DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-26 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Applicant's Remarks
35 U.S.C. § 101
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 9-14, filed 28 July 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections, have been fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant submits that the claims of the current application do not recite an abstract idea because the claims contain limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind, such as, "deriving value from a percentile e.g., 10th percentile, corresponding to 2h30 of 24-hour period at 15min time interval on long running centered mean-median" and "determining whether to compute the quantile from max-to-max or based on a 24-hour period."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The current claim language does not recite those limitations, and instead the claims recite(s) a system and series of steps for analyzing energy consumption data to identify and address incoherences, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
Applicant further submits that the claims amount to significantly more than an abstract idea because they are directed to a specific technical improvement in energy management technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees, as the claim limitations are not indicative of integration into a practical application, such as an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technical field, as considered below in view of MPEP 2106. In particular, an improvement in the judicial exception itself is not an improvement to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technological field.
The following are examples of eligible subject matter based on technological improvements: see, e.g., McRO, 837 F.3d at 1315 ("The claimed process uses a combined order of specific rules that renders information into a specific format that is then used and applied to create desired results: a sequence of synchronized, animated characters."); Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (finding patent eligible a claim drawn to a behavior-based virus scan that protects against viruses that have been "cosmetically modified to avoid detection by code-matching virus scans"); Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1330, 1333 (discussing patent eligible claims directed to "an innovative logical model for a computer database" that included a self-referential table allowing for greater flexibility in configuring databases, faster searching, and more effective storage); CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (explaining that the claims at issue focus on a specific means for improving cardiac monitoring technology; they are not "directed to a result or effect that itself is the abstract idea and merely invoke generic processes and machinery" (quoting McRO, 837 F.3d at 1314)).
To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Applicant further submits that the amended claims now integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application because the claims now expressly recites that "the at least one action comprises transmitting a control signal to at least one device at the site to modify operation of the at least one device to reduce energy consumption."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In regards to the additional element of “transmitting a control signal to at least one device at the site to modify operation of the at least one device to reduce energy consumption”, see MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished) and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s remarks, see Page(s) 14-17, filed 28 July 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections, have been fully considered, but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection provided below, as necessitated by the claim amendments.
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.
Claim(s) 1-26 is/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.
Claim(s) 1 and 14 recite(s) a system and series of steps for analyzing energy consumption data to identify and address incoherences, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes.
The limitation(s) of, ‘collecting energy consumption data…’; ‘disaggregating the data points into a plurality of granular classifications…’; ‘identifying baseload candidates among the data points…’; ‘grouping sequences of the baseload candidates based on the data point timestamps’; ‘categorizing the data points of the grouped sequences of baseload candidates…’; ‘generating a per meter model of normal energy consumption…’; ‘analyzing the energy consumption data to identify one or more incoherences…’; ‘performing at least one action…’, as drafted, recite a process that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is/are mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘a controller’, ‘a processor’, ‘a memory’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (‘a controller’, ‘a processor’, ‘a memory’). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor and instructions in memory, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception). Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
Additionally, in regards to the additional element of “transmitting a control signal to at least one device at the site to modify operation of the at least one device to reduce energy consumption”, see MPEP 2106.05(f). This limitation recites only the idea of a solution or outcome (i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished) and does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Furthermore, the claims recite the additional elements of ‘one or more energy consumption meters’. These limitation are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering energy usage data for later use), and amount to mere tools for data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Thus, the claim is directed to the abstract idea.
As discussed above, the additional elements amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. Under the MPEP 2106, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the data gathering was considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
The ‘one or more energy consumption meters’ are considered to be a well‐understood, routine, and conventional element previously known to the industry. The specification describes the ‘energy consumption meters’ as equipment capable of sampling, sensing, or monitoring one or more parameters such as energy usage data for a site (¶46), with no additional technical details on the operation of the elements. Thus, the specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of additional elements when it describes the additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d) Well- Understood, Routine, Conventional Activity). Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 2-13 and 15-26 further recite(s) the system and series of steps for analyzing energy consumption data to identify and address incoherences, which under broadest reasonable interpretation, is analogous to concepts performed in the human mind, such as observation, evaluation, judgement, and/or opinion. These concepts are grouped as mental processes. Accordingly, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) the additional element(s) of ‘an external control system’, ‘at least one device or system’, ‘a machine learning algorithm’, ‘a gateway’, ‘edge software’, ‘a cloud-based energy management system’. These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that in conjunction with the abstract limitations, they amount to no more than:
mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (i.e., generic computer components performing generic computer functions) (‘an external control system’, ‘at least one device or system’, ‘a gateway’). In their broadest reasonable interpretation, the additional element(s) comprise(s) only a processor, instructions in memory, a receiver, and a transmitter, being used to implement the functions of the abstract idea. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception in a generic computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05(f) Mere Instructions to Apply an Exception).
generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (‘a machine learning algorithm’, ‘edge software’, ‘a cloud-based energy management system’).
Thus, even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim(s) is/are directed to the judicial exception.
As analyzed above, the limitations as an ordered combination, are merely applying the abstract idea in a generic computing environment. In addition, the claims do not improve functionality of a computer or improve any other technology. Thus, claims 1-26 are ineligible as the claims do not recite additional elements which result in significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Finkel (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190214818), in view of Rimini (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20190122132), in further view of Desai (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 20120215369).
In regards to claim 1, Finkel teaches:
A method for providing signal extraction and alarming to enable advanced energy analytics (Finkel: ¶9-19 disclose a system and method for energy analysis), comprising:
collecting energy consumption data for a site using one or more energy consumption meters, the energy consumption data comprising a plurality of data points each having a timestamp and a value representative of a level of energy usage (Finkel: ¶29-31 disclose receiving power consumption data using one or more power consumption meters, wherein the power consumption data comprises levels of energy usage over a time period);
disaggregating the data points into a plurality of granular classifications (Finkel: ¶32, ¶40, ¶54-56 disclose disaggregating the data), wherein disaggregating the data points includes:
identifying baseload candidates among the data points as a function of the data point values relative to an upper threshold and a lower threshold (Finkel: ¶76, ¶79 disclose identifying baseload values);
grouping sequences of the baseload candidates based on the data point timestamps (Finkel: ¶76, ¶79-80 disclose grouping baseload values based on time period); and
categorizing the data points of the grouped sequences of baseload candidates as either baseload points or non-baseload points (Finkel: ¶32, ¶76-80 disclose characterizing the consumption data as baseload values).
Although Finkel teaches using algorithms to detect power consumption anomalies, the reference does not explicitly state generating a model of normal energy consumption and identifying and addressing incoherences.
However, Rimini teaches:
generating a per meter model of normal energy consumption from the energy consumption data as a function of the baseload points and the data point timestamps (Rimini: ¶65-66, ¶71-73 disclose generating a model of regular energy consumption data);
analyzing the energy consumption data to identify one or more incoherences therein relative to the model (Rimini: ¶66, ¶68, ¶81-82 disclose analyzing the energy consumption data to identify deviations and abnormalities); and
performing at least one action responsive to the identified incoherences and then triggering the at least one action (Rimini: ¶69, ¶82, ¶85 disclose, in response to the identified deviations and abnormalities, generating and providing alerts and recommendation messages to a user).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the abnormality analysis, as taught by Rimini, into the system and method of Finkel. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create alerts of user-specific power consumption abnormalities at a predefined schedule and calculate the impact of the changes on the user's electricity bill” (Rimini: ¶34).
Although the combination of references teaches performing actions in response to abnormalities or deviations, the references do not explicitly state wherein the action comprises transmitting a control signal to modify the operation of a device.
However, Desai teaches wherein the at least one action comprises transmitting a control signal to at least one device at the site to modify operation of the at least one device to reduce energy consumption (Desai: ¶26, ¶75, ¶83 disclose sending a control signal to one or more appliances so as to reduce energy consumption).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the control signal, as taught by Desai, into the system and method of Finkel and Rimini. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve “improvements in efficiency of energy usage and reductions in individual energy consumption... and “to reduce both the average and peak power consumption within homes and offices” (Desai: ¶3-4).
