DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed September 25, 2025. Currently Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are pending. Claims 1 and 8 are the independent claims.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-8 in the previous office action is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 25, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea (e.g. mental process) as the claims recite significantly more than an abstract idea (e.g. generate display for displaying a prediction result of the demand data and output the display data - not insignificant post solution activity; Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 5; Paragraphs 1-2, Page 6) and that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (manufacturer can produce his/her products based on a more accurate demand data displayed; Remarks: Last Two Paragraphs, Page 6).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are not directed to a mental process and recite significantly more than an abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to old, well-known, conventional and routine business activity of demand forecasting (demand prediction; Title: DEMAND PREDICTION DEVICE AND DEMAND PREDICTION METHOD) utilizing a correlation coefficient/semantic similarity distance, wherein demand prediction (forecasting) is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities. The steps of calculating a relevance degree and calculating a correlation coefficient are also directed to an abstract idea because they are directed to a mathematical concept/operation.
The exceptions are the additional limitations of generic computer element: processing circuitry; Specification: Figure 4). Claim 8 fails to recite who or what entity performs the method steps (i.e. directed to a mental process; does not recite any technological elements/components – therefore impossible to improve an underlying technology or technical field when none is recited). Additionally, the claims recite a mental process than can be performed in the human mind and/or via pen and paper.
While the claims may represent an improvement to the fundamental economic practice of demand forecasting, the claims in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application (e.g. provide a technical solution to a technical problem; improve any of the underlying technology (processing circuitry; Specification: Figure 4).
Additionally, the claims are directed to a mental processing practically capable of being performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion. Representative claim 1: The step of acquire demand data may be performed in the human mind using observation of data. The step of calculate a relevance degree may be performed in the human mind using evaluation (also directed to a mathematical grouping of abstract ideas). The step of extra index data used for demand prediction may be performed in the human mind via observation, evaluation and judgement. The step of perform the demand prediction may be performed in the human mind via evaluation and judgement (also directed to a mathematical grouping of abstract ideas). The step of acquire setting data may be performed by the human mind via observation. The step of calculate a correlation coefficient may be performed in the human mind evaluation and judgement (also directed to a mathematical grouping of abstract ideas). The step of generate and output display data is directed to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. data output), further a human via pen and paper is practically capable of outputting a prediction result. The recitation of processing circuitry (Claims 1-3 and 5-7 only), used for its conventional, routine, well-known purposes of acquiring, processing and outputting data, does not negate the mental nature of these claim limitations as the claims merely use the one or more control devices as a tool to perform an otherwise mental process. The processing circuitry (Claims 1-3 and 5-7 only) is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a generic ‘processing circuitry’ (Specification: Figure 4). See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III.
Other than the recitation of processing circuitry (Claims 1-3 and 5-7 only) nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The limitations directed to a hardware device including Claims 1-3 and 5-7 only is recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer/processor (Specification: Figure 4). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Further the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer (i.e., processing circuitry; Claims 1-3 and 5-7 only) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. The claims use “conventional or generic technology in a nascent but well-known environment” to implement the abstract idea of “visualizing flow direction is a distribution network” (Claim 20, preamble). In re TLI Commc’ns LLC Pat. Litig., 823 F.3d 607, 612 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The recited technology (processor, memories, etc.), are used as a “conduit for the abstract idea,” not to provide a technological solution to a specific technological problem. Id.; see also id. at 611–13 (holding claims reciting the use of a cellular telephone and a network server to classify an image and store the image based on its classification to be abstract because the patent did “not describe a new telephone, a new server, or a new physical combination of the two” and did not address “how to combine a camera with a cellular telephone, how to transmit images via a cellular network, or even how to append classification information to that data”).
Nothing in Applicant’s disclosures suggests that the Applicant intended to accomplish any of the steps recited in the claims through anything other than well understood technology used in a routine and conventional manner. Therefore, the claims lack an inventive concept. See also, e.g., Elec. Power Grp., 830 F.3d at 1355 (holding claims lacked inventive concept where “[n]othing in the claims, understood in light of the specification, requires anything other than off-the-shelf, conventional computer, network, and display technology for gathering, sending, and presenting the desired information”); Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1348 (holding claims lacked an inventive concept where the claims recited the use of “existing scanning and processing technology”).
