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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS) filed on 11/22/2023 and 07/12/2024 has been acknowledged
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for priority. The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. PCT/JP2021/020662, filed on 05/31/2021.
Status of Application
Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are pending.
Claims 1 9, and 10 are the independent claims.
This Final Office Action is in response to the “Amendments and Remarks” received on 10/10/2025.
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.
Claim 6 is 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.
Claim 6 is dependent on claim 3. However, claim 3 does not exist. It is unclear which claim 6 is dependent on. For examination purposes, claim 6 will be dependent on claim 1.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
101 Analysis – Step 1
Claim 1 is directed to an apparatus (device). Therefore, Claim 1 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 9 is directed to a process (method). Therefore, Claim 9 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Claim 10 is directed to a product (medium). Therefore, Claim 10 is within at least one of the four statutory categories.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong I
Regarding Prong I of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether they recite subject matter that falls within one of the follow groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Claims 1, 9 and 10 include limitations that recite an abstract idea (emphasized below) and Claim 1 will be used as a representative claim for the remainder of the 101 rejections.
Claim 1 recites: An information management device comprising:
a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the processor performing operations, the operations comprising:
receiving, via a network, report information from a terminal operated by a user
storing report information including details of a report associated with position information,
the details of the report indicating a dangerous driving situation and the position information including at least one of a dangerous driving occurrence range candidate and a dangerous driving occurrence range,
the dangerous driving occurrence range candidate indicating an approximate range of a position where the dangerous driving situation occurred and
the dangerous driving occurrence range indicating a range in which the dangerous driving occurrence range candidate has been identified;
receiving a search range via the network, the search range being entered into the terminal by the user by adjusting a range and a position that are superimposed and displayed on a map
searching for the stored report information including the position information in a search range as a search target to be searched;
causing the terminal to display the report information and a result of the search superimposed on the map.
The examiner submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitute a “mental process” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the human mind. Specifically, the “storing and searching” steps encompass a user to make remember and gather information. Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2A, Prong II
Regarding Prong II of the Step 2A analysis in the 2019 PEG, the claims are to be analyzed to determine whether the claim, as a whole, integrates the abstract into a practical application. As noted in the 2019 PEG, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted abstract idea are as follows (where the underlined portions are the “additional limitations” while the bolded portions continue to represent the “abstract idea”):
For the following reason(s), the examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of memory and processor, the examiner submits that these limitations are an attempt to generally link additional elements to a technological environment. In particular, the memory and processor are recited at a high level of generality and merely automates the storing and searching steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea. Additionally, the processor and memory are claimed generically and are operating in their ordinary capacity and do not use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The additional limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a processor and memory. Furthermore, the examiner submits that the recitations of details of the report is a mere definition that does not necessarily impose any meaningful limits on performing the steps in the human mind, as it only compares data where a user could in fact perform this mentally or using paper and pencil. In addition to that, the examiner submits that receiving report information, receiving a search range, and displaying a search result and report is insignificant extra-solution activities that merely use a memory and processor to perform the process. In particular, the steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering and transferring data for use in the determining step), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further, looking at the additional limitation(s) as an ordered combination or as a whole, the limitation(s) add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a memory and processor or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP § 2106.05). Accordingly, the additional limitation(s) do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
101 Analysis – Step 2B
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, representative independent Claim 1 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the device, the memory and processor amounts to nothing more than applying the exception using a generic computer component. Generally applying an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. And as discussed above, the additional limitations of outputting data, the examiner submits that these limitations are insignificant extra-solution activities.
Further, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The additional limitations of outputting data is well-understood, routine, and conventional activities because the background recites that the display from which the data is outputted is a conventional display. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner. Hence, Claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Further Claims 9 and 10 are not patent eligible for the same reasons.
Dependent Claims 2 and 4-8 when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea. The additional elements, if any, in the dependent claims are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as with Claims 1, 9, and 10.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US-20110320492-A1 (“Inghelbrecht”) in view of CN-103034715-A (“Zhang”) and further in view of US-20130317862-A1 to Fernandes et al. (“Fernandes”).
