DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 02 June 2026.
Claims 1, 8, 11, and 12 are amended.
Claims 1-12 are pending and have been examined.
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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-12 recite allowable subject matter and the claims would be allowable if the claims were re-written or amended to overcome the 101 rejection and the 112(f) invocation stated in the current Office Action below.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitations uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim features are: management unit in claims 1-8 and 12.
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 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).
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-10 are directed to a system, claim 11 is directed to a method, and claim 12 is directed to a product of manufacture (apparatus).
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of updating the status of an item. Specifically, representative claim 11 recites the abstract idea of:
maintaining, a list of one or more items that are subject to a work by a user and the status of each item regarding the work;
accepting login of a first user to the item management system;
detecting a first user operation representing a start of the word regarding the list;
starting a status update session for the word regarding the list in response to detection of the first user operation in a state where a first user has logged into the item management system;
reading identification information attached to the one or more items included in the list by reading identification information stored;
receiving reading results from the reading;
determining, among the reading results from the reading, whether a reading result indicating that the reading has read first identification information associated with a first time attached to the first item out of the one or more items was obtained during the status update session or outside the status update session; and
updating the status of the first item when it is determined that the result indicating that the reading has read the first identification information associated with the first item attached to the first item out of the one or more items was obtained during the status update session,
wherein the status of the first item is not updated based on the reading result indicating that the reading has read the first identification information from the reading result was obtained outside the status update session.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 11 recites the abstract idea of updating the status of an item, as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 11 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims specifically recite the steps for updating the status of an item that comprise maintaining a list of one or more items in a database that are subject to a work by a user and the status of each item regarding the work, accepting a login of a first user, detecting a first user operation representing a first start of the work regarding the list of items, starting a status update session regarding the list based on when a first user is starting work, reading identification information attached the items in the list, receiving the reading results, determining indications of whether a reading result has first identification information associated with a first item attached to the first item out of the items what was obtained either during the status update session or outside the status update session, updating the status the first item when the identification information is determined that is associate with the first item, where the identification information is attached to the first item out of the one or more items, and where the status of the first item is not updated based on the reading result indicating that the first identification information from the reading result was obtained outside the status update session, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 11 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 11 includes additional elements: a database, a wireless device, a reading apparatus that is capable of reading, from the wireless device, the wireless device, the reading apparatus, the reading apparatus, from a first wireless device, the reading apparatus, and the first wireless device.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 11 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., updating a status of an item) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements a database, a wireless device, a reading apparatus that is capable of reading, from the wireless device, the wireless device, the reading apparatus, the reading apparatus, from a first wireless device, the reading apparatus, and the first wireless device, recited in independent claim 11 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 11 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 11 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 11 is ineligible.
Independent claims 1 and l2 are similar in nature to representative claim 11, and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 11. It is noted that independent claim 1 includes the additional elements of a management unit, and independent claim 12 includes the additional element of a processing apparatus, a management unit, and a communication unit. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of claimed additional elements in claims 1 and 12, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claims 1 and 12 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claims 1 and 12 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 1 and 12, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claims 1 and 12 are ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10, depending from claim 1, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claims, nor the representative claim 11. The claims of 2-10 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claims include the additional elements of a second wireless device (claim 3), a user terminal and an application screen (claim 4), a third wireless device (claim 6), a terminal apparatus (claim 8), and wireless devices are radio frequency identification (RFID) tags & electromagnetic wave (claim 10). Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claims 3-4, 6, 8, and 10 are directed towards an abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claims 3-4, 6, 8, and 10, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 2, 5, 7, and 9 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, the dependent claims 2-10 are ineligible.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Prior Art Considerations:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding the independent claims, the features are as follows:
wherein the management unit is configured not to update the status of the first item based on the reading result indicating that the reading apparatus has read the first identification information from the first wireless device when the reading result was obtained outside the status update session
The most apposite prior art of record includes Fead, A., et al. (PGP No. US 2020/0320469 A1), in view of Wulff, T. (PGP No. US 2018/0077532 A1), and Lee, R., et al. (PGP No. US 2018/0218320 A1) to teach a method for item management.
