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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-20 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated May 29, 2025. In the Response, submitted on September 25, 2025, claims 1-2, 8-9, 11, 13 and 15 were amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection. Appropriate correction is required.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Remarks on Page 6 of the Response, regarding the previous claim objections and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered, and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims.
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 6-9 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered, but are not found persuasive.
On Pages 6-7 of the Response, in discussing Step 2A, Prong 1, Applicant states “The Examiner’s rejection improperly disregards concrete claim limitations that must be performed by a computer system and fails to consider the claim as a whole”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the previous Non-Final Rejection, explicitly stated the claim language that recited the abstract idea limitations. Without providing specific language that “Examiner’s rejection improperly disregards”, it is unclear what language was allegedly disregarded.
On Page 7 of the Response, Applicant states “the claims recite specific, technical improvements to how an application server is configured to host an application program for displaying at least one workflow tool, the application program having a user interface module for providing access to the workflow tool through the user interface module and how a forms module in communication with the workflow module is configured to permit the automated or manual filling of one or more forms related to the at least one construction project. These operations require substantial computing power, access to memory, and algorithmic processing, and thus are necessarily rooted in computer technology. The Federal Circuit has found similar claims not directed to abstract ideas in cases such as McRO…where the court held that rules-based automation of tasks tied to specific technical implementation is not abstract, particularly where such automation goes beyond merely organizing existing information into a new form or carrying out a fundamental economic practice…Accordingly, the claim is not directed to a judicial exception…because it recites a practical application that improves a technological process and cannot be performed outside of a computing environment.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes nothing in the claims (or the specification) discloses a technical improvement in how an application server is configured to host an application program - beyond the claim merely reciting that the application server is “configured to host” the application program; and nothing in the claims (or the specification) discloses a technical improvement in the application program itself. Similarly, nothing in the claims (or the specification) discloses a technical improvement in how a forms module in communication with the workflow module is configured to permit the automated or manual filling of one or more forms related to the at least one construction project – beyond the claim merely reciting that the forms module in communication with the workflow module “permits” automated or manual filling of one or more forms. Furthermore, Paras. 49 and 59 of Applicant’s specification describe the application instructions executing on a server, and an application program comprising modules at a high-level of generality, such that the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Examiner further disagrees that the claims are similar to McRO. In McRO, the claimed invention was improving computer animation through the use of specific rules, rather than human artists, to set morph weights (relating to facial expressions as an animated character speaks) and transition parameters between phonemes (relating to sounds made when speaking). As explained in the specification, human artists did not use the claimed rules, and instead relied on subjective determinations to set the morph weights and manipulate the animated face to match pronounced phonemes. The McRO court thus relied on the specification's explanation of how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. Here, nothing in the claims or specification explains how the claimed limitations enable the automation of specific construction management tracking and documentation tasks that previously could not be automated such that the claims are an alleged improvement in computer tracking and document automation instead of an abstract idea. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 8 of the Response, Applicant alleges “Claims 1 and 11 recite elements demonstrating that the claims, as a whole, integrate the subject matter into a practical application amounting to significantly more than merely an abstract idea. The subject matter of claims 1 and 11 amount to far more than mere instructions to apply an abstract idea via a generic computer component or extra-solution activity. For example, ‘triggering end-to-end tracking of project activities across departments; synchronizing with external business software tools including accounting, ERP, and payment systems; and enforcing approval and communication layers for compliance with construction project safety and documentation requirements, thereby integrating digital workflow automation into a practical construction management application wherein the system further generates construction-specific compliance artifacts including safety reports, inspection logs, and payment certifications that are synchronized in real time with external ERP and accounting systems’ amount to more than implementing an abstract idea on a computer or merely using a computer to perform an abstract idea.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that “‘triggering end-to-end tracking of project activities across departments”, “enforcing approval and communication layers for compliance with construction project safety and documentation requirement”, and “wherein the system further generates construction-specific compliance artifacts including safety reports, inspection logs, and payment certifications” are limitations that merely recite the abstract idea. Furthermore, “synchronizing with external business software tools including accounting, ERP, and payment systems” and “synchronized in real time with external ERP and accounting systems” are limitations that are recited at high-level of generality, such that synchronizing with external business software tools amounts to “apply it.” Lastly, Examiner notes that “thereby integrating digital workflow automation into a practical construction management application” is language that recites an intended use/result.