Regarding claim 1, Inghelbrecht teaches an information management device comprising (Inghelbrecht claim 1 “system”):
a memory (Inghelbrecht [0091] “RAM”); and at least one processor coupled to the memory (Inghelbrecht [0091] ref 100 “processor”),
the processor performing operations, the operations comprising (Inghelbrecht Fig. 1):
receiving, via a network, report information from a terminal operated by a user (Inghelbrecht [0012]);
storing the report information including details of a report (Inghelbrecht [0012] “The driving incident reports may be received on computing platforms associated with the users.”) associated with position information (Inghelbrecht [0015] “The driving incident reports may be authenticated using location information for reporting users and/or the vehicles...”),
the details of the report indicating a dangerous driving situation (Inghelbrecht [0029] “The report information may include a driving incident type (e.g., speeding, driving aggressively…).”) and the position information (Inghelbrecht [0029])
searching for the stored report information (Inghelbrecht [0055] “the driving incident reports may be searched”) including the position information in the search range as a search target to be searched (Inghelbrecht [0054] “search query … The search parameters may specify values for one or more of a subject vehicle … location information”);
Inghelbrecht does not teach that the position information includes at least one of a dangerous driving occurrence range candidate and a dangerous driving occurrence range, the dangerous driving occurrence range candidate indicating an approximate range of a position where the dangerous driving situation occurred and the dangerous driving occurrence range indicating a range in which the dangerous driving occurrence range candidate has been identified. However, Zhang teaches that the position information including at least one of a dangerous driving occurrence range candidate and a dangerous driving occurrence range, the dangerous driving occurrence range candidate indicating an approximate range of a position where the dangerous driving situation occurred and the dangerous driving occurrence range indicating a range in which the dangerous driving occurrence range candidate has been identified (Zhang Abstract “influence range … first time section … influence range … second time section … updating the influence range … in the traffic accident database.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the device of Inghelbrecht to incorporate the teachings of Zhang such that the position information includes at least one of a dangerous driving occurrence range candidate and a dangerous driving occurrence range, the dangerous driving occurrence range candidate indicating an approximate range of a position where the dangerous driving situation occurred and the dangerous driving occurrence range indicating a range in which the dangerous driving occurrence range candidate has been identified. Doing so would reduce the need for a highly accurate sensor and lower costs (Zhang [0006]).
Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang does not teach receiving a search range via the network, the search range being entered into the terminal by the user by adjusting a range and a position that are superimposed and displayed on a map and causing the terminal to display the report information and a result of the search superimposed on the map. However, Fernandes teaches receiving a search range via the network, the search range being entered into the terminal by the user by adjusting a range and a position that are superimposed and displayed on a map (Fernandes [0055] “a driver may interact with a map display to view safety events associated with a selected range of dates and/or times.”) and causing the terminal to display the report information and a result of the search superimposed on the map (Fernandes [0007]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the device of Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang to incorporate the teachings of Fernandes such that the device comprises receiving a search range via the network, the search range being entered into the terminal by the user by adjusting a range and a position that are superimposed and displayed on a map and causing the terminal to display the report information and a result of the search superimposed on the map. Doing so would allow for devices to capture high frequency information, identify safety events, and indicate if a vehicle is driving during times of relatively high risk (Fernandes [0003]).
With respect to Claim 9, all limitations have been examined with respect to the device in claim 1. The device taught/disclosed in claim 1 can clearly perform the method of claim 9 Therefore claim 9 is rejected under the same rationale.
With respect to claim 10, all limitations have been examined with respect to the device in claim 1. The device disclosed in claim 1 can clearly perform the computer-readable non-transitory recording medium of claim 10. Therefore claim 10 is rejected under the same rationale. The computer-readable non-transitory medium is disclosed in Fernandez (Fernandes [0008]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the device of Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang and Fernandes to incorporate the teachings of Fernandes such that there is a computer-readable non-transitory medium to execute the instructions. Doing so would allow a processor to carry out the functionalities described in the device/method (Fernandes [0008]).
Claim(s) 2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inghelbrecht in view of Zhang, further in view of Fernandes and CN-110837576-A (“Qiu”).
Regarding claim 2, Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang and Fernandes teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Inghelbrecht further discloses storing report information associated with time information (Inghelbrecht [0015] “The driving incident reports may be authenticated using ... time information included n the driving incident reports …”) and searching the stored report information (Inghelbrecht [0055] “the driving incident reports may be searched”) including both the position information and the time information are included in the search range as the search target to be searched (Inghelbrecht [0054] “search query … The search parameters may specify values for one or more of a subject vehicle … location information, date and/or time information”).
Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang and Fernandes does not teach that the time information includes at least one of a dangerous driving occurrence time zone candidate and a dangerous driving occurrence time zone, the dangerous driving occurrence time zone candidate indicating an approximate range of a time when the dangerous driving situation occurred and the dangerous driving occurrence time zone indicating a range in which the dangerous driving occurrence time zone candidate has been identified. However, Qui teaches that the time information includes at least one of a dangerous driving occurrence time zone candidate and a dangerous driving occurrence time zone, the dangerous driving occurrence time zone candidate indicating an approximate range of a time when the dangerous driving situation occurred and the dangerous driving occurrence time zone indicating a range in which the dangerous driving occurrence time zone candidate has been identified (Qiu Abstract “accident time selected according to the image collecting information in time interval”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the device of Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang and Fernandes to incorporate the teachings of Qiu such that the time information includes at least one of a dangerous driving occurrence time zone candidate and a dangerous driving occurrence time zone, the dangerous driving occurrence time zone candidate indicating an approximate range of a time when the dangerous driving situation occurred and the dangerous driving occurrence time zone indicating a range in which the dangerous driving occurrence time zone candidate has been identified. Doing so would allow for accidents to be identified and searched (Qiu Abstract).
Regarding claim 4, Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang, Fernandes, and Qiu teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Inghelbrecht further discloses that the operations further comprise: registering the report information from the user in a case where the position information and the time information in the report information from the user do not overlap the position information and the time information in the stored report information (Inghelbrecht [0037] – [0042] & [0045] “Responsive to the verified driving incident report being determined at operation 34 as being accurate, the verified driving incident may be marked at an operation 36 as an authenticated driving incident report.”).
Regarding claim 5, Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang, Fernandes, and Qiu teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 4. Inghelbrecht further discloses that the operations further comprise: in a case where ranges in which the position information and the time information overlap exceed a threshold, determining that the position information and the time information overlap (Inghelbrecht [0037] – [0042] “if the reporting user has previously reported the same subject vehicle in another driving incident report within a relatively short period of time … may be counted as a single verified driving incident report.”).
Regarding claim 6, Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang, Fernandes, and Qiu teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 1. Zhang further discloses that the operations further comprise: updating the dangerous driving occurrence range candidate and the dangerous driving occurrence time zone candidate of the report information to the dangerous driving occurrence range and the dangerous driving occurrence time zone (Zhang Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the device of Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang, Fernandes and Qiu to further incorporate the teachings of Zhang such that the operations further comprise: updating the dangerous driving occurrence range candidate and the dangerous driving occurrence time zone candidate of the report information to the dangerous driving occurrence range and the dangerous driving occurrence time zone. Doing so would reduce the need for a highly accurate sensor and lower costs (Zhang [0006]).
Fernandes further discloses that the updating is based on sensor information indicating a vehicle state acquired from each vehicle (Fernandes [0024] & [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the device of Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang, Fernandes, and Qiu to incorporate the teachings of Fernandes such that the updating is based on sensor information indicating a vehicle state acquired from each vehicle. Doing so would allow for devices to capture high frequency information, identify safety events, and indicate if a vehicle is driving during times of relatively high risk (Fernandes [0003]).
Regarding claim 7, Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang, Fernandes, and Qiu teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 2. Inghelbrecht further discloses that the operations further comprise: storing dangerous driving information including a dangerous driving type (Inghelbrecht [0029] “The report information may include a driving incident”) associated with position information and time information (Inghelbrecht [0029]), and searching the stored dangerous driving information in addition to the report information (Inghelbrecht [0054]).
Zheng further discloses that the position information indicates the dangerous driving occurrence range being a range in which the dangerous driving occurred (Zhang Abstract “influence range … first time section … influence range … second time section … updating the influence range … in the traffic accident database.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the device of Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang, Fernandes and Qiu to further incorporate the teachings of Zhang such that the position information indicates the dangerous driving occurrence range being a range in which the dangerous driving occurred. Doing so would reduce the need for a highly accurate sensor and lower costs (Zhang [0006]).
Qiu further discloses that the time information indicates the dangerous driving occurrence time zone being a time zone in which the dangerous driving occurred (Qiu Abstract “accident time selected according to the image collecting information in time interval”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the device of Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang, Fernandes, and Qiu to further incorporate the teachings of Qiu such that the time information indicates the dangerous driving occurrence time zone being a time zone in which the dangerous driving occurred. Doing so would allow for accidents to be identified and searched (Qiu Abstract).
