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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to papers filed on 11/3/2025.
Claims 1, 4 ,6, 9, 11, 14 ,16, 19, and 20 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claim 1), system (Claim 11), and/or computer readable storage device (Claim 20), thus Claims 1-20 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below.
Claims 1, 11, and 20 recite (as represented by the language of Claim 1):
receiving, at a utilization-based metering system, a request from a user to use a processing resource of an entity offered as-a-service by the entity, wherein the request identifies an overall length of time of usage of the processing resource;
setting, using the utilization-based metering system, an initial rate for usage of the processing resource over a second period of time, wherein the second period of time is shorter than the overall length of time of usage;
validating, using the utilization-based metering system and in view of the second period of time, the initial rate, wherein the validating comprises identifying an amount of actual usage of the processing resource for the second period of time and determining whether the initial rate meets a predetermined criteria in view of the amount of actual usage; and
setting, using the utilization-based metering system and based upon the validating, a subsequent rate for usage of the processing resource for a subsequent period of time after the second period of time and within the overall length of time of usage;
wherein the validating and the setting of the subsequent rate occur iteratively during the overall length of time of usage.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance of commercial or legal interactions in the form of marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of commercial or legal interactions which represents the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for monitoring, setting, and updating usage rates based on usage a time periods.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite additional elements such as:
a system, comprising a processor and a memory device that stores executable instructions for performing the claimed activities;
a product comprising a computer-readable storage device that stores executable code for performing the claimed activities; and
a utilization-based metering system for receiving data, setting rates, and/or validating rates.
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at [0027]; [0033]; etc.). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include 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).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, 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 using a processor to perform the 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.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 2-10 and 12-19 recite further elements related to the analysis, scoring, and message improvement steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas.
Claims 2 and 12 recite “wherein the setting an initial rate comprises receiving, from the user, an identification of an estimated amount of usage of the processing resource over the period of time” which narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract.
Claims 3 and 13 recite “wherein the setting an initial rate comprises utilizing historical information regarding resource usage by the user” which narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract.
Claims 4 and 14 recite “wherein the setting an initial rate comprises performing an analysis of historical resource usage by the user” which narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract.
Claims 5 and 15 recite “wherein the setting a subsequent rate comprises identifying secondary factors with respect to the user and wherein the subsequent rate accounts for the secondary factors” which narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract.
Claims 6 and 16 recite “wherein the setting the subsequent rate in view of the secondary factors is performed utilizing a trained artificial intelligence model”. The trained machine learning model used to perform the recited steps is recited at a high-level of generality and is only nominally and generically recited as a tool for performing these steps and does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 17 recite “wherein the setting a subsequent rate comprises adjusting, responsive to the validating indicating the initial rate does not meet the predetermined criteria, the initial rate to the subsequent rate, wherein the subsequent rate is different than the initial rate” which narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract.
Claims 8 and 18 recite “wherein the setting a subsequent rate comprises maintaining, responsive to the validating indicating the initial rate does meet the predetermined criteria, the initial rate as the subsequent rate, wherein the subsequent rate is the same as the initial rate” which narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract.
Claims 9 and 19 recite “wherein the predetermined criteria is identified based upon the overall length of time of usage” which narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract.
Claim 10 recites “wherein different processing resources have different initial rates” which narrows how the abstract idea may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract.
The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 2-10 and 12-19 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 9-12, 15, 17, 19, and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahn (Pub. No. US 2009/0012885 A1) in view of Lund (Pub. No. US 2005/0256810 A1).
In regards to Claims 1, 11, 20, Cahn discloses:
A method, the method/system/product comprising:
a processor; a memory/computer-readable storage device that stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to: ([0017])
receiving, at a utilization-based metering system, a request from a user to use a processing resource of an entity offered as-a-service by the entity, wherein the request identifies an overall length of time of usage of the processing resource; ([0022], “…service contract is established for a period (for example 6 months, 12 months), this represents a request to use the service “as-a-service” (subscription), under broadest reasonable interpretation, a service facilitating the transmittal of data between networked devices would represent a “processing resource”, the disclosed “method of providing adjustable rate usage-based billing for data services” describes a metering system for measuring user data utilization (utilization-based metering system); Abstract; [0021]; [0031]; Claim 6, the customer provides an estimate of their usage to establish an initial rate that is then monitored and compare to actual usage for the subscription term (overall length of time of usage, such as 6 months, 12 months, etc.))
