DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . This office action is in response to communication filed 1/2/2026
The instant application having application No. 18/392,042 filed on December 21, 2023, claims priority to provisional application No. 63/435140 filed 12/23/2022.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/11/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the Final Office Action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 6, 7, 9, 11, and16 are amended, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
Regarding claim objections: Applicant’s amendments to claims appropriately addressed the objections to claims 6, 7, and 9-15, the objections are withdrawn.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection: The method claims 1-8 and 16-20 are still abstract idea without significantly more, the 101 rejections to claims 1-8 and 16-20 are maintained as set forth below.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection: Applicant’s amendments to the claims necessitated further search, and new grounds of rejections are presented in the following art rejection.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 10, and 17 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate of claims 1, 9, and 16 respectively. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
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 1-8, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a method claim under Step 1.
Under Prong 1, Step 2A:
However, the limitations of claim 1,
“searching the software supply chain metadata to identify whether the collection of software materials include any incompliant software material including at least:
searching the software bill of materials to identify whether the collection of software materials include any incompliant software material;”
as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually perform the searching task as defined in the claim element. Thus the claim limitation falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas under Prong 1 Step 2A.
Under Prong 2, Step 2A:
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites the following additional elements
“obtaining software supply chain metadata of a software product release before the software product release is deployed, the software supply chain metadata including a collection of software materials, wherein the software supply chain metadata includes a software bill of materials;
receiving one or more action rules associated with incompliant software materials;
deploying the software product release to a computing device if the collection of software materials does not include any incompliant software material;
wherein the method is performed using one or more processors.”
Wherein “obtaining …”, and “receiving …” are insignificant extra-solution activity such as gathering data, according to MPEP 2106.05(g); thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application. The “deploying …” is not a required limitation for the method claim because when the if condition is true, i.e. if the collection of software materials does include incompliant software material, the “deploying …” is not performed; thus, not indicative of an integration into a practical application. And the “one or more processors” are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Under Step 2B:
The claim does 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 element “one or more processors”, that are mere use of generic computer to implement the abstract idea, thus, are not an inventive concept. The “obtaining …”, and “receiving …” are insignificant extra-solution activities such as data gathering which are recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity, see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II). The “deploying …” is not a required limitation for the method claim because when the if condition is true, i.e. if the collection of software materials does include incompliant software material, the “deploying …” is not performed; thus, not an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claim 16, This claim is within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter as it is directed to a method claim under Step 1.
This claim recites a method that is similar to the method that is disclosed in claim 1 and therefore recites the same abstract idea as claim 1, please see the office action analysis regarding claim 1.
Note that claim 16 recites a different limitation that is not recited in claim 1, i.e. “allowing continued operation of the software product release if the collection of software materials does not include any incompliant software material;” this limitation, as drafted, is functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually determine if the collection of software materials includes incompliant software material or not, and if not, no action is required.
Claim 16 does not recite any additional element that is not recited in claim 1.
With respect to claims 2 and 17, “wherein the software supply chain metadata includes a software bill of materials.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claims 3 and 18, “further comprising:
if the collection of software materials includes one or more identified incompliant software material:
taking one or more actions associated with the one or more identified software materials according to the one or more action rules.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually determine if the collection of software materials includes incompliant software material or not, and if yes, take actions according to the rules as defined in the claim.
With respect to claims 4 and 19, “wherein the searching the software supply chain metadata comprises searching the software supply chain metadata based at least in part on a software operation policy, wherein the software operation policy includes one or more compliance rules and the one or more action rules.” It further defines the searching process which is identified as mental process in the office action regarding claim 1 above, thus is the same mental process. e.g. human can manually perform the searching as defined in the claim.
With respect to claim 5, “wherein the one or more compliance rules include at least one selected from a group consisting of a rule on vulnerability, a rule on license compliance, and a rule on policy compliance.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 6, “wherein the taking one or more actions associated with the one or more identified software materials comprises:
taking a first action associated with the one or more identified software materials in a first runtime environment according to the one or more action rules; and
taking a second action associated with the one or more identified software materials in a second runtime environment different from the first runtime environment according to the one or more action rules, the second action being different from the first action.” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitation encompasses a human mind carrying out the functions through observation, evaluation, judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper. e.g. human can manually determine and take actions based on the runtime environments and action rules as defined in the claim.
