DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) JP2022-156853, filed 9/29/2022. The certified copy has been received in the file as of 11/9/2023.
Claims Status
Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim 7 is withdrawn, as established in the prior action.
Claims 1-6 and 8-15 stand rejected.
Claim Objection – Minor Informalities
Claim 1 recites the limitation “comparison code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to execute a comparison process that compares the first index with the second index.”, the limitation ending in a period. This is not the final limitation of the claim, and the period should be replaced with either a comma or semicolon. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Amendment
I. Applicant’s amendment to the title is acknowledged and accepted. Applicant’s amendment appears to have inadvertently struck through the word “information”. Although the amended title is accepted, the Examiner suggests amending the title as follows to correct the error:
Indexing system, process, and computer-readable storage medium for comparing item information
II. Applicant’s amendment to include “non-transitory” in the preamble of claim 15 is acknowledged and effective to overcome the rejection under 35 USC 101 for claiming non-statutory subject matter.
Response to Arguments
I. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 for claims directed to a judicial exception without significantly more have been fuller considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the claimed invention cannot be performed in the human mind, referring to the claimed process as “algorithmic processing that extends beyond human mental capabilities”. The Examiner disagrees, and notes that the following operations can be readily performed by a human, either mentally or using a physical aid:
obtain an index used to compare the one or more pieces of item information with each other, divide the one or more piece of item information into portions and obtain an index for each portion;
obtain a first index associated with the one of the items based on one piece of item information;
generate processed information by processing the one piece of item information; and
obtain a second index associated with the one of the items based on the processed information, and
obtain indices from item information in different data fields that include types of data that are different from each other;
execute a comparison process that compares the first index with the second index;
identify the item information as unclear based on: the first index and the second index do not match each other
There is nothing in the claims that preclude a human from performing these operations, which are little more than observations, evaluations or judgements regarding the items or item information. Notably, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
Furthermore, the claims are silent as to any technical explanation as to how the operations are accomplished. The Examiner’s finding that the claims recite mental processes is underscored when considering prior decisions by the courts, such as Electric Power Group v. Alstom (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Electric Power Group, the courts held a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis,” where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind. Like Electric Power Group, the claimed invention merely sets forth data analysis steps at a high level of generality such that they are performable in the human mind.
Even assuming arguendo the claims do not recite a mental process (which the Examiner does not acquiesce), the claims still recite an abstract commercial process including marketing or sales activities or behaviors, such as by reciting using indices for item comparison, and indicating when the indices do not match each other. Applicant is reminded that, under Prong One, the claim recites a judicial exception when it is set forth or described in the claim. This is clearly the case for the claimed invention.
Furthermore, Applicant alleges that “paragraph [0090] explains the technical problem this addresses: “when types of data related to multiple pieces of item information are different from each other, they cannot be directly compared with each other”. The claimed solution enables comparison of heterogeneous data types through index generation, which represents a technical solution to a technical problem”. The problem as described by Applicant is in the ability to compare heterogeneous information, which is an improvement to the abstract idea itself. This abstract-idea based improvement is underscored by Applicant’s specification throughout, including e.g. 0005 (which describes the specific problem in relation to purchasers comparing items, and automating the process of checking registered information). Improvements to the abstract idea are not tantamount to an improvement to the computer itself or another technology or technical field. This line of reasoning applies to each of the alleged improvements by Applicant, each of which represents an improvement to the abstract idea itself rather than an improvement in technology.
Additionally, the Examiner emphasizes that the Federal Circuit has stressed that "merely using a computer to perform more efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished manually does not confer patent-eligibility." See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 331, 336 (D. Del. 2013) (citing Bancorp Servs., L.L.C. v. Sun Life Assur. Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1279 (Fed. Cir. 2012)), aff'd, 765 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Similarly, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept (Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015)). Even in its alleged “automation”, the additional elements are nothing more than a tool utilized to perform the abstract idea, merely using a computer to perform more efficiently what could otherwise be accomplished manually.
III. Applicant’s arguments made with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Claim Interpretation – Claim Term
The terms have been given the following interpretation (BRI):
Index: something used or serving to point out; a sign, token, or indication (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/index). Note that the specification provides examples such as a probability (see claim 8) that function as the indication.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 – Judicial Exception
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, 3-6 and 8-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 3-6 and 8-15, under Step 2A claims 1, 3-6 and 8-15 recite a judicial exception (abstract idea) that is not integrated into a practical application and does not provide significantly more.
Under Step 2A (prong 1), and taking claim 1 as representative, claim 1 recites an information processing apparatus used to:
execute an indexing process for one or more pieces of item information to obtain an index used to compare the one or more pieces of item information with each other, divide the one or more piece of item information into portions and obtain an index for each portion;
obtain a first index associated with the one of the items based on one piece of item information;
generate processed information by processing the one piece of item information; and
obtain a second index associated with the one of the items based on the processed information, and
obtain indices from item information in different data fields that include types of data that are different from each other;
execute a comparison process that compares the first index with the second index;
identify the item information as unclear based on: the first index and the second index do not match each other.