On Page 9 of the Response, Applicant further argues “In particular, claims 1 and 11 do more than organize workflow data but rather define end-to-end tracking, compliance enforcement, and integration with ERP/payment systems. In other words, claims 1 and 11 clearly recite elements that preclude the system or method from being performed or read into the mind of an individual. By requiring execution of construction- specific tasks (safety compliance, cross-system synchronization, automated approvals), the claim avoids being 'mere instructions to apply' an abstract idea. Thus, claims 1 and 11 are incorporated into a practical application amounting to significantly more than merely an abstract idea or methods of organizing human activity."
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and as discussed above, “end-to-end tracking, compliance enforcement” are limitations that recite the abstract idea, and “integration with ERP/payment systems” is recited at such a high-level of generality, that it amounts to “apply it.” Lastly, Examiner notes the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., execution of construction-specific tasks (safety compliance, cross-system synchronization, automated approvals)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
On Page 9 of the Response, Applicant further argues “Examiner has not considered the claims in light of the specification… and the rejection is in error. The Examiner must examine the claims as a whole, examine the specification as a whole, and understand and identify the claimed advancement over the art. The language of the claims is to be considered based on an evaluation of the specification. If the focus of the claim is on a technological improvement (and not directed to an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon), the claim is patent-eligible subject matter, and there is no need to evaluate step two of the Alice test…The amended claims emphasize improvements to computer functionality in the construction domain, solving technical problems in digitization and interoperability, consistent with Enfish, DDR Holdings, and USPTO guidance….the subject matter of claims 1 and 11 provides an improvement in technology in the field of construction management tracking, and the subject matter of claims 1 and 11 is not well known, routine, or conventional. Withdrawal of the rejection under §101 is respectfully requested.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees, and notes Applicants own specification (e.g., Para. 24) explains “In general, the embodiments provided herein relate to a system and method for allowing construction-related businesses to create, organize, manage and otherwise interact with workflows and processes”, and that nothing in claims or specification recite “improvements to computer functionality” or “solv[e] technical problems in digitization and interoperability” or “provide[] an improvement in technology” beyond the recitation of generic computer components at a high-level of generality, such that the claimed additional elements amount to “apply it.” Thus, Applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant’s Remarks on Pages 10-11 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered, and are found persuasive in view of the amended claims. However, Examiner notes that the amended claims are subject to the below new matter rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 limitations are: user interface module, workflow module, and forms module introduced in independent claims 1 and 11; and a communication module introduced in claims 2 and 15.
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 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 1-20 are 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.
Claims 1 and 11 recite “enforcing approval and communication layers for compliance with construction project safety and documentation requirements…wherein the system further generates construction-specific compliance artifacts including safety reports, inspection logs, and payment certifications that are synchronized in real time with external ERP and accounting systems”. Examiner notes the above language is new matter.
Examiner initially notes that while there is no haec verba requirement, newly added claim limitations must be supported in the specification through express, implicitly, or inherent disclosure (MPEP 2183). Further, when an explicit limitation in a claim "is not present in the written description whose benefit is sought it must be shown that a person of ordinary skilled would have understood, at the time the patent application was filed, that the description requires the limitation," Hyatt v. Boone, 146 F.3d 1348,1353, 47 USPQ2d 1128, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1998), MPEP 2163.
Here, Paragraph [0024] of the Specification provides support for “Unique approval and communication layers for all their documentation and management functions may be configured while allowing for the separation of workflows/processes across different customers and/or projects to ensure that the correct processes are followed for each customer and/or project”, but is silent on the enforcing approval and communication layers for compliance with construction project safety and documentation requirements. Furthermore, the specification is completely silent regarding generating “construction-specific compliance artifacts including safety reports, inspection logs, and payment certifications” and that those artifacts “are synchronized in real time with external ERP and accounting systems”. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-20 are directed to a system comprising at least one user computing device (i.e., a machine). Therefore, claims 1-20 all fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Claim 1 recites a series of functions of: permitting the manipulation and presentation of workflow data related to at least one construction project; permitting the manual filling of one or more forms related to the at least one construction project, executing construction-specific tasks by: triggering end-to-end tracking of project activities across departments; synchronizing with accounting, ERP, and payment systems; and enforcing approval and communication layers for compliance with construction project safety and documentation requirements, wherein the system further generates construction-specific compliance artifacts including safety reports, inspection logs, and payment certifications that are synchronized with external ERP and accounting systems.
Claim 11 recite a series of functions of: permitting the manipulation and presentation of workflow data related to at least one construction project, and for defining a plurality of steps associated with the at least one construction project; and permitting the manual filling of one or more forms related to the at least one construction project, permitting the approval of one or more documents, executing construction-specific tasks by: triggering end-to-end tracking of project activities across departments; synchronizing with accounting, ERP, and payment systems; and enforcing approval and communication layers for compliance with construction project safety and documentation requirements, wherein the system further generates construction-specific compliance artifacts including safety reports, inspection logs, and payment certifications that are synchronized with external ERP and accounting systems.
