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 .
Response to Amendment
Amendments and arguments are not persuasive over the previous 35 USC 101 rejections. The claims are directed to abstract mental and mathematical concepts. Making a prediction is a mental process. Making a calculation is a mathematical process. Training a function to optimize parameters is a mathematical process. Implementing these functions on a computing device does not improve the computer itself but uses the computer as a tool to execute the functions. Accordingly, the rejections are maintained.
The previous 35 USC 102 rejections have been withdrawn in light of amendments. No other prior art rejections were made.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites “[a]n information processing device comprising: at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute instructions to: calculate a prediction error which is a difference between a prediction value which is output obtained when an explanatory variable of subject data is input to a prediction model and an objective variable of the subject data; calculate, on a basis of data that can be used for calculating the prediction error, an index for evaluating an amount of contribution of at least one of the explanatory variable of the subject data, the objective variable of the subject data, and the prediction model to the prediction error; and calculate the amount of contribution on a basis of the prediction error and the index, by decomposing the prediction error into respective contribution amounts of the explanatory variable, the objective variable, and the prediction model; train a contribution computation function by performing supervised machine learning using training data comprising pairs of calculated indices and corresponding prediction errors from reference data, wherein the training optimizes weight parameters to minimize error in contribution amount decomposition; continuously retrain the contribution computation function based on new prediction error data to adapt to changes in prediction model performance; and output the calculated amount of contribution to assist decision-making for improving precision of the prediction model.”
The limitation of “calculate a prediction error which is a difference between a prediction value which is output obtained when an explanatory variable of subject data is input to a prediction model and an objective variable of the subject data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “calculate, on a basis of data that can be used for calculating the prediction error, an index for evaluating an amount of contribution of at least one of the explanatory variable of the subject data, the objective variable of the subject data, and the prediction model to the prediction error,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “calculate the amount of contribution on a basis of the prediction error and the index, by decomposing the prediction error into respective contribution amounts of the explanatory variable, the objective variable, and the prediction model,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “train a contribution computation function by performing supervised machine learning using training data comprising pairs of calculated indices and corresponding prediction errors from reference data, wherein the training optimizes weight parameters to minimize error in contribution amount decomposition,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
The limitation of “continuously retrain the contribution computation function based on new prediction error data to adapt to changes in prediction model performance,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting device, memory, and processor nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the device, memory, and processor, language, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper calculating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, device, memory, and processor to enact calculating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The limitation of “output the calculated amount of contribution to assist decision-making for improving precision of the prediction model.” Extra-Solution Activity.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “[t]he information processing device according to claim 1, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate the index by using at least one piece of data of the explanatory variable of the subject data, the objective variable of the subject data, and the prediction model, and the reference data, and the reference data is used for the prediction model.”
The limitation of “calculate the index by using at least one piece of data of the explanatory variable of the subject data, the objective variable of the subject data, and the prediction model, and the reference data, and the reference data is used for the prediction model,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting device, memory, and processor nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the device, memory, and processor, language, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper calculating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, device, memory, and processor to enact calculating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3 recites “[t]he information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate the index for at least one of the explanatory variable and the objective variable of the subject data by using the subject data and the reference data.”
The limitation of “calculate the index for at least one of the explanatory variable and the objective variable of the subject data by using the subject data and the reference data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting device, memory, and processor nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the device, memory, and processor, language, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper calculating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, device, memory, and processor to enact calculating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4 recites “[t]he information processing device according to claim 3, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate the index for at least one of the explanatory variable and the objective variable of the subject data on a basis of a result of comparison between the subject data and the reference data.”
The limitation of “calculate the index for at least one of the explanatory variable and the objective variable of the subject data on a basis of a result of comparison between the subject data and the reference data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting device, memory, and processor nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the device, memory, and processor, language, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper calculating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, device, memory, and processor to enact calculating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 5 recites “[t]he information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate the index for the objective variable of the subject data on a basis of a degree of variation of the objective variable of the reference data related to the subject data.”
The limitation of “information processing device according to claim 3, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate the index for the objective variable of the subject data on a basis of a degree of variation of the objective variable of the reference data related to the subject data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting device, memory, and processor nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the device, memory, and processor, language, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper calculating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, device, memory, and processor to enact calculating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 6 recites “[t]he information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate the index for the prediction model on a basis of a performance evaluation value of the prediction model calculated by using the reference data related to the subject data.”