These limitations recite ‘certain methods of organizing human activity’, such as by performing commercial interactions (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)). This is because claim 1 sets forth or describes obtaining indices used to compare item information. This represents the performance of marketing or sales activities or behaviors, which are commercial interactions and fall under organizing human activity. Accordingly, claim 1 recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas.
Additionally, claim 1 can also be understood to recite limitations that set forth or describe “mental processes” that are performable in the human mind, or by pen and paper. This is because the following operations of claim 1 can be accomplished in the human mind, or using a physical aid such as pen and paper, and represent observations, evaluations or judgments (see: MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)):
execute an indexing process for one or more pieces of item information to obtain an index used to compare the one or more pieces of item information with each other, divide the one or more piece of item information into portions and obtain an index for each portion;
obtain a first index associated with the one of the items based on one piece of item information;
generate processed information by processing the one piece of item information; and
obtain a second index associated with the one of the items based on the processed information, and
obtain indices from item information in different data fields that include types of data that are different from each other;
execute a comparison process that compares the first index with the second index;
identify the item information as unclear based on: the first index and the second index do not match each other.
Notably, the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation. Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer.
The Examiner also asserts that the high-level data analysis is akin to that held to be an abstract mental process in Electric Power Group (discussed above). Accordingly, under step 2A (prong 1) claim 1 also recites an abstract idea because claim 1 recites limitations that fall within the “Mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Under Step 2A (prong 2), the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. The Examiner acknowledges that representative claim 1 does recite additional elements, including:
at least one of one or more memories configured to store item data related to items registered in items registered in an online platform,
wherein,
the item data includes data sets,
the data sets each include data fields registered for one of the items,
the data fields each include item information related to the one of the items;
at least one of one or more memories configured to store program code;
at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code, the program code including,
execution code, first obtaining code, generation code, second obtaining code, third obtaining code, comparison code, and, identification code.
Although reciting these additional elements, taken alone or in combination these elements are not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. This is because the additional elements of claim 1 are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Furthermore, the courts have emphasized that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)). Lastly, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
In addition to the above, the additional elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the claim fails to (i) reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, (ii) implement the judicial exception with, or use the judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, (iii) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or (iv) applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In view of the above, under Step 2A (prong 2), claim 1 does not integrate the recited exception into a practical application.
Under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Returning to representative claim 1, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claim 1 do not provide an inventive concept (i.e. they do not amount to “significantly more” than the exception itself). As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements used to perform the claimed process amount to no more than the mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment.
Furthermore, the additional elements fail to provide significantly more also because the claim simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception. For example, the additional elements of claim 1 utilize operations the courts have held to be well-understood, routine, and conventional (see: MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)), including at least:
storing or retrieving information from memory,
electronic recordkeeping.
Furthermore, the courts have emphasized that mere automation of manual processes is not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Even considered as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of claim 1 do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, representative claim 1 does not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and is therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding dependent claims 3-6 and 8-13, dependent claims 3-6 and 8-13 recite more complexities descriptive of the abstract idea itself. For example, claims 3-6 and 8-13 recite further details of the commercial process and/or further mental processes, such as by reciting obtaining additional indexes and making comparisons (e.g., claims 3-6, 13) or defining the information indicated by the data fields (e.g., claims 9-11).
Additionally, claim 8 expressly sets forth mathematical concepts, such as by calculating a probability.
As such, claims 3-6 and 8-13 are understood to recite an abstract idea under step 2A (prong 1) as discussed above, and because they at least inherit the abstract idea of claim 1.
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the additional elements of dependent claims 3-6 and 8-13 also do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, considered both individually or as a whole. More specifically, claims 3-6 and 8-13 rely upon at least similar additional elements as discussed with respect to claim 1. Further additional elements (e.g., machine learning model of claim 12) are also recited only at a high level of generality (i.e. as generic computing hardware) such that they amount to nothing more than the mere instructions to implement or apply the abstract idea on generic computing hardware (or, merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea). Further, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (such as the Internet or computing networks).
Lastly, under step 2B, claims 3-6 and 8-13 also fail to result in “significantly more” than the abstract idea under step 2B. This is again because the claims merely apply the exception on generic computing hardware, generally link the exception to a technological environment, and append well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
Even when viewed as an ordered combination (as a whole), the additional elements of the dependent claims do not add anything further than when they are considered individually.
In view of the above, claims 3-6 and 8-13 do not provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”) under Step 2B, and are therefore ineligible for patenting.
