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 office action for the 18/571234 application is in response to the communications filed October 27, 2025.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11 and 18 were amended October 27, 2025.
Claims 12, 13, 17, 19-22, 24, 25, and 27 were cancelled October 27, 2025
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11 and 18 are currently pending and considered below.
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 1-5, 7-9, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
As per claim 1,
Step 1: The claim recites subject matter within a statutory category as a machine.
Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry, in which Prong 1 determines whether a claim recites a judicial exception. Prong 2 determines if the additional limitations of the claim integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. If the additional elements of the claim fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, claim is directed to the recited judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(II)(A).
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim contains subject matter that recites an abstract idea, with the steps of dynamically prioritizing patients' waiting lists according to personalized, real- time clinical necessity, comprising: each record including anonymized medical information, historical and current treatment data, contextual clinical attributes, and outcome indicators; receive and update, in real time, structured and unstructured medical information collected from health records, clinician notes, diagnostic systems, and patient-reported updates; generate, for each patient and corresponding treatment type, a multi-criteria analysis model defining clinical, contextual, and temporal parameters that influence medical prioritization, each parameter associated with one or more selectable response values and weighting factors reflecting their relevance to prioritization; continuously update said weighting factors associated with parameters and response values using labeled patient data, clinician-reviewed cases, and follow-up outcome feedback, such that said weighting adapts over time according to each patient's evolving medical profile; and analyze, during active operation, said responses and contextual data to compute a dynamic personalized clinical-priority score for each patient, wherein said score is recalculated upon receipt of new medical information, patient feedback, or outcome data; and generate and update, in real time, a prioritized waiting list or appointment schedule for patients based on said dynamic personalized clinical-priority scores, wherein updates reflect ongoing patient information, clinician input, and treatment outcomes, thereby optimizing the overall scheduling process; and refine prioritization accuracy by correlating multiple patient profiles, treatment categories, and clinical outcomes, establishing a self-improving feedback process that enhances prioritization precision over time. These steps, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation recite:
certain methods of organizing human activity (e.g., fundamental economic principles or practices including: hedging; insurance; mitigating risk; etc., commercial or legal interactions including: agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations; etc., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including: social activities; teaching; following rules or instructions; etc.) but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from being directed to certain methods of organizing human activity. The identified abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon identified above, in the context of this claim, encompasses a certain method of organizing human activity, namely managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people. This is because each of the limitations of the abstract idea recite a list of rules or instructions that a human person can follow in the course of their personal behavior. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers at least the recited methods of organizing human activity above, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A Prong 2: The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception, see MPEP 2106.05(f), such as:
“An automated AI-based computerized system for”, “said database further configured to”, “electronic”, “a processing engine configured to”, “a machine learning module trained on”, “automatically”, “a machine learning module configured to” and “wherein said system operates on one or more computing devices” which corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Page 9 Lines 16-26 of the as-filed specification recites that “These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implanting the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks”. This constitutes implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer. Implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two or add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(g), such as:
“a database configured to store patient data records”, “present, via an interactive adaptive interface, selected parameters and corresponding response options, wherein said presentation and selected parameters are dynamically adjusted in real time based on accumulated patient responses, feedback from clinicians, and aggregated data from comparable medical cases stored in said database” and “said adaptive interface enables patients, clinicians, and medical administrators to exchange case-specific data, receive information explaining prioritization outcomes, and manage scheduling according to dynamically recalculated clinical-priority scores personalized for each patient” which corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output.
Accordingly, this claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and/or generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, identified as insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields such as:
computer functions that have been identified by the courts as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), such as:
“present, via an interactive adaptive interface, selected parameters and corresponding response options, wherein said presentation and selected parameters are dynamically adjusted in real time based on accumulated patient responses, feedback from clinicians, and aggregated data from comparable medical cases stored in said database” and “said adaptive interface enables patients, clinicians, and medical administrators to exchange case-specific data, receive information explaining prioritization outcomes, and manage scheduling according to dynamically recalculated clinical-priority scores personalized for each patient” which corresponds to receiving or transmitting data over a network.
“a database configured to store patient data records” which corresponds to storing and retrieving information in memory.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 2,
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 2 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“extract clinical meaning from unstructured text contained in clinician notes and patient reports and to convert said text into structured data usable by said multi-criteria analysis model” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“further comprising a natural-language-processing (NLP) module configured to” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 3,
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 3 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said adaptive interface is configured to dynamically adjust said order and content of displayed parameters in response to each patient's real-time answers, thereby producing a unique question flow personalized for that patient.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 4,
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 4 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“applies a continuous feedback loop that correlates said clinical-priority scores with treatment outcomes and clinician validations to improve predictive accuracy over time.” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein said machine learning module” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 5,
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 5 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said database further integrates external data sources selected from electronic health record systems, laboratory information systems, and diagnostic imaging repositories.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and storing and retrieving information in memory.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 7,
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 7 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“reschedules appointments and waiting list positions upon receipt of new patient data or clinician feedback indicating a change in clinical priority” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein said machine learning module automatically” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 8,
Claim 8 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 8 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“for each prioritization result, an explanation identifying major contributing parameters and their corresponding weights, thereby enabling transparent clinical reasoning” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein said adaptive interface provides” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 9,
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 9 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“using labeled clinical data and unlabeled patient records annotated by medical experts” further describes the abstract idea. This claim limitation is still directed to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” and therefore continues to recite an abstract idea.
