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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a data collection agent”, “a change recording system”, “a performance monitoring system” and “an analysis module” in claim 22. Each of these limitations are disclosed programming implemented in a computer (Figs. 1-3, pars. 26, 44-49, 70-84).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3-6 and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3-5 each recite limitations for “the outputting”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and is rejected for the same reason.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the selected change" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 11-17 depend from claim 10 and are rejected for the same reason.
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 1-6, 10-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Per step 1 of the subject matter Eligibility Test (MPEP 2106, subsection III), claim 1 is directed to a method, which is a process and therefore falls within a statutory category (See MPEP 2106.03).
Per step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 recites determining changes associated with at least a first managed computer system of the one or more managed computer systems and storing, in a first data store, change records corresponding to the determined changes wherein each of the change records includes a respective change time-stamp indicating when each change was determined; determining a plurality of performance values for at least one performance metric associated with the first managed computer system for predetermined times and associating with each of the performance values a respective performance time-stamp; selecting one of the changes to the first managed computer system for change impact assessment, wherein the selected one of the changes has an associated change time- stamp; identifying first performance values from the plurality of performance values that have performance time-stamps that are prior in time to the time-stamp of the selected change and associating the first performance values with a before-change category; identifying second performance values from the plurality of performance values that have performance time-stamps that are later in time relative to the time-stamp of the selected change and associating the second performance values with an after-change category; and generating an output comprising the first and second performance values wherein the first performance values associated with the before-change category are distinguished from the second performance values associated with the after-change category, to thereby allow a user to determine the performance impact of the selected change using the output. These claim limitations require observation of changes and performance and their associated time stamps to identify performance values that happened before the change and performance values that happened after the change. Observations and judgement are activities that can be performed in the human mind, and the claim limitations fall into the mental concepts grouping (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Claim 1 does not recite any additional elements
Per Step 2A, Prong 2, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because no additional elements are recited.
Per Step 2B, claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because rationale because no additional elements are recited.
Claims 2, 3, 10-21 depend from claim 1 and only recite further details of the abstract idea. Claims 2, 3 and 10-21 do not recite any further additional elements. Therefore, claims 2, 3 and 10-21 are rejected for the same reason.
Claims 4-6 recite limitations for displaying performance values and plotting performance values. These limitations are additional elements. Displaying the performance values and plotting the performance values are insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Further, displaying and plotting the output of an analysis is well-understood, routine and conventional (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0127204 to Ozaki et al., Figs. 19A-C, pars. 72-75; US Patent Application Publication 2015/0229546 to Somaiya et al., Figs. 5-8, pars. 44-65). Therefore, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and are not significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 22 is directed to an apparatus, and per Step 1, claim 22 falls within a statutory category.
Per Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 22 recites an abstract idea similar to the abstract idea recited in claim 1.
As discussed above, claim 22 includes limitations that being are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Further, as discussed above, these limitations are disclosed as a programmed computer. The limitations for a data collection agent, a change recording system, a performance monitoring system and an analysis module are considered to be an additional element of a programmed computer.
Per Step 2A, Prong 2, the recitation of a programmed computer amounts to instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer and is not significantly more than the abstract idea (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Per Step 2B, the recitation of a programmed computer does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the same reason.
Claim 23 depends from claim 22 and does not recite any further additional elements. Claim 23 only recites further details of the abstract idea, and therefore, claim 23 is rejected for the same reason.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 16 and 18-23 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent Application Publication 2015/0095892 to Baggott et al. (Baggott) in view of US Patent Application Publication 2016/0127204 to Ozaki et al. (Ozaki).
Claim 1
With regard to determining changes associated with at least a first managed computer system of the one or more managed computer systems and storing, in a first data store, change records corresponding to the determined changes wherein each of the change records includes a respective change time-stamp indicating when each change was determined; Baggott teaches receiving an indication that a change has occurred in a machine or service using an event log, which would include time stamps (pars. 20, 21, 32; Fig. 1, change indications 102, 103, 104).
With regard to determining a plurality of performance values for at least one performance metric associated with the first managed computer system for predetermined times and associating with each of the performance values a respective performance time-stamp; Baggott teaches analyzing performance before the change and after the change (par. 34).
With regard to selecting one of the changes to the first managed computer system for change impact assessment, wherein the selected one of the changes has an associated change time- stamp; Baggott teaches analyzing performance before and after a change, which requires that a change be selected (par. 34).