The reference of Fead describes a method for tracking inventory, including the system that uses a scanner to read RFID tags attached to items, where the RFID reader provides identification codes for each item to a user device used by a specific user (Fead, paragraphs [0008]-[0009], [0046]). Fead describes that backend servers can reconcile the data transmitted and revied when the items have been scanned, also storing this inventory information in a database once the items have been scanned (Fead, paragraphs [0008] and [0029]). Fead further describes that each time an inventory item is scanned, the read RFID tag attached to items contains identifying information, such as whether the item is currently in stock, or other status information, such as where the item is located or stored, and this information or code can then be communicated to the devices and the inventory list or record can be maintained (Fead, paragraphs [0025]-[0026] and [0029]). Fead also describes that the user performing the inventory monitoring is able to determine if new RFID tags should be scanned or if they have already been scanned and communicated to the system, such as already added to the inventory record that is maintained (Fead, see: paragraph [0060]), where the current inventory list reflects the scans performed. This communication described can also include one or more session dates for when the user has initiated the session (Fead, paragraph [0057]), and can ignore the inventory information if the item has previously been scanned (Fead, paragraph [0060]). Although Fead does disclose if a reading result indicates that he reading was obtained during the update session or outside the status update session, and also describes that if the item has already been scanned previously, that the user device may ignore the scanned item, Fead does not specifically describe if the status that was obtained outside the status update session is not used to update the status of first item, only that the inventory information can be ignored. Fead does not disclose the features of wherein the management unit is configured not to update the status of the first item based on the reading result indicating that the reading apparatus has read the first identification information from the first wireless device when the reading result was obtained outside the status update session.
Next the reference of Wulff is merely relied upon to teach features of a second or subsequent user device that is carried by an authorized person, where badges are worn for the ability to be scanned with an RFID reader, so that they may be properly identified within a venue (Wulff, see: paragraphs [0017] and [0029]). Wulff does not teach or mention any type of updating of the status of a first item that was identified when reading outside a status update session. Wulff does not teach the allowable features of wherein the management unit is configured not to update the status of the first item based on the reading result indicating that the reading apparatus has read the first identification information from the first wireless device when the reading result was obtained outside the status update session, as indicated above.
The reference of Lee is relied upon to teach features related to updating an item location in a database once the item has been detected to have shipped or left a retail facility, supplying shipment notifications to a recipient of the item based on that specific item location, which is all identified based on the item’s RFID tag containing the work flow information of that specific item (Lee, see: paragraphs [0022] and [0060]). Although Lee describes providing shipment information, Lee does not describe any type of not updating the status of a first item based on the reading obtained outside of a status update session. Lee does not teach the allowable features of wherein the management unit is configured not to update the status of the first item based on the reading result indicating that the reading apparatus has read the first identification information from the first wireless device when the reading result was obtained outside the status update session, as indicated above.
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. Moreover, the combination of features of independent claims, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims recite allowable subject matter, as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner notes that the non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled RFID Asset Tracking: Comprehensive Guide to Real-Time Inventory Management, published in MSM Solutions webpage (2019) documented on PTO-892 form as reference U, and hereinafter referred to as ‘RFID Asset’, describes the need for industries to be able to efficiently track assets for manufacturing, logistics, and retail purposes. RFID Asset describes that by using RFID reading systems, the tracking improves accuracy and efficiency in asset management and allows the system to track in real-time, where a software portal is available to visibly track and monitor all assets in real-time. Although RFID Asset describes such features, the reference does not disclose or teach the allowable features of wherein the management unit is configured not to update the status of the first item based on the reading result indicating that the reading apparatus has read the first identification information from the first wireless device when the reading result was obtained outside the status update session, and does not remedy the deficiencies of the noted prior art.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the claim objections, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 02 June 2026, have been fully considered. In light of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the objections are withdrawn.
