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 Claims
This action is a non-final rejection
Claims 19, 21-28, 30-37 are pending
Claims 20, 29 were cancelled
Claims 19, 21, 28, 30, 37 were amended
Claims 21, 30 are rejected under 35 USC § 112
Claims 19, 21-28, 30-37 are rejected under 35 USC § 101
Priority
Acknowledgement is made of Applicant’s claim for a domestic priority date of 3-19-2018
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.
Dependent claims 21, 30 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.
Regarding claims 21, 30:
storing, in the records datastore, a third electronic trade record received from a third computer device using the network interface;
determining that the third electronic trade record has a third electronic message format selected from among the plurality of different electronic message formats;
performing, using the matching engine of the computerized platform, the sequential multi-step matching process, the sequential multi-step matching process comprising:
a fourth step comprising determining, using the matching engine, and based on the third electronic message format, a second subset of the second electronic trade records that potentially match the third electronic trade record, wherein determining the second subset of the second electronic trade records comprises:
for each of the second electronic trade records, determining that the second electronic trade record has a respective second electronic message format selected from among the plurality of different electronic message formats, and identifying, as the subset of the second electronic trade records, each of the second electronic trade records having a respective second electronic trade record format having the same name as the name of third electronic message format;
a fifth step comprising comparing, using the matching engine, the third electronic trade record to the second subset of the second electronic trade records, and refraining from comparing the third electronic trade record to the second electronic trade records that are not included in the second subset of the subset of the second electronic trade records;
a sixth step comprising determining, using the matching engine and based on the comparison, that none of the second electronic trade records of the second subset of the second electronic trade records matches the third electronic trade record, wherein determining that none of the second electronic trade records of the subset of the second electronic trade records matches the third electronic trade record comprises:
determining that the third electronic message format comprises an indication of a plurality of second matching fields,
determining that none of the second electronic trade records of the subset of the second electronic trade records comprises the plurality of second matching fields; and
responsive to determining that that none of the second electronic trade records of the second subset of second electronic trade records matches the first electronic trade record, maintaining the third electronic trade record in the records datastore.
Dependent claims 21 and 30 lack support for the combination of the subject matter of the dependent claim which includes the subject matter of the respective independent claims 19 and 28. The specification doesn't appear to disclose the combination of both subject matters (the six steps) in a single embodiment. Specifically, the original disclosure lacks an algorithm or detailed flowchart for the all sixth seps in a single embodiment.
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 19, 21-28, 30-37 are not patent eligible because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Analysis
First, claims are directed to one or more of the following statutory categories: a process, a machine, a manufacture, and a composition of matter. Regarding claims 19, 21-28, 30-37 the claims recite an abstract idea of “enabling of custom message formats in trading”.
Independent Claims 19, 28 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 based on the following analysis.
-Step 1 (Do the claims fall within a statutory category? YES): claims 19, 28 and 37 recite a system, method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoded with computer program instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations.
-Step 2A Prong One (Does the claim fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas?: YES): each of the .. message formats comprises:
storing, ... a plurality of different ..message formats, wherein each of the ... message formats comprises:
an indication of a name of the .. message format
a plurality of fields, a plurality of field names identifying the plurality of fields, and an indication a plurality of matching fields corresponding to the .. message format;
storing, .., a first .. trade record received ..;
storing, .., a plurality of second .. trade records received ..;
determining that the first .. trade format has a first .. message format selected from among the plurality of different .. message formats;
performing, .., a sequential multi-step matching process, the sequential multi-step matching process comprising:
a first step comprising determining, .., and based on the first .. message format, a subset of the second .. trade records, that potentially match the first .. trade record, wherein determining the subset of the second ..trade records comprises:
for each of the second .. trade records, determining that the second .. trade record has a respective second .. message format selected from among the plurality of different .. message formats, and identifying, as the subset of the second .. trade records, each of the second .. trade records having a respectively second .. message format having the same name as the name of first .. message format
a second step comprising comparing, .., the first ..trade record to the subset of the second .. trade records, and refraining from comparing the first .. trade record to the second .. trade records that are not included in the subset of the subset of the second .. trade records .., relative to comparing the first .. trade record to each of the second ..;
a third step comprising determining, .. and based on the comparison, that one of the second .. trade records of the subset of the second .. trade records matches the first .. trade record; wherein determining that one of the second .. trade records of the subset of the second .. trade records matches the first .. trade record comprises ;
determining that the first .. message format comprises an indication of a plurality of first matching fields,
determining that each of the second .. trade records of the subset of the second .. trade records comprises the plurality of first matching fields, and comparing values of the plurality of first matching fields of the second .. trade records to corresponding fields of the first .. trade record; and
responsive to determining that that one of the second .. trade records of the subset of second .. trade records matches the first ... trade record:
transmitting.. confirmation message .. from which the matching second .. trade record was received, and deleting the matching second electronic trade record ...