The claims as a whole recite a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations recited above, under broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a certain method of organizing human activity, e.g., commercial interactions, (such as processing insurance claims for a covered loss or policy event under an insurance policy (i.e., an agreement in the form of a contract), Accenture Global Services GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc.). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1 and 11 as a whole amount to: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it”.
The claims recite the additional elements of: (i) at least one computing device in operable connection with a network (claims 1 and 11); (ii) an application server in operable communication with the network, the application server configured to host an application program for displaying at least one workflow tool, the application program having a user interface module for providing access to the workflow tool through the user interface module (claims 1 and 11); (iii) a workflow module (claims 1 and 11) for executing tasks; (iv) a forms module for automated filling of data and for executing tasks (claims 1 and 11), (v) synchronizing with external business software tools (claims 1 and 11), (vi) integrating digital workflow automation into a practical construction management application (which is recited as a result/intended use) (claims 1 and 11), and (vii) real-time data synchronization (claims 1 and 11).
The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements listed above merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination (e.g., Figs. 1 and 2) do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it”. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract, or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)) does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are ineligible.
Dependent claims 8-9 and 12-13 further recite details which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 1 and 11, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 8-9 and 12-13 are also ineligible.
Claims 2 and 15 add the additional elements of a communication module configured to sync one or more business software tools. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 3 and 16 add the additional elements wherein the business software tools include at least one of the following: an accounting tool, a payment processing tool, and a financial management workflow tool. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 4 and 17 add the additional elements wherein the business software tools include at least one of the following: an accounting tool, a payment processing tool, and a financial management workflow tool. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claims 5 and 18 further describe allowing a user to establish a workflow, the workflow corresponding to one or more construction projects, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claims add the additional element of a user interface. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claims do not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Dependent 6-7 and 19-20 further recite details which merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitiaitions. For these reasons, as described above with respect to claims 5 and 18, these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 6-7 and 19-20 are also ineligible.
Claim 10 further describes wherein the workflow module provides one or more flow diagrams or one or more Kanban boards to allow the user to design processes for tracking one or more aspects of a construction project, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claims add the additional element of a digitized and automated process. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Claim 14 further describes wherein data is synced between a user and one or more third-parties, and thus further describes the abstract idea. The claim add the additional elements of a user database and one or more third-party platforms. The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The claim does not include limitations sufficient, either alone or in combination, to amount to significantly more than the claimed abstract idea because the aforementioned additional elements merely serve as generic computer components on which the abstract idea is implemented. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Allowable over Prior Art
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art but subject to the above new matter rejection under 35 U.S.C.112(a), and subject matter eligibility rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The closet prior art for claims 1 and 11 include:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0278662 to Reed et al. (hereinafter “Reed”). Reed discloses a system and method for collaboratively planning construction projects through an interactive program. The application may first define an appropriate milestone or other target date for a particular project. The tasks required to achieve this milestone often include soft project tasks permitting, licensure, sub-contractor agreements, architecture planning, site acquisition, and so forth (i.e., defining a plurality of steps associated with the at least one construction project ).)
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0103894 to Kim et al. (hereinafter “Kim”). Kim discloses software technology that functions to both facilitate a prequalification process for construction projects and to facilitate subsequent management of a construction project. In one aspect, the disclosed prequalification software tool may provide an interface through which a user associated with the GC can create prequalification forms for obtaining prequalification information from subcontractors, where each prequalification form can be tailored for a particular type of construction project.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2014/0019217 to Eliscu (hereinafter “Eliscu”). Eliscu discloses synchronization of accounting and ERP data with a universal payment module-enabled system.
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2008/0281735 to Allin et al. (hereinafter “Allin”). Allin discloses inputting inspection information, such as percent complete information, which a construction payment management system can use to generate and/or verify invoices and payment amounts.
U.S. Patent No. 5,950,206 to Krause (hereinafter “Krause”). Krause discloses searching for and tracking construction projects includes a mass data storage device for storing as databases project information and document information related to construction projects.
Prior Art
The following is prior art not cited but considered relevant:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0066789
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0086803
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0152038
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0349812
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0326793
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rupangini Singh whose telephone number is (571)270-0192. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 9:30 AM - 6:30 PM.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached on 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUPANGINI SINGH/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628