With regard to identifying first performance values from the plurality of performance values that have performance time-stamps that are prior in time to the time-stamp of the selected change and associating the first performance values with a before-change category; and identifying second performance values from the plurality of performance values that have performance time-stamps that are later in time relative to the time-stamp of the selected change and associating the second performance values with an after-change category; Baggott teaches measuring performance before and after a change for comparison (pars. 34-36).
With regard to generating an output comprising the first and second performance values, Baggott teaches transmitting the evaluation result (par. 41).
Baggott does not teach wherein the first performance values associated with the before-change category are distinguished from the second performance values associated with the after-change category, to thereby allow a user to determine the performance impact of the selected change using the output. Ozaki teaches a displaying a graph of performance that includes the performance before and after a change and that indicates when the change occurred (pars. 72-75; Figs. 19A-C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the change evaluation, as taught by Baggott, to include a graph showing performance before and after a change, as taught by Ozaki, because then the user would have been provided with data that was used to determine the evaluation result, and the user would have been able to confirm the evaluation results and evaluate the change independent of the change evaluation system.
Claim 2
Baggott does not teach that generating the output further comprises producing an output type from one of a tabular format and a common timeline format. Ozaki teaches a displaying a graph of performance that includes the performance before and after a change and that indicates when the change occurred (pars. 72-75; Figs. 19A-C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the change evaluation, as taught by Baggott, to include a graph showing performance before and after a change, as taught by Ozaki, because then the user would have been provided with data that was used to determine the evaluation result, and the user would have been able to confirm the evaluation results and evaluate the change independent of the change evaluation system.
Claim 3
Baggott teaches that the outputting further comprises designating a time corresponding to the time-stamp of the selected change to the first managed computer system as a reference time for distinguishing the first performance values associated with the before-change category and the second performance values associated with the after-change category (pars. 34-36, comparing the performance before the change to performance after the change would require knowing the time of the change).
Claim 4
Baggott teaches that the outputting further comprises one of displaying the first and second performance values and generating an electronic file (par. 41).
Claim 5
Baggott does not teach that the output type comprises the common timeline format, and wherein the outputting comprises: plotting the first performance values associated with the before-change category as a first line segment with respect to the common timeline; plotting the second performance values associated with the after-change category as a second line segment with respect to the common timeline, wherein the second line segment is visually distinguishable from the first line segment. Ozaki teaches a displaying a graph of performance that includes the performance before and after a change and that indicates when the change occurred (pars. 72-75; Figs. 19A-C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the change evaluation, as taught by Baggott, to include a graph showing performance before and after a change, as taught by Ozaki, because then the user would have been provided with data that was used to determine the evaluation result, and the user would have been able to confirm the evaluation results and evaluate the change independent of the change evaluation system.
Claim 10
Baggott teaches that the changes comprise first changes, the selected change comprises the selected first change wherein the selected first change has associated therewith a first change time-stamp, the one or more managed computer systems further comprising a second managed computer system (pars. 20, 21, 34).
Baggott teaches determining second changes associated with the second managed computer system and storing, in a second data store, second change records corresponding to the determined second changes, wherein each of the second change records includes a respective change time-stamp indicating when each of the second changes was determined (pars. 20, 21; Fig. 1, change indication 102, 103, 104; three change indications shows that multiple changes may be evaluated).
determining a plurality of performance values for the at least one performance metric associated with the second managed computer system for predetermined times and associating with the performance values a respective performance time-stamp (pars. 34-36);
selecting one of the second changes to the second managed computer for change impact assessment wherein the selected one of the second changes is the same as the selected one of the first changes, the selected one of the second changes having a second change time-stamp associated therewith (pars. 34-36).
Claim 16
Baggott teaches transmitting, for each one of the first and second managed computer systems, the first and second change records to a master computer system for consolidation in a condensed data store at the master computer system (exception log categorizing system 205; pars. 28, 29).
Claim 18
Baggott teaches collecting original data including inventory data associated with components and operation of the first managed computer system, wherein the components comprises at least one of hardware components, firmware components, operating system software, hardware device driver components, operating system kernel components, software packages and applications, device configuration settings and operating data, security policies, user profiles, and web browser add-ins, and determining the changes using the collected original data (par. 36, baseline used to evaluate change)
Claim 19
Baggott teaches that determining changes comprises evaluating a subset of the collected original data corresponding to the inventory data and then outputting the change records that identify the changes that occurred and respective time-stamps indicating when each such change was determined (par. 14).
Claim 20
Baggott teaches that determining the changes comprises ascertaining one of an addition of a component, a change of a component, and a deletion of a component (par. 14).
Claim 21
Baggott teaches that determining the changes comprises ascertaining one of an addition of a new software package, a update of an existing software package, and a removal of the existing software package (par. 23).