belong to the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity under fundamental economic principles or practices as it recites: “enabling of custom message formats in trading”. (refer to MPP 2106.04(a)(2)). Accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea.
-Step 2A Prong Two (Are there additional elements in the claim that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea? NO).
Claims 19, 28 and 37 recite:
a relational or an object database of the format datastore;
electronic message formats;
records datastore,
first electronic trade record;
first electronic message format;
first computer device
network interface;
second electronic trade record;
second electronic message format;
plurality electronic message formats
one or more respective second computer devices;
matching engine;
an electronic confirmation message;
computerized platform
reduce an expenditure of processing power by the matching engine.
Claim 19 recites:
a plurality of computerized datastores;
a format datastore;
a records datastore;
a computerized platform;
a network interface configured to be coupled to one or more computerized networks, one or more processors, and one or more a non-transitory computer-readable media, the non-transitory computer-readable media including computer instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations;
Claim 37 recites:
One or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with computer program instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations;
Amounting to additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
-Step 2B (Does the additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept?: NO. As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two,
Claims 19, 28 and 37 recite:
a relational or an object database of the format datastore;
electronic message formats;
records datastore,
first electronic trade record;
first electronic message format;
first computer device
network interface;
second electronic trade record;
second electronic message format;
plurality electronic message formats;
one or more respective second computer devices;
matching engine;
an electronic confirmation message;
computerized platform
reduce an expenditure of processing power by the matching engine
Claim 19 recites:
a plurality of computerized datastores;
a format datastore;
a records datastore;
a computerized platform;
a network interface configured to be coupled to one or more computerized networks, one or more processors, and one or more a non-transitory computer-readable media, the non-transitory computer-readable media including computer instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations;
Claim 37 recites:
One or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with computer program instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations.
Amount to additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)) Accordingly, even in combination the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and hence the claim is ineligible.
Dependent Claims:
Step 2A Prong One: The following dependent claims recite additional limitations that further define the abstract idea of “enabling of custom message formats in trading”. These claim limitations include:
Claims 20 & 29: wherein (i) comparing the first … trade record to the subset of the second … trade records, and (ii) refraining from comparing the first …trade record to the second … trade records that are not included in the subset of the subset of the second … trade records reduces an amount of processing power consumed .. relative to comparing the first trade record to each of the second trade records;
Claims 21 & 30:
storing, a third trade record received;
determining that the third …trade record has a third … message format selected from among the plurality of different … message formats;
determining, …, and based on the third … message format, a second subset of the second … trade records, wherein determining the second subset of the second … trade records comprises:
determining that the third … message format comprises an indication of a plurality of second matching fields; and
determining that each of the second … trade records of the second subset of the second … trade records comprises the plurality of third matching fields;
comparing, …, the third … trade record to the second subset of the second … trade records, and refraining from comparing the third .. trade record to the second .. trade records that are not included in the second subset of the subset of the second .. trade records;
determining, .. and based on the comparison, that none of the second .. trade records of the second subset of the second .. trade records matches the first .. trade record; and
responsive to determining that that none of the second .. trade records of the second subset of second .. trade records matches the first .. trade record, maintaining the third .. trade record;
Claims 22 and 31: wherein the first .. message format corresponds to transactions for a first commodity, and wherein a second .. message format of the plurality of .. message formats corresponds to transactions for a second commodity different from the first commodity;
Claims 23 and 32: wherein each of the .. message formats comprises one or more validation rules associated with at least some of the plurality of fields of that .. message format;