setting, using the utilization-based metering system, an initial rate for usage of the processing resource over a second period of time, wherein the second period of time is shorter than the overall length of time of usage; (Abstract; Claim 1, establishes an initial rate for the contract time period (level billing rate) that is then monitored and compared to actual usage (average usage), “The initial level billing rate is typically monthly, and is maintained during a predetermined level billing period. Upon expiration of the level billing period, the actual average usage on a monthly basis is calculated and compared to the level billing rate.”, the initial rate is set for the level billing period and for the billing cycles (second period of time [months, for example]) within the level billing period, the billing cycle being shorter than the level billing period)
validating, using the utilization-based metering system and in view of the second period of time, the initial rate, wherein the validating comprises identifying an amount of actual usage of the processing resource for the second period of time and determining whether the initial rate meets a predetermined criteria in view of the amount of usage; (Claim 1, the initial rate (level billing rate) is validated by comparing a customer’s average (amount) of usage (by billing cycle, second time period) for the period to a predetermined criteria (the criteria being a percentage difference between the initial rate and the average usage compared to a maximum adjustment), by comparing the average actual usage of the user to the initial rate (that was based on initial estimates of use) and determining a percentage difference to compare to the maximum adjustment, the initial rate is validated (validation indicating how accurate the initial rate was, such as too high or too low) and it can be determined if the rate needs adjusted, see also Abstract; Fig. 3; [0021]-[0023], additional detail regarding validations and initial rates based on usage estimates, the validation of the initial rate is made in view of the second time period (i.e. billing cycle), as each billing cycle is analyzed to validate the initial rate (see also [0023]; [0030]; Claim 3)) and
Cahn discloses the above system/method for validating and updating service rates. Cahn additionally discloses setting, using the utilization-based metering system and based upon the validating, a subsequent rate for usage of the processing resource for a subsequent period of time (Claim 1, based upon the validation (percentage difference between initial rate/estimated use and average use) setting a subsequent rate (adjusted/new billing rate) for a subsequent time period (next level billing period), the “next level billing period” representing the billing period subsequent to the current billing period (or second period of time). Cahn does not explicitly disclose the subsequent rate for usage of the processing resource for the subsequent period of time being within the overall length of time of usage. However, Lund teaches:
setting, based upon an analysis of actual usage and price, a subsequent rate for usage of the a resource for a subsequent period of time after a second period of time and within an overall length of time of usage (Claim 7; Abstract; [0028]; [0053], the system analyses the use of resources by the customer and the whether the service meets the agreed upon service and can adjust the price for the next billing period (comparable to the billing cycle in Cahn and second period of time)
wherein the validating and the setting of the subsequent rate occur iteratively during the overall length of time of usage ([0053]; [0054], example shows that the subsequent period (period after the analyzed period) can also be analyzed demonstrating a month-to-month process (iterative))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Cahn so as to have included setting a subsequent rate for usage of the resource for a subsequent period of time and within an overall length of time of usage; and wherein the validating and the setting of the subsequent rate occur iteratively during the overall length of time of usage, as taught by Lund in order to ensure that the cost to the customer matches changing levels of service provided (Lund, Abstract; [0043]; etc.; Cahn, Abstract; [007]; etc.). The references demonstrate the necessary components and expertise to incorporate Lund’s validation and rate adjustment performed from billing period to billing period to Cahn’s system (which uses billing period validations to adjust rates for subsequent overall lengths of time). This can be performed without teaching away from the systems of Cahn, which includes the capabilities to analyses individual billing periods in regards to actual usage and rates and one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that applying the techniques of Lund to Cahn would merely allow Cahn to perform the rate adjustments for any subsequent time periods desired, such as subsequent billing periods, subsequent overall lengths of time, or any other time periods (for example, a range of billing periods). As further evidence, Examiner notes [0044] of Lund, which teaches that, in addition to performing the system/method on each billing period, it can also be performed on larger lengths of time, such as multiple billing periods. These longer lengths of time can be applied/compared to the contract/subscription time periods in Cahn (for example, see [0023] in Cahn, a billing cycle can be a month, and a contract/subscription can be multiple consecutive billing cycles).
In regards to Claims 2 and 12, Cahn discloses:
wherein the setting an initial rate comprises receiving, from the user, an identification of an estimated amount of usage of the processing resource over the period of time (Abstract; [0021]; [0031]; Claim 6, the customer provides an estimate of their usage to establish an initial rate that is then monitored and compare to actual usage)
In regards to Claims 5 and 15, Cahn discloses:
wherein the setting a subsequent rate comprises identifying secondary factors with respect to the user and wherein the subsequent rate accounts for the secondary factors (Abstract, the subsequent rate can also be set using carry-over (secondary factor added to the subsequent rate) from the previous period).
In regards to Claims 7 and 17, Cahn discloses:
wherein the setting a subsequent rate comprises adjusting, responsive to the validating indicating the initial rate does not meet the predetermined criteria, the initial rate to the subsequent rate, wherein the subsequent rate is different than the initial rate (Claim 1, when the validation (percentage difference) does not meet the maximum adjustment (less than 1 or greater than 1), a different rate is used, see also Abstract; Fig. 3; [0021]-[0023]).