Claim 22
As discussed above, claim 22 recites limitations that are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). With regard to the data collection agent, the change recording system, the performance monitoring system and the analysis module, Baggott teaches a server evaluation engine that includes a processor that can perform the functions of each of these elements (Fig. 2, server 201; Fig. 8, processor 802, instruction 903; pars. 28, 102, 103).
With regard to a data collection agent configured to collect original data including at least inventory data associated with components and operation of at least a first managed computer system of the one or more managed computer systems; Baggott teaches using baseline data to determine a change (par. 36).
With regard to a change recording system configured to process said original data and determine changes associated with said first managed computer system and to record, in a first, managed data store associated with said first managed computer system, change records corresponding to said determined changes wherein each of said change records includes respective time-stamp indicating when each change was determined; Baggott teaches receiving an indication that a change has occurred in a machine or service using an event log, which would include time stamps (pars. 20, 21, 32; Fig. 1, change indications 102, 103, 104).
With regard to a performance monitoring system configured to determine performance values for at least one performance metric associated with said first managed computer system for predetermined times and associating with each said performance value a respective performance time-stamp; Baggott teaches analyzing performance before the change and after the change (par. 34).
With regard to an analysis module configured to process said change records and further configured to (i) allow a user to select one of said changes wherein the selected change has an associated change time-stamp; Baggott teaches analyzing performance before and after a change, which requires that a change be selected (par. 34).
With regard to the analysis module configured to (ii) identify first performance values from said plurality of performance values that have performance time-stamps that are prior in time to said change time-stamp and associating said first performance values with a before-change category; and (iii) identify second performance values from said plurality of performance values that have performance time-stamps that are later in time relative to said change time-stamp and associating said second performance values with an after-change category; Baggott teaches measuring performance before and after a change for comparison (pars. 34-36).
With regard to the analysis module to (iv) generate an output comprising said first and second performance values; Baggott teaches transmitting the evaluation result (par. 41).
Baggott does not teach that, in the output, said first performance values associated with the before-change category are distinguished from said second performance values associated with said after-change category, to thereby allow the user to determine said performance impact of said selected change using the output. Ozaki teaches a displaying a graph of performance that includes the performance before and after a change and that indicates when the change occurred (pars. 72-75; Figs. 19A-C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the change evaluation, as taught by Baggott, to include a graph showing performance before and after a change, as taught by Ozaki, because then the user would have been provided with data that was used to determine the evaluation result, and the user would have been able to confirm the evaluation results and evaluate the change independent of the change evaluation system.
Claim 23
Baggott does not teach that the output is an output type selected from one of a tabular format and a common timeline format. Ozaki teaches a displaying a graph of performance that includes the performance before and after a change and that indicates when the change occurred (pars. 72-75; Figs. 19A-C). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the change evaluation, as taught by Baggott, to include a graph showing performance before and after a change, as taught by Ozaki, because then the user would have been provided with data that was used to determine the evaluation result, and the user would have been able to confirm the evaluation results and evaluate the change independent of the change evaluation system.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Baggott in view of Ozaki as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication 2015/0229546 to Somaiya et al. (Somaiya).
Claim 6
Baggott and Ozaki teach all the limitations of claim 5 upon which claim 6 depends. Baggott and Ozaki do not teach selecting display criteria for the first and second line segments so as to be distinguishable by virtue of at least one of a color, a line type, a line thickness, and an inclusion of one or more symbols within at least one of the first and second line segments. Somaiya teaches distinguishing data in a graph using different colors for the lines and different shapes (Fig. 8, pars. 63-65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the change evaluation combination, as taught by Baggott and Ozaki, to include using colors and shapes to distinguish data in a graph, because then it would have been easier for an user to evaluate the data.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 7-9, 11-15 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as claiming the same invention as that of claims 1, 7, 8 and 14-18, respectively of prior U.S. Patent No. 11,860,757. This is a statutory double patenting rejection.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-6, 10, 16 and 18-23 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 10-12, 14 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,860,757. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the limitations of the claims in the present application are found in the claim of the ‘757 patent. The claims of the current application correspond to the claims of the ‘757 patent as shown in the following table.
Claims in present application
US 11,860,757 corresponding claim
1
1
2
2
3
5
4
6
5
3
6
4
10
14
16
19
18
10
19
11
20
12
21
13
22
10
23
2
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US Patent Application Publication 2022/0138068 to Dal Zotto teaches change impact estimations.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANUEL L BARBEE whose telephone number is (571)272-2212. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 9-5:30..
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, Shelby A Turner can be reached on 571-272-6334. 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.
/MANUEL L BARBEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857