HYBRID MACHINE LEARNING SYSTEM FOR EFFICIENT OPERATION REVIEW WITH ANOMALY DETECTION, ADAPTIVE CONFIDENCE SCORING, AND MULTI-LAYERED CONTEXTUAL RISK SCORING

§101 §112

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 . DETAILED ACTION This office action is in response to the claims filed on 07/22/2026. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-20 are presented for examination Response to Argument In reference to applicant’s argument regrading rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101: Applicant’s Argument: These amended claim features recite an integrated technical system that uses rejection feedback to dynamically improve routing decisions, not merely an abstract idea implemented on a generic computer. The claims recite how a rejected operation triggers a specific sequence of technical functions: the routing engine is retrained by adjusting parameters based on the rejection indication, and subsequent operations from the same maker are routed to a different, more stringent checker-routing protocol using the retrained routing engine. This feedback-driven retraining mechanism provides a specific technical improvement to how computer systems route operations for review, directly addressing the technical problem of error-prone makers that the Specification identifies. See Spec., [0037], [0040]. In view of the foregoing, the amended claims recite patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The amendments clarify the technical functions that use rejected operation data to trigger remedial routing functions. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests favorable reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections to claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Examiner’s Response: Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s argument regarding the 101-rejection, since the claim does not recite an improvement of the machine learning model itself nor an improvement of a function of the computer in the technology field. The claim only recites an improvement of mental process, which is not considered as the improvement of the computer function in the technology fields. The claim limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into the practical application, as the claim only recites the generic computer component (apply the machine learning architecture) to implement the mental process (the human can perform second round of checking by other checker with additional information or adjusting the determination feature (parameter) if the previous determined checking was wrong), for example, the human can re-check /send a checking request to other person to re-check an operation of a manufacture machine if the manufacture machine produced less product than normal. Therefore, the computer system to rout operations for review or rout decisions based on a predicted error/abnormal, which is not considered as the improvement of the functioning of the computer in the technology field. Therefore, the claim limitations are not integrated the judicial exception into the practical application. Therefore, the applicant’s argument regarding the 101 rejection is not persuasive, the rejection is still maintained. In reference to applicant’s argument regrading rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103-Rejection: Applicant’s argument on pages 11-14 regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection on the remark filed on 07/22/2026: The applicant’s argument regarding the 103-rejection based on a newly claim amendment is filed on 07/22/2026. Examiner’s Response: The applicant’s argument regarding the 103-rejection includes the newly amended claim filed on 07/22/2026, which is persuasive. Therefore, the 103-rejection is withdrawn in view of the claim amendment that is filed on 07/22/2026. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. There does not seem to be sufficient description for: The claim 1 recites “transmitting, by the computer using the retrained routing engine, next operation data of a next operation to a second checker client device based upon a second risk score and a second anomaly score generated using the maker identifier for the next operation received from the maker client device associated with the maker identifier, wherein the second checker client device is selected by the retrained routing engine according to a second checker-routing protocol of the one or more checker-routing protocols that is associated with an authorization threshold satisfied by the second risk score and the second anomaly score and is a more stringent than the first checker-routing protocol used for the rejected operation;” at lines 24-30. However, the specification [Par.0009], “transmitting, by the computer, the operation data to one or more checker client devices corresponding to the one or more authorization thresholds based on the risk score by executing a routing engine trained for routing the operation data to one or more computing devices; and retraining, by the computer, the routing engine of the machine-learning architecture by adjusting one or more parameters of the routing engine according to a feedback input obtained via an administrative user interface.” The specification only discloses “transmitting, by the computer, the operation data to one or more checker client devices corresponding to the one or more authorization thresholds based on the risk score” and “retrain the routing engine of the machine-learning architecture by adjusting one or more parameters of the routing engine according to a feedback input routing engine of the machine-learning architecture. “ the specification does not disclose transmitting, by the computer using the retrained routing engine, next operation data of a next operation… and wherein the second checker client device is selected by the retrained routing engine according to a second checker-routing protocol of the one or more checker-routing protocols that is associated with an authorization threshold satisfied by the second risk score and the second anomaly score and is a more stringent than the first checker-routing protocol used for the rejected operation. Therefore, the specification does not describe the specific limitations as the claim recites. Therefore, claim 1 is failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 2, 3, 5-7 are dependent on claim 1 and are likewise failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 8 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1, since these claims recite the same limitations. Claims 9, 10, 12-14 are dependent on claim 8 and are likewise failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as claim 1, since these claims recite the same limitations. Claims 16, 17, 19, 20 are dependent on claim 15 and are likewise failing to comply with the written description requirement. 