In regards to claim 2, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the method of claim 1. Rimini further teaches wherein the at least one action includes at least one of: alarming, generating and a sending report, sending data to an external control system, sending data to an external analysis system, sending data to an external management system, triggering a control change in at least one device or system, and triggering a setting change in at least one device or system (Rimini: ¶69, ¶82, ¶85 disclose, in response to the identified deviations and abnormalities, generating and providing alerts and recommendation messages to a user).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the abnormality alert, as taught by Rimini, into the system and method of Finkel, Rimini, and Desai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create alerts of user-specific power consumption abnormalities at a predefined schedule and calculate the impact of the changes on the user's electricity bill” (Rimini: ¶34).
In regards to claim 3, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the method of claim 1. Finkel and Rimini together further teach wherein generating the model of normal energy consumption comprises automatically identifying and characterizing different potential energy savings for a time period (Finkel: ¶42, ¶47, ¶49 disclose identifying energy saving recommendations; Rimini: ¶65-66, ¶71-73 disclose generating a model of regular energy consumption data).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the energy consumption model, as taught by Rimini, into the system and method of Finkel, Rimini, and Desai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create alerts of user-specific power consumption abnormalities at a predefined schedule and calculate the impact of the changes on the user's electricity bill” (Rimini: ¶34).
In regards to claim 4, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the method of claim 1. Finkel further teaches wherein disaggregating the data points into the plurality of granular classifications (¶32, ¶40, ¶54-56 disclose disaggregating the data) further includes: identifying transition candidates among the data points as a function of the data point values relative to an upper threshold and a lower threshold (Finkel: ¶76, ¶79 disclose identifying consumption data values); grouping sequences of the transition candidates based on the data point timestamps (Finkel: ¶76-80 disclose grouping consumption data values based on time period); and categorizing the data points of the grouped sequences of transition candidates as either transition points or non-transition points (Finkel: ¶32, ¶76-80 disclose characterizing the consumption data points).
In regards to claim 5, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the method of claim 1. Finkel further teaches wherein categorizing the data points of the grouped sequences of transition candidates as either transition points or non-transition points comprises identifying a crossing count of the number of times the data points within the grouped sequences of transition candidates cross a virtual point (Finkel: ¶32, ¶76-80 disclose characterizing the consumption data points).
In regards to claim 6, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the method of claim 1. Finkel and Rimini further teach wherein disaggregating the data points into the plurality of granular classifications further includes categorizing the data points into one or more of a baseload period, a running period, a transition period, a stable period within a transition period, and an outlier as a function of the data point values and data value timestamps, and wherein the model of normal energy consumption is a function of the categorizing (Finkel: ¶40-45, ¶54-56 disclose characterizing the consumption data points; Rimini: ¶65-66, ¶71-73 disclose generating a model of regular energy consumption data).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the energy consumption model, as taught by Rimini, into the system and method of Finkel, Rimini, and Desai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create alerts of user-specific power consumption abnormalities at a predefined schedule and calculate the impact of the changes on the user's electricity bill” (Rimini: ¶34).
In regards to claim 7, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the method of claim 6. Rimini further teaches providing information for at least each day and each timestamp relating to the categorizing in at least one visualization, the at least one visualization displaying information regarding energy consumption data (Rimini: ¶127-130 disclose providing a visualization of the energy consumption data).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the visualizations, as taught by Rimini, into the system and method of Finkel, Rimini, and Desai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create alerts of user-specific power consumption abnormalities at a predefined schedule and calculate the impact of the changes on the user's electricity bill” (Rimini: ¶34).
In regards to claim 8, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the method of claim 7. Rimini further teaches wherein the at least one visualization includes one or more recommendations for improving energy consumption efficiency for the site, the recommendations including a confidence level that the recommendations will reduce energy consumption at the site (Rimini: ¶69, ¶82, ¶85, ¶109, ¶127-130 disclose generating and providing recommendation messages to a user and providing a visualization of the energy consumption data).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the visualizations, as taught by Rimini, into the system and method of Finkel, Rimini, and Desai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create alerts of user-specific power consumption abnormalities at a predefined schedule and calculate the impact of the changes on the user's electricity bill” (Rimini: ¶34).