The limitation of “information processing device according to claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate the index for the prediction model on a basis of a performance evaluation value of the prediction model calculated by using the reference data related to the subject data,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting device, memory, and processor nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the device, memory, and processor, language, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper calculating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, device, memory, and processor to enact calculating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 7 recites “[t]he information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to generate the index on a basis of the subject data and a second prediction model generated on a basis of at least the prediction model or the reference data used for the prediction model.”
The limitation of “execute the instructions to generate the index on a basis of the subject data and a second prediction model generated on a basis of at least the prediction model or the reference data used for the prediction model,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting device, memory, and processor nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the device, memory, and processor, language, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper calculating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, device, memory, and processor to enact calculating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 8 recites “[t]he information processing device according to claim 7, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: calculate a plurality of the indices, including the index on a basis of output obtained by inputting an explanatory variable of the subject data to the second prediction model; and the calculate amounts of contribution, including the amount of contribution, on a basis of values of the indices that give a sum of a plurality of the indices which is equal to a value based on the prediction error.”
The limitation of “calculate a plurality of the indices, including the index on a basis of output obtained by inputting an explanatory variable of the subject data to the second prediction model; and the calculate amounts of contribution, including the amount of contribution, on a basis of values of the indices that give a sum of a plurality of the indices which is equal to a value based on the prediction error,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting device, memory, and processor nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the device, memory, and processor, language, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper calculating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, device, memory, and processor to enact calculating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 9 recites “[t]he information processing device according to claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: calculate, on a basis of output obtained by inputting an explanatory variable of the subject data to the second prediction model, the index at least for each of the explanatory variable of the subject data, the objective variable of the subject data, and the prediction model; and calculate the amounts of contribution on a basis of values of the indices that satisfy an identity between a value including at least a sum of all of the indices and the value based on the prediction error.”
The limitation of “information processing device according to claim 8, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: calculate, on a basis of output obtained by inputting an explanatory variable of the subject data to the second prediction model, the index at least for each of the explanatory variable of the subject data, the objective variable of the subject data, and the prediction model, and calculate the amounts of contribution on a basis of values of the indices that satisfy an identity between a value including at least a sum of all of the indices and a value based on the prediction error,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting device, memory, and processor nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the device, memory, and processor, language, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper calculating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, device, memory, and processor to enact calculating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 10 recites “[t]he information processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to: perform machine learning of a model representing a relationship between an error which is a difference between output obtained when an explanatory variable of reference data used for the prediction model is input to the prediction model and an objective variable of the reference data, and a second index for evaluating amounts of contribution, to the error and including the amount of contribution, of each of the explanatory variable of the reference data, the objective variable of the reference data, and the prediction model; and calculate the amount of contribution on a basis of the model, the index, and the prediction error.”
The limitation of “perform machine learning of a model representing a relationship between an error which is a difference between output obtained when an explanatory variable of reference data used for the prediction model is input to the prediction model and an objective variable of the reference data, and a second index for evaluating amounts of contribution, to the error and including the amount of contribution, of each of the explanatory variable of the reference data, the objective variable of the reference data, and the prediction model; and calculate the amount of contribution on a basis of the model, the index, and the prediction error,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting device, memory, and processor nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the device, memory, and processor, language, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper calculating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, device, memory, and processor to enact calculating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 11 recites “[t]he information processing device according to claim 10, the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to calculate the amounts of contribution on a basis of a degree of contribution of the index to output obtained when the index is input to the model.”
The limitation of “information processing device according to claim 10, the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to calculate the amounts of contribution on a basis of a degree of contribution of the index to output obtained when the index is input to the model,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting device, memory, and processor nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the device, memory, and processor, language, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper calculating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, device, memory, and processor to enact calculating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 12 recites “[t]he information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to select the second index, and perform machine learning of the model.”
The limitation of “information processing device according to claim 10, wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to select the second index, and perform machine learning of the model,” as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. Mental Process, Mathematics.
That is, other than reciting device, memory, and processor nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the device, memory, and processor, language, “calculate” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually with pen and paper calculating data. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites element, device, memory, and processor to enact calculating. The device in all steps is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea
into a practical application, the additional element of a device to enact the calculating steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 13, 14, and 15 are rejected based on the same rationale given to claims 1, 7, and 10, respectively.
Claim 16 is rejected based on the same rationale given to claim 1.
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 JONATHAN D GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)431-0699. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 A.M.-4:00 P.M..
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, BRYCE P BONZO can be reached at (571)-272-3655. 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.
/JONATHAN D GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2113