independent claim 8:
A non-transitory computer-readable medium, storing a plurality of processor-executable instructions
Dependent claim 14:
the plurality of processor-executable instructions further to
However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of that idea in accordance with considerations laid out by the Supreme Court or the Federal Circuit. (see MPEP 2106.05 a-c and e) The additional elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when they: improve the functioning of a computer or improving any other technology, apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application when they merely serve to link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use — i.e. merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea; or recite insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05 f - h).
The processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to no more than instructions to apply the abstract idea using generic computer components. These elements merely add instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Nothing in the claim recites specific limitations directed to an improved processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium. Similarly, the specification is silent with respect to these kinds of improvements. A general purpose computer that applies a judicial exception to computer functions, as is the case here, does not qualify as a particular machine, nor does the recitation of a basic computer impose meaningful limits in the claimed process. (see Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 716-17 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements recited in the claims do not integrate the abstract metric generation process into a practical application of that process.
STEP 2B
The additional elements identified above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract metric generation process. The additional structural elements or combination of elements in the claims, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than a recitation of generic computer structure. Because the specification describes these additional elements in general terms, without describing particulars, Examiner concludes that the claim limitations may be broadly, but reasonably construed, as reciting basic computer components and techniques. The specification describes the elements in a manner that indicates that they are sufficiently straightforward such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars in order to satisfy U.S.C. 112. Considered as an ordered combination, the limitations recited in the claims add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered individually.
The limitations recited in the dependent claims, in combination with those recited in the independent claims add nothing that integrates the abstract idea into a practical application, or that amounts to significantly more. For example, limitations 4/11/18 the evaluation metric comprises summing the score mappings for each evaluation parameter in the listing of evaluation parameters; 5/12/19 generating the evaluation metric based on the received sensor measurements comprises identifying a particular evaluation parameter from the listing of evaluation parameters that is associated with each received sensor measurement from the received sensor measurements; 6/13/19 generating the evaluation metric further comprises applying the score mapping for the particular evaluation parameter from the listing of evaluation parameters; 7/14/20 generate at least one care recommendation based on the evaluation metric are directed to the abstract ideas of organizing human activity without integrating into a practical application or amounting to significantly more. Limitations 2/9/16 the profile information includes a neonate type and the evaluation plan includes a listing of evaluation parameters associated with the neonate type; 21/22/23 the sensor measurements are received from a set of sensors including a scale for measuring weight, a camera, a thermometer, and a heart rate monitor and wherein the received sensor measurements comprise at least one image merely serve to further narrow the abstract idea above. As such, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or provide an inventive concept that transforms the claims into a patent eligible invention. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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, 2, 4-9, 11-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson, et al. (US 2024/0185988 A1) in view of Probo M, Veronesi MC. Clinical Scoring Systems in the Newborn Calf: An Overview. Animals (Basel). 2022 Nov 3;12(21):3013 (hereinafter referred to as “Probo”).
With regards to claim 1, Carson teaches a device, comprising: one or more processors (see at least ¶ 0009) configured to: receive profile information associated with at least one (see at least ¶ 0095, inputted data can include one or more of: demographic, location, and genetic data, as shown in 423. The location, for example, can be detected using GPS receiver 302. Dog demographic information can include, for example, one or more of: age, breed, species, and gender. Dog demographic information may also include, in some embodiments, any other information of a pet. The genetic data, for example, can include one or more genetic markers, a species and/or one or more breed(s) of a pet.), the profile information comprising a unique identifier (see at least ¶ 0083, the inputted data can include, but not limited to, pet identifiers such as name); generate an evaluation plan for the at least one (see at least ¶ 0041, 0060, use sensors to track or monitor activity of a pet to collect and used to detect and/or evaluate one or more potential and/or actual health risks related to a pet in an overall wellness assessment), the evaluation plan comprising a listing of evaluation parameters and a set of score mappings for the set of evaluation parameters (see at least figures 8A, 11, 12A, ¶ 0097-0098, for an overall wellness assessment, different health indicators [listing of evaluation parameters] are generated, such as “itching”, “scratching”, “walking”, “drinking”, “eating”, “sleeping”, and “shaking”, each health indicator having categories of scoring such as “infrequent”, “occasional”, “elevated”, and “severe” [set of score mappings]); receive sensor measurements indicated by the listing of evaluation parameters associated with the evaluation plan (see at least ¶ 0137, receive pet sensor data); and generate an evaluation metric based on the received sensor measurements (see at least ¶ 0097, 0100-0102, different sensor events produce different metrics which can be combined into an overall wellness score).