With respect to claim 7, “wherein the one or more actions include at least one selected from a group consisting of:
a recall action to prevent deployment of the software product release;
a marking action to mark the software product release as invalid;
a notification action to notify a user or a software system;
an upgrade action to upgrade the software product release to a new release; and
a rollback action to rollback the software product release to a previous release.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 8, “wherein the software product release comprises a plurality of software product releases, wherein the metadata includes an aggregate software bill of materials that aggregates software bill of materials for the plurality of software product releases.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
With respect to claim 20, “wherein the one or more compliance rules include at least one selected from a group consisting of a rule on vulnerability, a rule on license compliance, and a rule on policy compliance, wherein the software product release comprises a plurality of software product releases, and wherein the metadata includes an aggregate software bill of materials that aggregates software bill of materials for the plurality of software product releases.” as drafted, is merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception, and does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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, 9-13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sailer et al. (US 20230177426 A1, hereinafter “Sailer”) in view of Jain et al. (US 20090205011 A1, hereinafter “Jain”) and Kairali et al. (US 20240126530 A1, hereinafter “Kairali”).
With respect to claim 1, Sailer discloses A method for using software supply chain to control software operations, the method comprising:
obtaining software supply chain metadata of a software product release before the software product release is deployed, the software supply chain metadata including a collection of software materials (e.g. para [0048], “… At step 504, and for a given pipeline of interest, one or more software supply chain artifacts for that pipeline are discovered. These software supply chain artifacts are sometimes referred to herein as “shift left” or “cicd” artifacts, referring to the notion that these artifacts are discovered in the pre-deployment phase. …” wherein software supply chain artifacts read on software supply chain metadata);
receiving one or more action rules associated with incompliant software materials (e.g. para [0048], “… At step 510, and after the information (namely, pipeline artifacts, tasks and dependencies) from steps 502, 504 and 506 is discovered, a Governance and Compliance policy configuration is retrieved. …”);
deploying the software product release to a computing device if the collection of software materials does not include any incompliant software material (e.g. Fig. 6, step 610);
wherein the method is performed using one or more processors (e.g. Figs. 1 and 2).
Sailer does not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein the software supply chain metadata includes a software bill of materials;
searching the software supply chain metadata to identify whether the collection of software materials include any incompliant software material including at least:
searching the software bill of materials to identify whether the collection of software materials include any incompliant software material;
However, in analogous art, Jain discloses
searching the software supply chain metadata to identify whether the collection of software materials include any incompliant software material (e.g. Fig. 4, step 402, “obtain target information from software system”, para [0046], “The target information may be checked for violations of a compliance policy for the software system. …” wherein checking for violations of a compliance policy reads on searching the software supply chain metadata to identify whether the collection of software materials include any incompliant software material. Also see para [0047] and steps 408 and 410 of Fig. 4.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the invention of Sailer with the invention of Jain because it provides a system for maintaining a software system which facilitates ensuring software compliance with the configuration standards. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing a system for maintaining a software system which facilitates ensuring software compliance with the configuration standards as suggested by Jain (see para [0006-0007]).
Sailer as modified by Jain does not appear to explicitly disclose
wherein the software supply chain metadata includes a software bill of materials;
(searching the software supply chain metadata to identify whether the collection of software materials include any incompliant software material) including at least:
searching the software bill of materials to identify whether the collection of software materials include any incompliant software material;
However, in analogous art, Kairali discloses
wherein the software supply chain metadata includes a software bill of materials (e.g. para [0101], “FIG. 4A illustrates a process 400 of detecting SBOMs from a hybrid environment according to example embodiments. According to various embodiments, an agent 422 may be installed within a hybrid environment 410 and collect data about the software running within the hybrid environment 410. … The list of SBOMs 430 may include an identifier 432 (e.g., a name, etc.) of each software program as well as an SBOM 434 with a list of the components (e.g., the names, versions, authors, suppliers, etc.) including OSS components and third-party components such as code modules, methods, libraries, and the like.” Wherein each software program and components read on software supply chain metadata);
(searching the software supply chain metadata to identify whether the collection of software materials include any incompliant software material) including at least:
searching the software bill of materials to identify whether the collection of software materials include any incompliant software material (e.g. para [0109], “… In 530, the method may include detecting that the software program does not comply with a predefined policy based on the names of the identified components within the SBOM. …” wherein detecting reads on searching);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Kairali because it provides techniques for managing the security and compliance of a hybrid environment that includes third party software. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of managing the security and compliance of a hybrid environment that includes third party software as suggested by Kairali (see para [0002-0003]).