In regards to claim 9, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the method of claim 1. Finkel and Rimini together further teach wherein generating the model of normal energy consumption comprise executing a machine learning algorithm for automatically learning to disaggregate the data points into the plurality of granular classifications (Finkel: ¶32, ¶40, ¶54-56 disclose disaggregating the data using machine learning algorithms; Rimini: ¶65-66, ¶71-73 disclose generating a model of regular energy consumption data using a machine learning engine).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the energy consumption model, as taught by Rimini, into the system and method of Finkel, Rimini, and Desai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create alerts of user-specific power consumption abnormalities at a predefined schedule and calculate the impact of the changes on the user's electricity bill” (Rimini: ¶34).
In regards to claim 10, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the method of claim 1. Finkel further teaches wherein the energy consumption data is analyzed on at least one of the energy consumption meters, a gateway associated with one or more of the energy consumption meters, edge software, and a cloud-based energy management system (Finkel: ¶29-31 disclose wherein the energy consumption data analysis is performed by a central computerized device coupled to the at least one power consumption meter).
In regards to claim 11, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the method of claim 1. Finkel further teaches wherein the energy consumption data is periodically collected by the energy consumption meters (Finkel: ¶29-31 wherein the energy consumption data may be periodically collected or continuously collected).
In regards to claim 12, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the method of claim 1. Finkel further teaches wherein the energy consumption data is continuously collected by the energy consumption meters (Finkel: ¶29-31 wherein the energy consumption data may be periodically collected or continuously collected).
In regards to claim 13, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the method of claim 1. Finkel and Rimini together further teach collecting additional site information, the additional site information including at least one of weather data, an operating schedule, an event schedule, occupancy, solar irradiance, number of dishes served, attendance, number of visitors, and historical energy consumption data, and wherein the model of normal energy consumption is a function of the additional site information (Finkel: ¶39 disclose collecting additional location information, such as weather data; Rimini: ¶65-66, ¶71-73 disclose collecting environmental data and utilizing the data when generating a model of regular energy consumption data).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the energy consumption model, as taught by Rimini, into the system and method of Finkel, Rimini, and Desai. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to “create alerts of user-specific power consumption abnormalities at a predefined schedule and calculate the impact of the changes on the user's electricity bill.” (Rimini: ¶34).
In regards to claim 14, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 1 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 1. Additionally, Finkel further teaches A system for energy management (Finkel: ¶9-19 disclose a system and method for energy analysis) comprising: one or more energy consumption meters configured to collect energy consumption data for a site, the energy consumption data comprising a plurality of data points each having a timestamp and a value representative of a level of energy usage (Finkel: ¶29-31 disclose a plurality of “smart” power consumption meters); and a controller in communication with the one or more energy consumption meters, the controller having a processor and a memory component, the memory component storing processor-executable instructions (Finkel: ¶36-38 disclose a processor and memory storing instructions). Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 1 applies to the rejection of claim 14.
In regards to claim 15, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the system of claim 14. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 2 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 2. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 2 applies to the rejection of claim 15.
In regards to claim 16, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the system of claim 14. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 3 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 3. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 3 applies to the rejection of claim 16.
In regards to claim 17, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the system of claim 14. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 4 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 4.
In regards to claim 18, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the system of claim 17. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 5 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 5.
In regards to claim 19, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the system of claim 14. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 6 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 6. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 6 applies to the rejection of claim 19.
In regards to claim 20, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the system of claim 19. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 7 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 7. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 7 applies to the rejection of claim 20.
In regards to claim 21, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the system of claim 20. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 8 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 8. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 8 applies to the rejection of claim 21.
In regards to claim 22, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the system of claim 14. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 9 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 9. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 9 applies to the rejection of claim 22.
In regards to claim 23, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the system of claim 14. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 10 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 10.
In regards to claim 24, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the system of claim 14. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 11 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 11.
In regards to claim 25, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the system of claim 14. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 12 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 12.
In regards to claim 26, Finkel, Rimini, and Desai teach the system of claim 14. Additionally, the claim recites the same or similar limitations as those addressed above in claim 13 and therefore is rejected for the same reasons set forth above for claim 13. Furthermore, the rationale to combine the prior art set forth above for claim 13 applies to the rejection of claim 26.
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 Wayne S Murray whose telephone number is (571)272-4306. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm ET.
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, Jeffrey Zimmerman can be reached at (571) 272-4602. 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.
/Wayne S. Murray/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