Carson does not explicitly teach …neonate. Probo teaches …neonate (see at least “Abstract”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention combine the neonatal animal scoring of Probo with the animal condition system of Carson with the motivation of prompt recognition of animals needing medical assistance (Probo, “Simple Summary”).
Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons.
With regards to claim 2, Carson teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the profile information includes a …type (see at least ¶ 0095, breed) and the evaluation plan includes a listing of evaluation parameters associated with the …type (see at least ¶ 0097, breed can be used to help determine wellness assessment).
Furthermore, Probo teaches …neonate (see at least “Abstract”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention combine the neonatal animal scoring of Probo with the animal condition system of Carson with the motivation of prompt recognition of animals needing medical assistance (Probo, “Simple Summary”).
Claims 9 and 16 recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons.
With regards to claim 3, Carson teaches the device of claim 2, wherein the evaluation plan includes a score mapping for each evaluation parameter in the listing of evaluation parameters (see at least ¶0101).
Claims 10 and 17 recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons.
With regards to claim 4, Carson teaches the device of claim 3, wherein generating the evaluation metric comprises summing the score mappings for each evaluation parameter in the listing of evaluation parameters (see at least ¶ 0102, combining metrics).
Claims 11 and 18 recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons.
With regards to claim 5, Carson teaches the device of claim 3, wherein generating the evaluation metric based on the received sensor measurements comprises identifying a particular evaluation parameter from the listing of evaluation parameters that is associated with each received sensor measurement from the received sensor measurements (see at least ¶ 0061, sensors can be used to sense various body movements of a pet, such as bodily movement associated with itching, scratching, licking, walking, drinking, eating, sleeping, and shaking, and/or any other bodily movement associated with an action performed by the pet; ¶ 0101-0102, itching, scratching, licking, etc are individually identified and scored and combined into a wellness score).
Claims 12 and 19 recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons.
With regards to claim 6, Carson teaches device of claim 5, wherein generating the evaluation metric further comprises applying the score mapping for the particular evaluation parameter from the listing of evaluation parameters (see at least ¶ 0101-0102).
Claims 13 and 19 recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons.
With regards to claim 7, Carson teaches the device of claim 1, the one or more processors further configured to generate at least one care recommendation based on the evaluation metric (see at least ¶ 0016, system determines a health recommendation based on wellness assessment).
Claims 14 and 20 recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson, et al. (US 2024/0185988 A1) in view of Probo M, Veronesi MC. Clinical Scoring Systems in the Newborn Calf: An Overview. Animals (Basel). 2022 Nov 3;12(21):3013 (hereinafter referred to as “Probo”) in further view of Kleen JL, Guatteo R. Precision Livestock Farming: What Does It Contain and What Are the Perspectives? Animals (Basel). 2023 Feb 21;13(5):779 (hereinafter referred to as “Kleen”).
With regards to claim 21, Carson teaches the device of claim 1, wherein the sensor measurements are received (see at least ¶ 0137, receive pet sensor data) … and a … monitor (see at least ¶ 011, a sensor) and wherein the received sensor measurements comprise at least one image (see at least figure 12A).
Furthermore, Probo teaches …heart rate (see at least page 2, first paragraph under “Viability Scores”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention combine the neonatal animal scoring of Probo with the animal condition system of Carson with the motivation of prompt recognition of animals needing medical assistance (Probo, “Simple Summary”).
The combination of Carson/Probo does not explicitly teach …from a set of sensors including a scale for measuring weight, a camera, a thermometer. Kleen teaches …from a set of sensors including a scale for measuring weight, a camera, a thermometer (see at least figure 2, weighing platform, camera, thermometer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention combine the digital livestock sensor system of Kleen with the animal condition sensing systems of Carson/Probo with the motivation of tracking animal health and welfare (Kleen, “Simple Summary”).