Claims 24 and 33: wherein the one or more validation rules comprises a first rule specifying that a value of a particular field of the plurality of fields be greater than a threshold number
Claims 25 and 34: wherein determining that one of the second .. trade records of the subset of the second .. trade records matches the first .. trade record comprises:
determining that a value of one of the plurality of fields of the first .. trade record matches a value of a corresponding one of the plurality of matching fields of the second .. trade record;
Claims 26 and 35: wherein the confirmation message is stored
Claims 27 and 36: wherein the first trade record and the plurality of second electronic trade records are received and wherein the confirmation message is transmitted
Step 2A Prong Two (Are there additional elements in the claim that imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea? NO). The following dependent claims recite additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claims as a whole do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims include:
Claims 20 and 29:
First electronic trade record;
Second electronic trade record
the system;
Claims 21 and 30:
records datastore,
third electronic trade record;
third electronic message format;
third computer device
network interface;
second electronic trade record;
electronic message formats;
matching engine;
first electronic trade record
records datastore
Claims 22 and 31:
First electronic message format;
Second electronic message format
Plurality electronic message formats
Claims 23 and 32:
electronic message format;
Claims 25 and 34:
First electronic trade record;
Second electronic trade records
Claims 26 and 35:
plurality of computerized datastores comprises a confirmation datastore,
electronic confirmation message;
Claims 27 and 36:
first electronic trade record
plurality of second electronic trade records
at least one of a Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) protocol, a MQ Series protocol, or a Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) protocol;
electronic confirmation message.
Step 2B (Does the additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept?: NO). As discussed previously with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the following dependent claims recite additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, even in combination the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept (significantly more than the abstract idea) and hence the claim is ineligible. The claims include:
Claims 20 and 29:
First electronic trade record;
Second electronic trade record
the system;
Claims 21 and 30:
records datastore,
third electronic trade record;
third electronic message format;
third computer device
network interface;
second electronic trade record;
electronic message formats;
matching engine;
first electronic trade record
records datastore
Claims 22 and 31:
First electronic message format;
Second electronic message format
Plurality electronic message format
Claims 23 and 32:
electronic message formats;
Claims 25 and 34:
First electronic trade record;
Second electronic trade records
Claims 26 and 35:
plurality of computerized datastores comprises a confirmation datastore,
electronic confirmation message;
Claims 27 and 36:
first electronic trade record
plurality of second electronic trade records
at least one of a Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) protocol, a MQ Series protocol, or a Hypertext Transport Protocol (HTTP) protocol;
electronic confirmation message;
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure, and is listed in the attached form PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited). Unless expressly noted otherwise by the Examiner, all documents listed on form PTO-892 are cited in their entirety.
Penney (US 20040039689 A1) - Method And Apparatus For Managing Financial Transactions Involving Multiple Counterparties And Processing Data Pertaining Thereto – teaches: managing financial transactions for multiple counterparties that allows traders, market makers, dealers, and prime brokers to negotiate with multiple liquidity providers simultaneously, and to receive and respond to transaction processing directives and settlement instructions in real time. The invention, which may be accessed over an interconnected data communications network, such as the Internet, using a standard Web browser, as well as via a proprietary user interface, automatically provides customers, traders, executing banks, funding banks, prime brokers and liquidity providers with up-to-date settlement and allocation details for previously-executed financial transactions as they are received.
Bradock (US 4412287 A1) - Automated Stock Exchange – teaches: An automated stock exchange in which a computer matches buy and sell orders for a plurality of stocks. An open board simultaneous trading environment is simulated through two stages. The first stage is an order accumulation period which is continuously in operation except for one stock in the second stage. The second stage is an extremely rapid sequential call through. All orders for a given stock are available to customers during the first stage. During the second stage market orders are matched with market orders, then market orders are traded against limit orders as the trading price changes within controlled ranges. The system will also process stop orders, and other specialized transactions.