Fernandes further discloses that the dangerous driving type indicates a type of dangerous driving detected based on sensor information indicating a vehicle state acquired from each vehicle (Fernandes [0024] & [0046]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention with a reasonable expectation of success to have modified the device of Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang, Fernandes, and Qiu to incorporate the teachings of Fernandes such that the updating is based on sensor information indicating a vehicle state acquired from each vehicle. Doing so would allow for devices to capture high frequency information, identify safety events, and indicate if a vehicle is driving during times of relatively high risk (Fernandes [0003]).
Regarding claim 8, Inghelbrecht as modified by Zhang, Fernandes, and Qiu teaches all of the elements of the current invention in claim 7. Inghelbrecht further discloses that the operations further comprise: displaying the dangerous driving information in addition to the report information as the result of the search (Inghelbrecht [0056] – [0057] & [0071] – [0073]).
Response to Arguments/Remarks
With respect to Applicant’s remarks filed on 10/10/2025; Applicant's “Amendments and Remarks” have been fully considered. Applicant’s remarks will be addressed in sequential order as they were presented.
With respect to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101, applicants “Amendment and Remarks” have been fully considered.
Applicant Argues:
Without any admissions and solely in an effort to expedite prosecution of the present application, independent claim 1 is amended to additionally recite “receiving, via a network, report information from a terminal operated by a user; ... receiving a search range via the network, the search range being entered into the terminal by the user by adjusting a range and a position that are superimposed and displayed on a map ...; and causing the terminal to display the report information and a result of the search superimposed on the map.”
Applicant respectfully submits these features involve technical complexity that could not be performed as a mental process. For example, operations through a network cannot be performed by a human, even with pen and paper. Moreover, receiving a search range “entered into the terminal by the user by adjusting a range and a position that are superimposed and displayed on a map,” and causing a terminal to “display the report information and a result of the search superimposed on the map,” are also not able to be performed by a human, even with pen and paper. Further, these features are also not directed to mathematical concepts or certain methods of organizing human activity.
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits these features integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Specifically, paragraph [0004] of the specification indicates that related methods are unable to manage reports concerning dangerous driving that are ambiguous with respect to position and time. To address this technical problem, embodiments consistent with the present application relate to a search range that is entered into a terminal by a user by adjusting a range and a position that are superimposed and displayed on a map, using the search range to search for stored report information, and causing the terminal to display the report information and a result of the search superimposed on the map. As discussed in paragraph [0094] of the specification, these features make it “possible to efficiently manage reports of dangerous driving from residents and the like in the driving situation management,” because search processing is performed for report information including the position information and the time information in the search range to be searched, the position and time information are provided through superimposed elements, and report information 1s intuitively provided to the user.
Thus, these technical features clearly relate to a technical improvement. In this regard, these additional features integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, amended claim 1 integrates any possible judicial exception into a practical application, and accordingly is patent eligible under Prong Two of the revised Step 2A of the Alice test.
Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that even if it is assumed the claim is directed to an abstract idea, which is not conceded, independent claim | recites significantly more than any allegedly abstract idea. In particular, MPEP 2106.05(1)(A)(v) indicates that in evaluating Step 2B, an additional element or combination of elements “[adds] a specific limitation other than what is well- understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application,” has been found to qualify as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. As discussed below, the prior art does not teach or suggest the features of independent claim 1. Therefore, claim 1 provides an “inventive concept,” and does not simply append well- understood, routine or conventional activities. Accordingly, independent claim 1 recites significantly more than any allegedly abstract idea.
Office response:
Examiner agrees that the amendments added are not mental processes. However, the mental processes that were indicated in the office action were in the storing and searching limitations of the independent claims.
Receiving report information does not integrate storing report information into a practical application. Receiving a search range via the network does not integrate searching for the stored report information into a practical application, as a human can mentally search for information if they were given a range of what to search for. Displaying the report information is mere data transferring, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, and does not put the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Please see new claim mapping.
Applicant further argues that the other independent claims which recite similar features are patent eligible and the dependent claims are also patent eligible since they depend on independent claims and the Office respectfully disagrees. Therefore the Office's respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments.
With respect to the previous claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, applicant has amended the independent claim and these amendments have changed the scope of the original application and the Office has supplied new grounds for rejection attached below in the FINAL office action and therefore the prior arguments are considered moot.
It is the Office’s stance that all of applicant arguments have been considered and the rejections remain.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON TOAN NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6163. The examiner can normally be reached M-T: 8-5:30 F1:8-12 F2: Off.
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, Scott Browne can be reached on 5712700151. 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.
/J.N./Examiner, Art Unit 3666
/JESS WHITTINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666c