Regarding claims 14 (method) and 15 (storage medium), claims 14-15 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 14-15 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
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, 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6 and 8-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merkulov (US 2023/0252544) in view of Wang (US 11,461,829).
Regarding claim 1, Merkulov discloses an information processing apparatus, comprising:
at least one of one or more memories configured to store item data related to items registered in items registered in an online platform,
wherein, the item data includes data sets, the data sets each include data fields registered for one of the items, the data fields each include item information related to the one of the items (see: 0024, 0034, 0091, Fig. 4 (402), Fig. 7);
at least one of one or more memories configured to store program code (see: 0026, 0059, 0102, 0104, Fig. 8 (804, 840));
at least one processor configured to operate as instructed by the program code (see: Fig. 8 (802), 0102), the program code including:
execution code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to execute an indexing process for one or more pieces of item information to obtain an index used to compare the one or more pieces of item information with each other (see: 0053, 0077, 0090);
Note: The data record includes multiple fields (e.g., name, description, categories). These fields represent one or more pieces of item information from which respective indices are obtained.
first obtaining code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to obtain a first index associated with the one of the items based on one piece of item information (see: 0073, 0090-0091, Fig. 4 (402), Fig. 7 (706));
Note: data in the data record (e.g., product category) is a first index.
generation code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to generate processed information by processing the one piece of item information (see: 0032, 003.5-0036, 0074, Fig. 4 (404)); and
Note: the first ML model generates processed product data.
second obtaining code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to obtain a second index associated with the one of the items based on the processed information (see: 0038, 0053, 0076-0077, Fig. 4 (408-410), 0090, Fig. 7 (708)),
Note: first ML data may be fed into the second ML model, which obtains a second index (e.g., product classification).
third obtaining code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to obtain indices from item information in different data fields that include types of data that are different from each other (see: 0090-0092, Fig. 7).
Note: The data record includes multiple fields (e.g., name, description, categories) from which indices are obtained.
comparison code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to execute a comparison process that compares the first index with the second index (see: 0038 (input to second model), 0045, 0078 (inaccurate product type), 0090, Fig, 7 (706, 708));
identification code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to identify the item information as unclear based on:
the first index and the second index do not match each other (see: 0044 (when the product types are different a second condition outputs a flag), (0078 (notification that identifies an error such as a mismatch, inaccurate product type), 0109 (setting the approval status to rejected when the product category does not match the classification), 0111 (confidence score is less than a threshold score and the product category does not match the classification), claim 5-6).
Though disclosing the above, Merkulov does not disclose divide the one or more pieces of item information into portions and obtain an index for each portion. Notably, Merkulov does disclose extracting natural language features from product descriptions and categories (e.g., entity recognition, tokenization) (see: 0036, 0063, Fig. 7).
To this accord, Wang discloses dividing one or more pieces of item information (e.g., item description) into portions (e.g., tokens) and obtain an index for each portion (e.g., token representation, token attributes) (see: col. 4 lines 8-11 & 21-28, col. 7 line 66-col. 8 line 2, see also: Fig. 4A (420-440), Fig. 4B (410-450, 481-482), col. 16 lines 26-47, col. 22 lines 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the invention of Merkulov to have utilized the known technique for product matching through tokenization as taught by Wang in order to have provided Merkulov with a machine learned model that would have substantially improved the precision of automatic product matching, as well as a number of other processes related to computer systems that manage product listings (see: col. 3 lines 13-16).
3. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the data fields include a first data field and a second data field, item information included in the first data field is referred to as first item information and item information included in the second data field is referred to as second item information (see: 0024, 0034, 0091, Fig. 4 (402), Fig. 7),
Note: The data record includes multiple fields (e.g., name, description, categories). The labeling of the data (e.g., referred to as fist/second item information) within the fields is non-functional descriptive material (See MPEP 2144.04)
the program code further includes:
first obtaining code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to obtain a first index associated with the one of the items based on the first item information (see: 0036-0037, 0073-0074, 0090-0091, Fig. 4 (402), Fig. 7 (706)); and
Note: product category may be obtained from data extracted from the product category field.
second obtaining code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to obtain a second index associated with the one of the items based on the second item information (see: 0038, 0065, 0077, 0090-0091), and
Note: the second ML model generates the classification based on the received product type and/or product description extracted from the data record. This represents a second index.
comparison code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to execute a comparison process that compares the first index with the second index (see: 0038-0039, 0045, 0078 (inaccurate product type), 0090, Fig, 7 (706, 708)).
4. The information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the program code further includes: processing code configured to cause at least one processor to process the item information to generate processed information, and at least one of the first index and the second index is obtained based on the processed information (see: 0036-0039, 0065, 0073-0074, 0077).
Note the analysis performed by the first and/or second ML models on the data records represents processing the information.