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, 5-10, 12-17, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 analysis: In the instant case, the claims are directed to a method (claims 1,3-7), system (claims 8-14) and computer program product (claims 15-17, 19-20). Thus, each of the claims falls within one of the four statutory categories (i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). Step 2A analysis: Based on the claims being determined to be within of the four categories (Step 1), it must be determined if the claims are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), in this case the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea. Specifically the abstract idea of “Mental Processes/Concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and mathematical concept. The claim 1 recites: Step 2A: prong 1 analysis: -“extracting, a feature vector for the operation based upon a plurality of operation features extracted using the operation data including the one or more operation data records, the maker identifier and the operation data inputs for the operation” this is a mental process, the human mind can extract the feature vector for operation based on the operation data include the data record, (Observation/evaluation) -“ determining, , an operation-type for the operation… on the feature vector for the operation” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine the operation type for operation (Observation/Evaluation ). -“ generating, a risk score for the operation by executing a risk-scoring on the feature vector based on the maker identifier and an operation-type of the operation;” this is a mental process, the human mind can generate the risk score for the operation based on the maker identifier and operation type (observation/Evaluation). “Generating… an anomaly score based on the maker identifier and the operation-type of the operation, the anomaly score indicating a likelihood that the operation data represents an anomalous operation request” this is a mental process, as the human can determine/generate the anomaly score based on the marker identifier and the operation type, for example, the receptionist can tell whether the checking people is the corrected people on the reservation or not based on Identification card checking, (observation/evaluation). “determining, by the computer, a first checker-routing protocol of the one or more checker- routing protocols.. and one or more authorization thresholds associated with the one or more checker-routing protocols for the operation based upon the risk score, the anomaly score, and the operation-type” this is a mental process, the human mind can determine the checking routing protocol of the checker and determine the authorization threshold for operation based on the risk score and operation type, (observation/Evaluation) a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis: -“ training, by a computer, parameters of a routing engine of a machine-learning architecture for routing operation data to one or more computing devices according to one or more checker-routing protocols selected based on according to a risk score using historical operation data associated with maker identifiers”, “by computer”, “by executing the routing engine ofthe machine-learning architecture”, by the computer using the retrained routing engine”, The additional limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (machine learning architecture, the computer, routing engine, “engine of the machine-learning architecture”,) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). -“obtaining, by the computer, a request for an operation and operation data inputs via a user interface of a maker client device associated with a maker identifier;”, “obtaining, one or more operation data records associated with the operation indicated by the request from one or more data sources”, “Transmitting, by the computer, the operation data to a first checker client device corresponding to the first checker routing protocol and the one or more authorization thresholds based on the risk score and the anomaly score by executing a routing engine trained for routing the operation data to one or more computing devices based upon the risk score and the anomaly score generated using the maker identifier;” , “transmitting, by the computer, next operation data of a next operation to a second checker client device based upon a second risk score and s second anomaly score generated using for the next operation received from the maker client device associated with the maker identifier, wherein the second checker client device is selected by the retrained routing engine according to a second checker-routing protocol of the one or more checker-routing protocols that is associated with an authorization threshold satisfied by the second risk score and the second anomaly score and is more stringent than the first checker-routing protocol used for the rejected operation” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. --“ training, by a computer, parameters of a routing engine of a machine-learning architecture for routing operation data to one or more computing device according to a risk score using historical operation data associated with maker identifiers”, “by applying a classifier of a machine-learning architecture on the feature vector for the operation;”, “by the computer”, “by executing a risk-scoring engine of the machine-learning architecture on the feature vector”, “generating, by the computer, by executing an anomaly detector of the machine-learning architecture on the feature vector based on the maker identifier and the operation-type of the operation” , “in response to a determination from the first checker client device indicating an indication that the operation is a rejected operation: retraining, by the computer, the routing engine of the machine-learning architecture by adjusting one or more parameters of the routing engine according to the indication that the operation is the rejected operation having an error associated with the maker identifier”, “engine of the machine-learning architecture”, “ and executing, by the computer, the next operation using the next operation data from the maker client device, responsive to the computer receiving an indication of authorization for the next operation from the second checker client device” The additional limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (machine learning architecture, the computer, routing engine, “engine of the machine-learning architecture”,) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). -“ executing, by the computer based on receiving an indication of authorization for the next operation from the second checker client device, the next operation using the next operation data from the maker client device” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. b) Step 2B analysis: -“ training, by a computer, parameters of a routing engine of a machine-learning architecture for routing operation data to one or more computing devices according to one or more checker-routing protocols selected based on according to a risk score using historical operation data associated with maker identifiers”, “by computer”, “by executing the routing engine of the machine-learning architecture”, by the computer using the retrained routing engine”, The additional limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (machine learning architecture, the computer, routing engine, “engine of the machine-learning architecture”,) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). -“obtaining, by the computer, a request for an operation and operation data inputs via a user interface of a maker client device associated with a maker identifier;”, “obtaining, one or more operation data records associated with the operation indicated by the request from one or more data sources”, “transmitting, by the computer, the operation data to a first checker client device corresponding to the one or more authorization thresholds based on the risk score and the anomaly score by executing a routing engine trained for routing the operation data to one or more computing devices based upon the risk score and the anomaly score generated using the maker identifier;” , “transmitting, by the computer, next operation data of a next operation to a second checker client device based upon a second risk score and s second anomaly score generated using for the next operation received from the maker client device associated with the maker identifier, wherein the second checker client device is selected by the retrained routing engine according to a second checker-routing protocol of the one or more checker-routing protocols that is associated with an authorization threshold satisfied by the second risk score and the second anomaly score and is more stringent than the first checker-routing protocol used for the rejected operation” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself . The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). ---“ training, by a computer, parameters