With respect to claim 2, Sailer as modified by Jain and Kairali discloses The method of claim 1, Kairali further discloses wherein the software supply chain metadata includes a software bill of materials (e.g. para [0101], “FIG. 4A illustrates a process 400 of detecting SBOMs from a hybrid environment according to example embodiments. According to various embodiments, an agent 422 may be installed within a hybrid environment 410 and collect data about the software running within the hybrid environment 410. … The list of SBOMs 430 may include an identifier 432 (e.g., a name, etc.) of each software program as well as an SBOM 434 with a list of the components (e.g., the names, versions, authors, suppliers, etc.) including OSS components and third-party components such as code modules, methods, libraries, and the like.” Wherein each software program and components read on software supply chain metadata. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1).
With respect to claim 3, Sailer as modified by Jain and Kairali discloses The method of claim 1, Jain further discloses further comprising:
if the collection of software materials includes one or more identified incompliant software material:
taking one or more actions associated with the one or more identified software materials according to the one or more action rules (e.g. Fig. 4, steps 406-412. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1).
With respect to claim 4, Sailer as modified by Jain and Kairali discloses The method of claim 3, Jain further discloses wherein the searching the software supply chain metadata comprises searching the software supply chain metadata based at least in part on a software operation policy, wherein the software operation policy includes one or more compliance rules (e.g. Fig. 4, para [0046], “The target information may be checked for violations of a compliance policy for the software system. … “ wherein compliance policy reads on compliance rules”), and the one or more action rules (e.g. Fig. 4, step 412 wherein raise violation associated with failed check reads on action rule. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1).
With respect to claim 5, Sailer as modified by Jain and Kairali discloses The method of claim 4, Sailer further discloses wherein the one or more compliance rules include at least one selected from a group consisting of a rule on vulnerability, a rule on license compliance, and a rule on policy compliance (e.g. Fig. 5, step 510 indicates a rule on policy compliance).
With respect to claim 7 (Currently Amended), Sailer as modified by Jain and Kairali discloses The method of claim [[2]] 3, Jain further discloses wherein the one or more actions include at least one selected from a group consisting of:
a recall action to prevent deployment of the software product release;
a marking action to mark the software product release as invalid;
a notification action to notify a user or a software system (e.g. Fig. 4, step 412, Raise violation(s) associated with failed check(s). For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1 above);
an upgrade action to upgrade the software product release to a new release; and
a rollback action to rollback the software product release to a previous release.
With respect to claim 9 (Currently Amended), it is directed to a system to implement the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 9. Note that, Sailer teaches A system for using software supply chain to control software operations, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and
one or more memories having a plurality of instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the processor, causes the one or more processors to (e.g. Figs. 1 and 2):
With respect to claim 10, it recites same features as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 11, it recites same features as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 12, it recites same features as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 13, it recites same features as claim 5, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 16 (Currently Amended), it is directed to a method that is similar to the method disclosed in claim 1, please see the rejections directed to claim 1 above which also cover the limitations recited in claim 16. Note that, Jain teaches allowing continued operation of the software product release if the collection of software materials does not include any incompliant software material (e.g. Fig. 4, steps 408, 410, No failed checks, then End indicates continued operation. For motivation to combine, please refer to office action regarding claim 1 above).
With respect to claim 17, it recites same features as claim 2, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 18, it recites same features as claim 3, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 19, it recites same features as claim 4, and is rejected for the same reason.
Claims 8, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sailer in view of Jain and Kairali as applied to claims 1, 9 and 16 respectively, in further view of Parthasarathy et al. (US 20160117161 A1, hereinafter “Parthasarathy”).
With respect to claim 8, Sailer as modified by Jain and Kairali discloses The method of claim 1, but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the software product release comprises a plurality of software product releases, wherein the metadata includes an aggregate software bill of materials that aggregates software bill of materials for the plurality of software product releases. However, this is taught in analogous art, Parthasarathy (e.g. Fig. 4, Bill of Materials 412. Para [0062], “… In one aspect, a software update package includes a bill of materials and a manifest. The bill of materials includes a version and code references. The version is one version in a linear progression of a plurality of software update package versions for updating a cloud appliance. …” wherein each version reads on a product release, thus Bill of Materials 412 includes an aggregate software bill of materials).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of Parthasarathy because it provides techniques permitting a number of code changes for different software components to be installed automatically. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques permitting a number of code changes for different software components to be installed automatically as suggested by Parthasarathy (see para [0014]).
With respect to claim 15, it recites same features as claim 8, and is rejected for the same reason.
With respect to claim 20, it recites same features of claims 5 and 8, and is rejected for the same reasons as for claims 5 and 8.