Winbom et.al (US 20110264577 A1) - SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR RAPIDLY CALCULATING RISK IN AN ELECTRONIC TRADING EXCHANGE – teaches: Latency in electronic trading is dramatically reduced by delaying trade order validation until a match or trade can potentially occur. If a new order does not meet the matching criteria for an existing order in an order book, then the new order is stored in the order book without performing validation processing in a first example embodiment. In a second example embodiment, the order is stored in the order book before validation has completed. But if a new order meets matching criteria for an existing order stored in an order book, then order validation processing is performed for both of the matching orders. Once the order validation processing is successfully completed for both of the matching orders, then the trade is executed. Order validation processing includes both risk calculations and account validations, (e.g., checking to ensure the party has the necessary money or collateral if a buyer or is the owner if a seller). If the order validation processing is not successfully completed for both of the matching orders, then the trade is rejected.
Feilbogen et.al (US 20020023045 A1) - Method And System For Initiating And Clearing Trades – teaches: facilitating the exchange of data between one or more price providers and customers who communicate with the price providers through various portals, each of which may use it own data format. In transmitting data from customer to price provider, the data output from each portal is normalized to a standardized format and then transmitted to the appropriate price provider(s) where the data exchanged with the various portals can be viewed by a trader at a single display or can be exchanged with an automated pricing engine. The customer may also be provided with a universal Web site at which a customer may access any of the portals' Web sites to simplify access for the customer as well.
Abushaban (US 20060106708 A1) – System And Method For Processing Matched Trades - teaches: A system for reporting and processing a matched trade from a market in response to orders submitted by traders includes a management subsystem for developing configuration data regarding products that are to be traded and traders who are authorized to trade. The system further includes a trade processing subsystem for receiving first data representing the matched trade and which processes the first data to create second data representing a processed trade wherein the second data are transmitted to a first recipient and a reporting subsystem for receiving market information and which processes the market information and transmits the processed market information to a second recipient.
Evans (US 20020128954 A1) - Electronic Trade Confirmation System And Method – teaches: A computer and network-based system and method for automatically and securely converting, distributing, storing and retrieving trade confirmation and statement data as electronic documents on the Internet for use by account holders and brokerage employees and for displaying the electronic documents in a format that resembles printed originals. The system adapts existing business printing data files or uses independent non-print data feeds to support the electronic documents. The system further operates to detect all documents delivered into its database and then automatically notify enrolled account holders via e-mail of the availability of such documents. Further, the system tests for successful delivery of the e-mail, and failure of delivery generates a customer notification and document delivery by other means. The system permits account holders and brokerage employees to search and retrieve new and archived electronic trade-related documents using database keys and date ranges. The system further provides flexible administration routines for use by authorized brokerage employees in order to designate levels of access for customer service and brokerage users, as well as ensuring that only authorized account holders can access their documents via encrypted authentication methods. The system includes routines having selection criteria for on-demand display, printing and downloading of management reports and individual electronic documents. The system design, functions and process are based upon regulatory guidelines for the securities industry regarding consumer notification, protection and informed consent, particularly with respect to acceptance of electronic documents in lieu of traditional print and mail delivery. Consumers have the ability to rescind or reinstate their consent at will to delivery of their trade confirmations and statements in electronic form
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5-27-2025, have been fully considered but not found
persuasive.
Applicant amended independent claims 19, 28, 37 and dependent claims 21, 30 as posted in the above analysis with additions underlined and deletions as .
In response to applicant's arguments regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C § 112.
The Applicant successfully made amendments to address each of the issues raised by the Office with respect to the claims. As a result the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph is withdrawn
In response to applicant's arguments regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C § 101.
Several steps are taken in the analysis as to whether an invention is rejected under 101. The first step is to determine if the claim falls within a statutory category. In this case it does for claims 19, 28 and 37 since the claims recite respectively a system, method and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium encoded with computer program instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations.