of a routing engine of a machine-learning architecture for routing operation data to one or more computing device according to a risk score using historical operation data associated with maker identifiers”, “by applying a classifier of a machine-learning architecture on the feature vector for the operation;”, “by the computer”, “by executing a risk-scoring engine of the machine-learning architecture on the feature vector”, “generating, by the computer, by executing an anomaly detector of the machine-learning architecture on the feature vector based on the maker identifier and the operation-type of the operation” , “in response to a determination from the first checker client device indicating an indication that the operation is a rejected operation: retraining, by the computer, the routing engine of the machine-learning architecture by adjusting one or more parameters of the routing engine according to the indication that the operation is the rejected operation having an error associated with the maker identifier”, “engine of the machine-learning architecture”, “ and executing, by the computer, the next operation using the next operation data from the maker client device, responsive to the computer receiving an indication of authorization for the next operation from the second checker client device” The additional limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (machine learning architecture, the computer, routing engine, “engine of the machine-learning architecture”,) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). .\ -“ executing, by the computer based on receiving an indication of authorization for the next operation from the second checker client device, the next operation using the next operation data from the maker client device” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim 2 recites: a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis: -“ receiving, by the computer from a maker client device, one or more maker inputs indicating the one or more operation records for the operation” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. b) Step 2B analysis: -“ receiving, by the computer from a maker client device, one or more maker inputs indicating the one or more operation records for the operation” These/this limitation(s) are/is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to necessary data gathering. As described in MPEP 2106.05(g), limitations that amount to merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering to a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself . The courts have found limitations directed to obtaining information electronically, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”, "electronic record keeping," and "storing and retrieving information in memory"). The claim 3 recites: a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis: -“ training, by the computer, the classifier of the machine-learning architecture to determine the operation type by applying the classifier of the machine-learning architecture.” The additional limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). -“ by applying the classifier of the machine-learning architecture on a plurality of historic operation records, each historic operation record having a training label indicating the operation type” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. b) Step 2B analysis: -“ training, by the computer, the classifier of the machine-learning architecture to determine the operation type by applying the classifier of the machine-learning architecture.” The additional limitation is recited at high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer component (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). -“ by applying the classifier of the machine-learning architecture on a plurality of historic operation records, each historic operation record having a training label indicating the operation type” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim 5 recites: a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis: -“ wherein the computer applies a risk model of the machine-learning architecture on historical data to generate the risk score, wherein the historical data includes error data associated with one or more operation features of the feature vector.” this/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. b) Step 2B analysis: -“ wherein the computer applies a risk model of the machine-learning architecture on historical data to generate the risk score, wherein the historical data includes error data associated with one or more operation features of the feature vector.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim 6 recites: a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis: -“ wherein the computer applies a routing model of the machine-learning architecture on historical data and the risk score to determine the one or more authorization thresholds.” this/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. b) Step 2B analysis: -“ wherein the computer applies a routing model of the machine-learning architecture on historical data and the risk score to determine the one or more authorization thresholds.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim 7 recites: a) Step 2A: Prong 2 analysis: -“ wherein the risk score indicates at least one of a probability of one or more errors in the one or more operation records or a level of risk associated with the operation.” this/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)). As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception and that it does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. b) Step 2B analysis: -“ wherein the risk score indicates at least one of a probability of one or more errors in the one or more operation records or a level of risk associated with the operation.” This/these limitation(s) is/are amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As explained by the Supreme Court, a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible "simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use." Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim 8 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 1, since these claims recite the same limitations. The claim 9 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 2, since these claims recite the same limitations. The claim 10 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 3, since these claims recite the same limitations. The claim 12 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 5, since these claims recite the same limitations. The claim 13 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 6, since these claims recite the same limitations. The claim 14 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 7, since these claims recite the same limitations. The claim 15 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 1, since these claims recite the same limitations. The claim 16 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 2, since these claims recite the same limitations. The claim 17 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 3, since these claims recite the same limitations. The claim 19 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 5, since these claims recite the same limitations. The claim 20 is rejected for the same reason as the claim 7, since these claims recite the same limitations. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are 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 mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EM N TRIEU whose telephone number is (571)272-5747. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri from 9:00-5:00. 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, Omar Fernandez Rivas can be reached on (571) 272-2589. 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. /E.T./Examiner, Art Unit 2128 /OMAR F FERNANDEZ RIVAS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2128