“wherein said machine learning module employs both supervised and unsupervised training” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 11,
Claim 11 depends from claim 1 and inherits all the limitations of the claim from which it depends. Claim 11 merely further defines the abstract idea and/or introduces additional elements that are insufficient to provide a practical application or something significantly more:
“wherein said adaptive interface supports concurrent access by multiple authorized users, including patients, clinicians, and administrative personnel, allowing synchronized data entry and real-time prioritization updates.” further defines an additional element that was insufficient to provide a practical application and/or significantly more. The claim with this further defining limitation still corresponds to mere data gathering and/or output and receiving or transmitting data over a network.
Looking at the limitations of the claim as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely recite an abstract idea and/or provide conventional computer implementation which does not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and/or amount to no more than limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields.
As per claim 18,
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 1. Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 1.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11 and 18 contain subject matter free of prior art.
The Examiner has conducted a thorough search of the prior art and could not find a single reference, or combination of references with adequate rationale to combine, to teach the limitations of “(b) present, via an interactive adaptive interface, selected parameters and corresponding response options, wherein said presentation and selected parameters are dynamically adjusted in real time based on accumulated patient responses, feedback from clinicians, and aggregated data from comparable medical cases stored in said database” and “(d) analyze, during active operation, said responses and contextual data to compute a dynamic personalized clinical-priority score for each patient, wherein said score is recalculated automatically upon receipt of new medical information, patient feedback, or outcome data”. The closest prior art that the Examiner was able to find was:
Vegas Santiago et al. (US 2020/0160986) which teaches an AI-driven computing system that ranks and prioritizes patients in a waiting list in real-time wherein the ranking is determined based on medical information, historical and current treatment data, contextual clinical attributes, and outcome indicators. This multi-criteria machine learning-based system presents in a dashboard the order of patients that are scheduled to come into the healthcare facility and identifies which patients are most likely to be no-shows based on a dynamically and continuously updated machine learning algorithm. The training sets for this machine learning model were based on past clinical factors and updated feedback. However, this prior art is deficient in determining priority status based on accumulated patient responses. Accordingly, the clinical priority in the dashboard is calculated in a manner distinct from what is claimed.
It can be seen that from the lack of “accumulated patient responses” directly effecting the priority status of the clinical wait-list, the prior art does not teach the limitations of the pending claims. Accordingly, claims 1-5, 7-9, 11 and 18 contain subject matter free of prior art
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 27, 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 101 are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the pending claims are directed to a specific and concrete technological improvement in the field of computer-implemented healthcare scheduling and data analysis. The claimed system provides a novel computational framework which contributes to a tangible improvement in how computers acquire, interpret, and act upon medical information. The result is an intelligent computing system that performs dynamic, context-aware analysis that cannot be accomplished by human reasoning or conventional computing tools.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has failed to provide any sort of evidence to support their claims of improvement. The Applicant merely describes what the invention does and claims that these functions improve technology without any underlying reasoning as to how these improvements (or even what improvements) are made. These assertions are made at such a high level of generality, no specific or concrete improvement can even be identified. The Examiner is meant to believe that some sort of vague improvement is present in scheduling and data analysis is present based on the think assertion of acquisition, interpretation and follow up actions in computing are being improved. This is a bare assertion of improvement. There is absolutely no detail about how acquisition, interpretation and follow up actions have been improved. Beyond this, the argument is misdirected at mental processes, a position that the Examiner has not taken. The pending claims recite an abstract idea under “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” which is a completely different category. Due to the Applicant’s failure in providing persuasive evidence of technological improvement, the Examiner remains unpersuaded.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims cannot recite “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” because none of the examples provided by the MPEP include “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people include an automated computer-implemented system or method of dynamically prioritizing patients’ waiting lists according to personalized, real-time clinical necessity”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with this argument. The Examiner has not considered this quotation as part of the abstract idea. The Applicant has argued against a position that the Examiner has not taken. Accordingly, this argument is not relevant to the rejections at hand. However, more to the point, if a claim recites a list of rules or instructions that a human personal can follow in the course of their personal behavior, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a). The consideration of elements such as “automated computer-implemented system” is completely irrelevant when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. This element becomes an additional element to the recited abstract idea and becomes relevant in Step 2A Prong 2. The presence of this additional element does not preclude the claim from reciting this abstract idea.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims provide for an improvement in computer-implemented medical data processing, specifically with analysis and system-level decision making.