Claims 6, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sailer in view of Jain and Kairali as applied to claims 3 and 10 respectively, in further view of FRANK et al. (US 20170177324 A1, hereinafter “FRANK”).
With respect to claim 6 (Currently Amended), Sailer as modified by Jain and Kairali discloses The method of claim 3 [[2]], but does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the taking one or more actions associated with the one or more identified software materials comprises:
taking a first action associated with the one or more identified software materials in a first runtime environment according to the one or more action rules; and
taking a second action associated with the one or more identified software materials in a second runtime environment different from the first runtime environment according to the one or more action rules, the second action being different from the first action.
However, in analogous art, FRANK discloses wherein the taking one or more actions associated with the one or more identified software materials comprises:
taking a first action associated with the one or more identified software materials in a first runtime environment according to the one or more action rules (e.g. para [0132], “…. The LPT analysis report 1240 may provide an indication of the current configuration of the deployment pipeline 1229 (based on the “ground truth” application definition 1234) along with an indication of which rules 1238 the deployed pipeline 1229 satisfied or failed. …, the LPT analysis report 1240 may also specify what actions or changes to the configuration of deployment pipeline 1230 should be made to correct a given rule violation. For example, the LPT analysis report 1240 could recommend changes to the number, order, or type of testing stages in a deployment pipeline,….” Wherein the recommendation is action for test runtime environment. Also see para [0131]); and
taking a second action associated with the one or more identified software materials in a second runtime environment different from the first runtime environment according to the one or more action rules, the second action being different from the first action (e.g. para [0132], “…. The LPT analysis report 1240 may provide an indication of the current configuration of the deployment pipeline 1229 (based on the “ground truth” application definition 1234) along with an indication of which rules 1238 the deployed pipeline 1229 satisfied or failed. …, the LPT analysis report 1240 may also specify what actions or changes to the configuration of deployment pipeline 1230 should be made to correct a given rule violation. For example, the LPT analysis report 1240 could recommend …, the configuration and values for rollback monitors, alarms on performance metrics, the types of systems and services included in the deployment pipeline, etc.” wherein the rollback or alarms on performance metrics is action for production runtime environment. Also see para [0131]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the invention of FRANK because it provides techniques for managing a deployment pipeline so that enterprise can focus on improving the quality or features of the actual applications or services being deployed through a deployment pipeline. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this combination, with a reasonable expectation of success, for the purpose of providing techniques for managing a deployment pipeline so that enterprise can focus on improving the quality or features of the actual applications or services being deployed through a deployment pipeline as suggested by FRANK (see para [0006, 0027]).
With respect to claim 14, it recites same features as claim 6, and is rejected for the same reason.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
At p7 under the title “Section 101 Rejections” to p9 fifth paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued with respect to 101 rejections. Particularly, at p8 last to p9 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Here, at least some of the limitations recited in claim 1, such as "searching the software supply chain metadata to identify whether the collection of software materials include any incompliant software material including at least: searching the software bill of materials to identify whether the collection of software materials include any incompliant software material; ... deploying the software product release to a computing device if the collection of software materials does not include any incompliant software material" cannot be practically perform in human mind. In other words, the human mind is not equipped to perform the steps…..”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as set forth in the office action, the “searching … “ limitation is mental process, as human can manually perform the searching. For method claim, the “deploying … ” limitation is not required because when the if condition is true, i.e. if the collection of software materials does include incompliant software material, the “deploying …” is not performed; thus, it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not constitute an inventive concept.
At p9 second paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Therefore, claim 1 does not fall into the mental process grouping of abstract ideas as asserted in the Office Action.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, the amended claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and does not constitute an inventive concept, and does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
At p9 third paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued that the instant claim 1 is no a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and points out that a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception is not the basis of the current 101 rejections. The argument is not so relevant to the current office action.
At p9 fourth and fifth paragraphs of the Remarks, Applicant argued that “Therefore, amended claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea even if one were to assume that claim 1 falls into the grouping of a mental process. ...” and requested withdrawal of the 101 rejections.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, because, as explained above, claim 1 does not appear to be patent eligible under 35 USC 101. Similarly, the 101 rejections to the method claims 1-8 and 16-20 are maintained.
At p9 under the title “Section 103 Rejections” to p11 first paragraph of the Remarks, Applicant argued with respect to 103 rejections, these arguments are moot upon new ground of rejections made in the office action above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Zengpu Wei whose telephone number is 571-270-1302. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 8:00AM to 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bradley Teets, can be reached on 571-272-3338. 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.
/ZENGPU WEI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2197
/BRADLEY A TEETS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2197