The second step under 2A prong one is to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, which would be the case if the invention can be grouped as either: a) mathematical concepts; (b) mental processes; or (c) certain methods of organizing human activity (encompassing (i) fundamental economic principles, (ii) commercial or legal interactions or (iii) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people). The current invention is classified as an abstract idea since it may be grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity under fundamental economic principles or practices as it recites: “enabling of custom message formats in trading”.
The third step under 2A Prong Two is to determine if additional elements in the claim imposes a meaningful limit on the abstract idea in order to integrate it into a practical idea. The current invention does not represent a practical idea since the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
the fourth step under 2B is to determine if additional elements of the claim provide an inventive concept. An invention may be classified as an inventive concept if a computer-implemented processes is determined to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus eligible), where generic computer components are able in combination to perform functions that are not merely generic, and non-conventional even if generic computer operations on a generic computing device is used to implement the abstract idea. The current invention does not represent an inventive concept since the additional elements amount to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong ONE
The Applicant offers no arguments against the independent claims 19, 28 and 37 belonging to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong TWO
The Applicant argues that independent claims 19, 28, 37 as amended recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For instance, as amended, claim 19 recites a computerized technique for selectively processing and deleting trade records from one or more datastores, at least in part by using a matching engine of a computerized platform to perform a sequential multi-step matching process. The features of the first through third step improve the performance and efficiency of the system, for instance, by reducing the computational resources required to store trade records on the system's datastores. Further, the features recited also enable the system to perform operations that previously could not be performed by computer systems, such as "process[ing] records that were previously unprocessable. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 19, 28 and 37 and their respective dependent claims should be withdrawn, and the claims should be allowed.
The Examiner disagrees since the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claim must be evaluated to ensure that the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement, which is not evident in the recitation of claims 19, 28 or 37. The Examiner restates that claims 19, 28 & 37 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Neither claim 19, 28 or 37 recite additional elements that impose a meaningful limit on the abstract idea:
Claims 19, 28 and 37 recite:
a relational or an object database of the format datastore;
electronic message formats;
records datastore,
first electronic trade record;
first electronic message format;
first computer device
network interface;
second electronic trade record;
second electronic message format;
plurality electronic message formats
one or more respective second computer devices;
matching engine;
an electronic confirmation message;
computerized platform
reduce an expenditure of processing power by the matching engine.
Claim 19 recites:
a plurality of computerized datastores;
a format datastore;
a records datastore;
a computerized platform;
a network interface configured to be coupled to one or more computerized networks, one or more processors, and one or more a non-transitory computer-readable media, the non-transitory computer-readable media including computer instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes the one or more processors to perform operations;
Claim 37 recites:
One or more non-transitory computer storage media encoded with computer program instructions that when executed by one or more processors cause the one or more processors to perform operations
Amounting to additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. (refer to MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
In order to integrate the abstract idea into a practical idea the Applicant could demonstrate at least one of the conditions enumerated below applies:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The Applicant has not demonstrated any of the above listed conditions. As a result the Examiner restates the rejection of the invention under 35 USC §101.
In response to applicant's arguments regarding claim rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103.
Based on the Applicant’s amendments the cited references that include Penney, Penney, Braddock, Winbom, Feilbogen, Axilrod, and Tupper, were not able to render independent claims 19, 28 and 37 obvious, either individually or in any combination. No other reference could be found to combine with the cited references that would render the claims of the invention obvious. As a result the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection is withdrawn.
For reasons of record and as set forth above, the examiner maintains the rejection of claims 19, 21-28, 30-37 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly more, and thereby being directed to non-statutory subject matter under 35 USC §101. In addition claims 21, 30 are rejected under 35 USC §112 based failing to comply with the written description requirement. In reaching this decision, the Examiner considered all evidence presented and all arguments
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 PIERRE L MACCAGNO whose telephone number is (571)270-5408. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 to 5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571)270-1813. 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.
/PIERRE L MACCAGNO/Examiner, Art Unit 3687
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687