Reevaluating the steps of acquire demand data, acquire setting data and generate and output display data/prediction result which are considered insignificant extra solution activity, these limitations are mere data gathering and output recited at a high level of generality and amount to nothing more. The limitations remain insignificant extra solution activity even upon reconsideration. Even when considered in combination the additional elements represent mere instructions to apply an exception and insignificant extra solution activity which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., manufacturer can produce his/her products based on a more accurate demand data displayed; Remarks: Last Two Paragraphs, Page 6) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are directed to a practical application the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – demand forecasting. While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of forecasting demand, they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application.
Under the 2019 Revised Guidance, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 51-52, 55. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using 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 - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55 ("Prong Two").
In view of the 2019 Revised Guidance, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims is the generic processing circuitry (Claims 1-3, 5-7 only; Claim 8 fails to recite any technological elements of any kind). This generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of acquiring, processing and outputing data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s demand forecasting in the general field of business forecasting and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims on merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are 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.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., processing circuitry; Claims 1-3, 5-7 only) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)). Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (2019 Revised Guidance, Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 56.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in claims 1-3 and 5-7 only beyond the abstract idea is a “processing circuitry,” i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Similar to the discussion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” The claims do not improve the functioning of the processing circuitry.
As for Applicant’s argument that a manufacturer can produce his/her products based on a more accurate demand data displayed, examiner notes that a more accurate forecast is a business solution to a business problem and does not represent a technical solution to a technical problem; does not improve the functioning of the underlying processing circuitry (generic computer); and does not improve another technological field.
Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-3 and 5-8 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) without significantly more.
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 8, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of demand prediction (forecasting). This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, demand prediction (forecasting) (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to performing demand prediction utilizing a correlation coefficient/semantic similarity distance, wherein demand prediction (forecasting) is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Further all of the steps of “acquire”, “calculate”, “extract”, “perform”, “acquire”, “calculate”, “calculate”, “generate”, and “output” recite functions of the demand prediction (forecasting) are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities. The steps of calculating a relevance degree and calculating a correlation coefficient are also directed to an abstract idea because they are directed to a mathematical concept/operation.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities. The exception is additional limitations of generic computer element: processing circuitry. Claim 8 fails to recite who or what entity performs the method steps. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: processing circuitry. These generic computing components are merely used to acquire and process data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Figures 4, 7). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's demand prediction (forecasting) in the general field of business forecasting and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), Claims 1-3 and 5-8 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited "processing circuitry”," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the 2019 Revised Guidance, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of calculate a relevance degree, extract index data used for demand prediction, performing the demand prediction processing, calculating a correlation efficient, calculated the relevance degree all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of processing circuitry (Claim 1, only) nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. Claim 8 fails to recite who or what entity performs the method steps. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps acquire demand data and acquire setting data are directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The step of generate and output display data/displaying a prediction result is directed to insignificant post solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic computer (processing circuitry; Figures 4, 7) does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic processing circuitry is recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of receiving and processing data. The generic processing circuitry merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are 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. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the receiving, storing and obtaining steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applications specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processing circuitry is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 3 and 5-7, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of demand prediction (forecasting) and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1 and 8.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by processing a giving index data extracted and acquiring a prediction result of the future demand (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by selecta prediction model to which the index is given and performing demand prediction processing giving the extracted data (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by extract top M pieces of index candidate data having high relevance degree (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by acquires index candidate data (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea, insignificant pre-solution activity, data input). Claim 7 further limits the abstract idea by index candidate data indicating a plurality of economic indexes, extracts the index data used for the demand prediction on basis of calculated relevance degree and extract index data from candidate data (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding Claims 1-3 and 5-8, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to processing circuitry at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Figures 4, 7). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. processing circuitry). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of acquiring or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a processing circuitry merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 6). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
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 SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625