Claims 22 and 23 recite similar limitations and are rejected for the same reasons.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC § 101 rejections set forth in the previous office action have been considered, but are not persuasive. In an effort to advance prosecution, the Examiner has provided a response to applicant's arguments. Applicant argues:
Applicant’s limitations do not seek to preempt or tie up any abstract idea.
Applicant argues the limitations are not directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant argues the limitations are subject matter eligible for reasons similar to DDR.
Applicant’s limitations are subject matter eligible for similar reasons to USPTO Example 21, claim 2.
With regards to Applicant’s argument the limitations do not seek to preempt or tie up any abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Indeed, preemption is the concern that drives the exclusionary principle of judicial exceptions to patent-eligible subject matter. Alice, 134 S.Ct. at 2354. However, preemption is not a separate test of patent-eligibility, but is inherently addressed within the Alice framework. See Ariosa Diagnostics, Inc., v. Sequenom, Inc., 788 F.3d 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“While preemption may signal patent ineligible subject matter, the absence of complete preemption does not demonstrate patent eligibility.”).
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the limitations are not directed to an abstract idea, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims recite receiving neonate profile and sensor data. Collecting information has been treated as within the realm of abstract ideas. See, e.g., Internet Patents, 790 F.3d at 1349; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2014); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Electric Power, LLC v. Alstom S.A., (Fed. Cir. 2016). The claims further recite various steps used to evaluate/analyze the neonate data. Analyzing information has been treated as within the abstract-idea category. See, e.g., TLI Commc’ns, 823 F.3d at 613; Digitech, 758 F.3d at 1351; SmartGene, Inc. v. Advanced Biological Labs., SA, 555 F. App’x 950, 955 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Canada (U.S.), 687 F.3d 1266, 1278 (Fed. Cir. 2012); CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2011); SiRF Tech., Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, 601 F.3d 1319, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2010); Electric Power, LLC v. Alstom S.A., (Fed. Cir. 2016); see also Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1301; Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589–90 (1978); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 67 (1972). The claims additionally recite generating plans and metrics from the analysis of the received information. Merely presenting the results of abstract processes of collecting and analyzing information, without more (such as identifying a particular tool for presentation), is abstract as an ancillary part of such collection and analysis. See, e.g., Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347; Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 772 F.3d 709, 715 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Electric Power, LLC v. Alstom S.A., (Fed. Cir. 2016). As such, the claims recite an abstract idea.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the limitations are subject matter eligible for reasons similar to DDR, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regards to DDR, the Federal Circuit emphasized that the patent's recited result in DDR overrides the "routine and conventional sequence of events" because the computer network does not operate in its normal, expected manner of sending the website visitor to the third-party website that is connected to the hyperlinked advertisement. Instead, when the website visitor clicks on the hyperlink the claimed system generates and directs the visitor to a hybrid webpage that presents third-party product information with the same visual elements of the host website. Unlike the claims in DDR, the Applicant's limitations merely recite conventional computer elements of a processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium the perform the abstract idea of generating an evaluation metric from an evaluation plan based on received sensor measurements. In order to make a claim directed to a judicial exception patent-eligible, the additional element or combination of elements must do "‘more than simply stat[e] the [judicial exception] while adding the words ‘apply it". Thus claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983.