5. The information processing device according to claim 4, wherein the processing code is configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to perform one or more of encoding the item information, summarizing a character string that indicates the item information, processing an image that indicates the item information, and extracting a portion from the item information (see: 0036-0039, 0065, 0073-0074, 0077).
6. The information processing device according to claim 5, wherein the extracting includes at least one of extracting a portion from the character string that indicates the item information, extracting a character from the image that indicates the item information, and cropping or trimming a portion of the image that indicates the item information (see: 0036-0039, 0065, 0073-0074, 0077, Fig. 7).
8. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the index is a probability that the items are in a certain category, and the execution code is configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to calculate a probability that one of the items corresponds to the certain category (see: 0039-0040 (confidence score), 0066).
9. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the data fields include types of data that are different from each other, and the types of data include one of an attribute and an attribute value for the attribute, a character string, an image, and a numerical value (see: 0090-0092, Fig. 7).
Note: The data record includes multiple fields (e.g., name, description, categories). Additionally, the labeling of the type of data is non-functional descriptive material (See MPEP 2111.05).
10. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the data fields include one or more of a title, a size, a brand, a condition, a description, an image, and a category that are related to the item (see: 0090-0092, Fig. 7).
Note: The data record includes multiple fields (e.g., name, description, categories). Additionally, the labeling of the type of data is non-functional descriptive material (See MPEP 2111.05).
.
11. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the data fields include one or more of a profile of a seller of the item, a rating for the seller, a comment on the seller, a registration date of the seller, and an IP address of the seller.
Note: the data included within the data field is non-functional descriptive material. Here, the memory merely serves as a support for the stored data. That is, such a scenario presents no new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material (data stored) and the system. Except for the meaning to the human mind, the specific type of data stored does not functionally relate to the system (See: MPEP 2111.05).
12. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein at least part of the indexing process is executed using one or more machine learning models (see: 0021, 0026, 0035-0044, Fig. 1 (160, 180), Fig. 4).
13. The information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the index is a category defined for classifying the items (see: 0036 (natural language features, product category), 0039 (classification indicates a category), 0051 (product category), 0053 (classification, such as predicted category)),
the execution code is configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to obtain two or more classification results by classifying one of the items two or more times based on different types of information (see: 0036, 0051, 0039, 0053, 0067),
Note: type and classification are represent two classification results, and may be obtained by processing different data from the data record (e.g., category, description, etc.) and processing input to the second ML model.
and
the program code further includes:
identification code configured to cause at least one of the at least one processor to execute an identification process based on the two or more classification results (see: 0044-0045, 0078, 0090), the identification process including:
identifying item information registered for the one of the items as unclear when the two or more classification results do not match each other (see: 0044 (when the product types are different a second condition outputs a flag), (0078 (notification that identifies an error such as a mismatch, inaccurate product type), 0109 (setting the approval status to rejected when the product category does not match the classification), 0111 (confidence score is less than a threshold score and the product category does not match the classification), claim 5-6); and
identifying the category of the one of the items based on the classification results when the two or more classification results match each other (see: 0045 (matches), 0090 (classifications 708 are compared with the true classifications 706), 0109 (setting the approval status to approved when the product category matches the product type), claim 2).
Regarding claims 14 (method) and 15 (storage medium), claims 14-15 recite at least substantially similar concepts and elements as recited in claim 1 such that similar analysis of the claims would be readily apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. As such, claims 14-15 are rejected under at least similar rationale.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Merkulov in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lombardi (US 2011/0119154).
Examiner note: Claim 11 is rejected above as representing non-functional descriptive material. The following rejection is provided to demonstrate the state of the art.
Regarding claim 11, Merkulov in view of Wang discloses all of the above as noted but does not teach wherein the data fields include one or more of a profile of a seller of the item, a rating for the seller, a comment on the seller, a registration date of the seller, and an IP address of the seller. The use of such information was notoriously well-known in the art before the effective filing date of the invention and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
For example, teaches storing shop ratings and shop comments in dedicated fields (see: 0054, 0060-0061, Fig. 5 (509, 510), Fig. 6 (605, 607), Fig. 7 (509, 510)), thereby demonstrating that it was known in the art for data fields to store one or more of a profile of a seller of the item, a rating for the seller, a comment on the seller, a registration date of the seller, and an IP address of the seller. Notably, this data may be stored along with object (product) rating and comments (see: Fig. 5 (506, 508), Fig. 6 (604, 606)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have utilized the known type of data as taught by in the system of Merkulov in view of Wang, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable – namely, a data record including data (e.g., ratings, comments) of a seller of a product.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
PTO form 892-U discusses techniques for performing semantic product searching including using a structured matching module (see: section 2 (related work) and 3 (proposed approach)).
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 WILLIAM J ALLEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1443. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-3614. 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.
WILLIAM J. ALLEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/WILLIAM J ALLEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619