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has again failed to provide any sort of reasoning as to how technology is being improved. They continue to argue for vague assertions of improvements which amount to nothing more than a bare improvement to technology. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims are substantially similar to claim 1 of Example 42 of the 2019 PEG.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The subject matter in claim 1 of Example 42 and the pending claims are completely divergent. Example 42 concerns itself with integrating medical data sources that were previously incapable of being integrated. The pending claims concern themselves with prioritizing medical information in a display. There is no similarity whatsoever between these cases. The Applicant merely asserted a similarity and failed to properly provide a coherent analogy between the two.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims provide something significantly more than the alleged abstract idea because the combination of elements is not well understood, routine or conventional. Specifically, the use of a feedback learning structure that simultaneously refines conversational logic and adjusts analytical weightings in real time is unconventional, and integration of structured and unstructured data is like-wise non-routine.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Much of what is argued here is a mix of abstract idea and additional element to an abstract idea. Please refer to the rejection above for the Examiner’s reply. Even if a limitation is unconventional or non-routine, that fact would not necessitate patent eligibility. If what is novel, unconventional or non-routine is encapsulated within the abstract idea itself, it is still an abstract idea and therefore ineligible without an additional element that provides a practical application or something significantly more than the abstract idea. As can be seen in the rejection above, no additional element satisfies these requirements. Patent eligibility under Step 2B refers to additional elements to an abstract idea being other than what is well-known, routine or conventional, not any or all limitations in the claim. See MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims provide a technical solution to a technical problem in conventional queue management systems that rely on static models, batch data processing, and manual scheduling control.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner is not convinced that static models, batch data processing and manual scheduling was the actual state of the art prior to the filing of this application. The Applicant has failed to clearly articulate how the pending claims actually provide an improvement to technology. They merely cite some sort of prior art that existed at some point in time and concluded that their invention was an improvement. This is not the standard of what improvement to technology. This standard relies on clearly articulating what the prior art as a whole was incapable of performing and demonstrating how the field of the art progressed with the claimed invention.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims recite more than a generic computer in that a processing engine, a machine learning model, a data base and an interactive adaptive interface are recited.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The processing engine and machine learning model amount to nothing more than being implemented on a processor, the data base being nothing more than memory storage and interactive adaptive interface being nothing more than a display. Each of these components are generic computer components.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims are eligible in view of Enfish, McRO and BASCOM because they provide a improvement to technology. Specifically, the pending claims provide an improvement in computer operation in processing medical information by introducing dynamic, self-adaptive, and explainable data handling.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant has failed to clearly articulate how these features relate to improving computer operation. Accordingly, the applicant has provided a bare assertion of improvement which is not persuasive.
The Applicant further argues that the pending claims do not preempt any abstract concept. It is limited to a specific computing implementation that relies on technical interactions among processing, feedback learning and autonomous scheduling.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Supreme Court has explained that the judicial exceptions reflect the Court’s view that abstract ideas, laws of nature, and natural phenomena are "the basic tools of scientific and technological work", and are thus excluded from patentability because "monopolization of those tools through the grant of a patent might tend to impede innovation more than it would tend to promote it." Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980 (quoting Myriad, 569 U.S. at 589, 106 USPQ2d at 1978 and Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012)). The Supreme Court’s concern that drives this "exclusionary principle" is pre-emption. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 216, 110 USPQ2d at 1980. The Court has held that a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, laws of nature, or natural phenomena, even if the judicial exception is narrow (e.g., a particular mathematical formula such as the Arrhenius equation). See, e.g., Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79-80, 86-87, 101 USPQ2d at 1968-69, 1971 (claims directed to "narrow laws that may have limited applications" held ineligible); Flook, 437 U.S. at 589-90, 198 USPQ at 197 (claims that did not "wholly preempt the mathematical formula" held ineligible). This is because such a patent would "in practical effect [] be a patent on the [abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon] itself." Benson, 409 U.S. at 71- 72, 175 USPQ at 676. The concern over preemption was expressed as early as 1852. See Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. (14 How.) 156, 175 (1852) ("A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth; an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right."). While preemption is the concern underlying the judicial exceptions, it is not a standalone test for determining eligibility. See MPEP 2106.04(I).
Applicant’s arguments pertaining to rejections made under 35 U.S.C. 103 are persuasive for the reasons indicated above.
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 CHAD A NEWTON whose telephone number is (313)446-6604. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00AM-4:00PM (EST).
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, PETER H. CHOI can be reached at (469) 295-9171. 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.
/CHAD A NEWTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681