In response to Applicant’s argument, the limitations are subject matter eligible for similar reasons to USPTO Example 21, claim 2, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. With regards to Example 21, claim 2, the claimed invention addresses the Internet‐centric challenge of alerting a subscriber with time sensitive information when the subscriber’s computer is offline. This is addressed by transmitting the alert over a wireless communication channel to activate the stock viewer application, which causes the alert to display and enables the connection of the remote subscriber computer to the data source over the Internet when the remote subscriber computer comes online. These are meaningful limitations that add more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea (the general concept of organizing and comparing data) to the Internet, because they solve an Internet‐centric problem with a claimed solution that is necessarily rooted in computer technology. In contrast to Example 21, claim 2, the instant limitations use conventional computer elements to “collect and analyze neonate data in order to generate one or more health score metrics and to identify relevant and effective treatment options” to help “[p]et breeders, ranchers, veterinarians, and/or other users wish to accurately assess and manage neonate health.” See specification ¶ 0001-0002. Processing data using conventional computer components in a manner more efficient than a human could does not amount to significantly more as “the inability for the human mind to perform each claim step does not alone confer patentability. As we have explained, ‘the fact that the required calculations could be performed more efficiently via a computer does not materially alter the patent eligibility of the claimed subject matter.’ Bancorp Servs., 687 F.3d at 1278.” FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Systems, _ F.3d _, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejections set forth in the previous office action have been considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Psota, et al. (US 2024/0382109 A1) which discloses automated monitoring of animals, in particular livestock animals such as swine, for the identification or determination of particular physical characteristics or conditions that may be used to predict one or more phenotypes or health outcomes for the each of the animals. Systems and methods are provided for the non-subjective and automatic identification or prediction of one or more phenotypes, such as weight or gait, based on computer-vision system analysis of video or image data capture of an animal retaining space in a commercial farming operation. The predicted or identified phenotypes are used to predict one or more health outcomes or scores for an animal.
Snyder, et al. (US 2023/0240533 A1) which discloses a system that includes at least one processor and a non-transitory, tangible memory device having programming instructions. When the instructions are executed by the at least one processor, the at least one processor receives from a set of sensors at least one biological parameter of an animal in a walk-in analysis zone to create real-time biological. The at least one processor analyzes the real-time biological data from the walk-in analysis zone and recommends animal feed nutrients based on the analyzed real-time biological data. The at least one processor communicates the recommended animal feed nutrients to at least one of: a mobile communication device; and a display device in proximity to the walk-in analysis zone.
Gómez Y, Stygar AH, Boumans IJMM, Bokkers EAM, Pedersen LJ, Niemi JK, Pastell M, Manteca X, Llonch P. A Systematic Review on Validated Precision Livestock Farming Technologies for Pig Production and Its Potential to Assess Animal Welfare. Front Vet Sci. 2021 May 14;8:660565. doi: 10.3389/fvets.2021.660565. PMID: 34055949; PMCID: PMC8160240 which discloses Several precision livestock farming (PLF) technologies, conceived for optimizing farming processes, are developed to detect the physical and behavioral changes of animals continuously and in real-time. The aim of this review was to explore the capacity of existing PLF technologies to contribute to the assessment of pig welfare. In a web search for commercially available PLF for pigs, 83 technologies were identified. A literature search was conducted, following systematic review guidelines (PRISMA), to identify studies on the validation of sensor technologies for assessing animal-based welfare indicators. Two validation levels were defined: internal (evaluation during system building within the same population that were used for system building) and external (evaluation on a different population than during system building). From 2,463 articles found, 111 were selected, which validated some PLF that could be applied to the assessment of animal-based welfare indicators of pigs (7% classified as external, and 93% as internal validation). From our list of commercially available PLF technologies, only 5% had been externally validated. The more often validated technologies were vision-based solutions (n = 45), followed by load-cells (n = 28; feeders and drinkers, force plates and scales), accelerometers (n = 14) and microphones (n = 14), thermal cameras (n = 10), photoelectric sensors (n = 5), radio-frequency identification (RFID) for tracking (n = 2), infrared thermometers (n = 1), and pyrometer (n = 1). Externally validated technologies were photoelectric sensors (n = 2), thermal cameras (n = 2), microphone (n = 1), load-cells (n = 1), RFID (n = 1), and pyrometer (n = 1). Measured traits included activity and posture-related behavior, feeding and drinking, other behavior, physical condition, and health. In conclusion, existing PLF technologies are potential tools for on-farm animal welfare assessment in pig production. However, validation studies are lacking for an important percentage of market available tools, and in particular research and development need to focus on identifying the feature candidates of the measures (e.g., deviations from diurnal pattern, threshold levels) that are valid signals of either negative or positive animal welfare. An important gap identified are the lack of technologies to assess affective states (both positive and negative states).
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joey Burgess whose telephone number is (571)270-5547. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 9-6.
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, Marc Jimenez can be reached on 571-272-4530. 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.
/JOSEPH D BURGESS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681