With respect to invocation of 35 USC § 112(f), the Applicant’s arguments filed on 02 June 2026, have been fully considered and the Examiner does agree in part. In particular, the Examiner agrees that the features of the reading apparatus and the terminal apparatus does not invoke 112(f), as the independent claims are structural terms. However, the Examiner maintains that the feature of the management unit, does invoke 112(f) for reasons given in the Office Action above. Therefore, the claims still invoke 112(f) and the management unit is not modified by sufficient structure
It is also noted that the features of a reading apparatus, terminal apparatus, and management unit do arise to a 112(a) nor 112(b) rejection, as the claimed features are understood to have structural meaning. The specification in this case provides adequate written description and are not found to be indefinite, and therefore the claims did not recite features that arise to 112(a) or 112(b) rejections.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 02 June 2026 have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument found on page 10 of the remarks stating “independent Claims 1, 11, and 12 do not merely recite an abstract concept of ‘updating a status’ for organizing human activity,” and “are directed to a specific technical mechanism that distinguishes between reading results that should be used for updating a work status and those that should not, based on ‘status update sessions’ initiated in a response to a log-in user’s operation to start a work,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims are still directed to an abstract idea under Step 2A, prong 1 of the eligibility analysis. The abstract idea of updating a status of an item, falls into the enumerated sub-grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity. The claims in this case recite the steps for updating the status of an item, such as maintaining a list of one or more items in a database that are subject to a work by a user, detecting a first user operation representing a first start of the work regarding the list of items, starting a status update session regarding the list based on when a first user is starting work, reading identification information attached the items in the list, receiving the reading results, determining indications of whether a reading result has first identification information associated with a first item attached to the first item out of the items what was obtained either during the status update session or outside the status update session, updating the status the first item when the identification information is determined that is associate with the first item, where the identification information is attached to the first item out of the one or more items, and where the status of the first item is not updated based on the reading result indicating that the first identification information from the reading result was obtained outside the status update session. These activities of organizing human activity are related to sales activities or behaviors as the claims are directly related to updating the status of an item based on an item’s identification information being read. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the claims do recite and are directed to an abstract idea.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 10-11 of the remarks stating “To address this technical problem, the amended claims adopt the following specific configurations,” and “the amended claims recite a specific technical improvement that enhances the processing reliability of reading results from wireless devices, and do not merely implement an abstract idea on a generic computer,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even when considering the amendments to the claims, the claims do not reflect or recite a technical problem nor a technical improvement, and under Step 2A, prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed additional elements are still recited in a generic manner. Although the claims do recite a database, a wireless device, a reading apparatus that is capable of reading, from the wireless device, the wireless device, the reading apparatus, the reading apparatus, from a first wireless device, the reading apparatus, and the first wireless device, when considering the additional elements individually and in combination, are still recited at high-level generalities and are being used to apply the abstract idea with generic computing components. The claims are not providing any type of improvement to the technology itself and are actually providing improvements to the abstract idea. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraphs [0001]- [0002] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention is directed toward solving problems related to item management. Although the claims include computer technology such as a database, a wireless device, a reading apparatus that is capable of reading, from the wireless device, the wireless device, the reading apparatus, the reading apparatus, from a first wireless device, the reading apparatus, and the first wireless device, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of determining a status update for an item. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improvements with item management and updating a status for an item, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and/or computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and/or computer components used in conventional systems to improve updating a status for an item, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, and thus the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 102 and 35 USC § 103, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 02 June 2026, have been fully considered. In light of the Applicant’s amendments to the independent claims, the claims now recite allowable subject matter, and therefore for reasons in the Office Action above, the 102 and 103 rejections are now withdrawn.
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 ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3688
Prosecution Insights