In regards to Claims 8 and 18, Cahn/Lund discloses the above method/system for validating an initial rate for a time period in order to determine subsequent rates for subsequent time periods, including determining if the validation meets a predetermined result. Cahn/Lund does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the setting a subsequent rate comprises maintaining, responsive to the validating indicating the initial rate does meet the predetermined criteria, the initial rate as the subsequent rate, wherein the subsequent rate is the same as the initial rate.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that when the validation (percentage difference) does meet the maximum adjustment (1), the same rate would be used. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize and understand that, if a result greater than 1 produces an adjusted rate of “initial rate plus a percentage” and a result less than 1 produces and adjusted rate of “initial rate minus a percentage”, then a result of exactly 1 would be equal to the initial rate (because it would not have a percentage added or subtracted and would merely be the initial rate without any changes). See Cahn, Claim 1; Abstract; Fig. 3; [0021]-[0023].
In regards to Claims 9 and 19, Cahn discloses:
wherein the predetermined criteria is identified based upon the overall length of time of usage (Abstract; [0021]; [0031]; Claim 6, the customer provides an estimate of their usage to establish an initial rate that is then monitored and compare to actual usage for the subscription term (overall length of time of usage, such as 6 months, 12 months, etc.))
In regards to Claim 10, Cahn discloses:
wherein different processing resources have different initial rates ([0021], the initial rate can be made up of different rates applied to different uses of the processing resource such as based on class of service, the rates applied to each use (each estimated cost) would represent an initial rate for that use and are summed to determine the overall initial rate (see also [0019]; [0020])).
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahn in view of Lund in further view of Poon (Pub. No. US 2024/0428354 A1).
In regards to Claims 6 and 16, Cahn/Lund discloses the above method/system for validating an initial rate for a time period in order to determine subsequent rates for subsequent time periods, including using multiple factors. Cahn/Lund does not explicitly disclose wherein the setting the subsequent rate in view of the secondary factors is performed utilizing a trained artificial intelligence model.
However, Poon teaches the use of a trained artificial intelligence model to determine and refine cost estimations based on multiple factors related to requests for processing services (see at least [0062]-[0065], cost estimates for a user/customer related to the use of processing resource (use of an AI model) is determined, iteratively refined, fine-tuned, and customized to determine precise and tailored cost estimation based on the use and performance of the processing resource, although not labeled as such, the “processing metric”, which uses weighted percentages, takes multiple factors into account and is iteratively fine-tuned, refined, and customized describes an artificial intelligence process (“processing metric” should not to be confused with the AI model that performs the users processing requests, it is a separate model used to determine costs based on the other AI model processing factors); [0049], ; [0049], “…the system performs the AI processing by specifically utilizing a large language model…Large language models may include AI models that have been trained…”)
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that applying the known technique of Poon would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Poon to the teachings of Cahn/Lund would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such data processing features into similar systems. Further, applying Poon’s artificial intelligence method for optimizing cost estimates for resource usage to Cahn/Lund’s method/system for determine rates (costs) associated with resource usage, would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would allow further automation by the system in determining costs associated with resource usage.
Claim(s) 3, 4, 13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cahn in view of Lund in view of Ranjan et al. (Pub. No. US 2019/0087762 A1).
In regards to Claims 3 and 13, Cahn/Lund discloses the above limitations, including the prediction/estimation of usage for a time period to determine initial rates. Cahn/Lund does not explicitly disclose the utilizing historical data in that determination, but Ranjan teaches:
utilizing historical information regarding resource usage by the user ([0108], historical usage data is utilized to make a prediction/estimation of customer usage for a time period)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Cahn/Lund so as to have included utilizing historical information regarding resource usage by the user, as taught by Ranjan in order to identify potential cost savings based on the historical user data (Ranjan, [0108]).
In regards to Claims 4 and 14, Cahn/Lund discloses the above limitations, including the prediction/estimation of usage for a time period to determine initial rates. Cahn/Lund does not explicitly disclose the utilizing data analysis in that determination, but Ranjan teaches:
performing an analysis of historical resource usage by the user ([0108], historical usage data is utilized to make a prediction/estimation of customer usage for a time period, this use of historical data represents analysis resource usage for the customer)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Cahn/Lund so as to have included performing an analysis of resource usage by the user, as taught by Ranjan in order to identify potential cost savings base do the historical user data (Ranjan, [0108]).
Additional Prior Art Identified but Not Relied Upon
Cruzada (Pub. No. US 2008/0228865 A1). Discloses receiving, at a system, a request from a user to use a processing resource of an entity offered as-a-service by the entity; (see at least [0048]).
Dong et al. (Patent. No. US 10,423,456 B2). Discloses using resource utilization thresholds to analyze associated costs including usage charges (see at least column 1, line 43-column 2, line 16; column 3; column 4, lines 1-29).
Kafka et al. (2011/0255404 A1). Discloses a processor; a memory/computer-readable storage device that stores instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes the system to: validating, using the utilization-based metering system and in view of the period of time, the initial rate, wherein the validating comprises identifying an amount of usage of the processing resource for the period of time and determining whether the initial rate meets a predetermined criteria in view of the amount of usage; and setting, using the utilization-based metering system and based upon the validating, a subsequent rate for usage of the processing resource for a subsequent period of time; and that the time periods are subscription periods (see a t least [0031]; [0070]; Claim 22; Claim 23)
Momtahan et al. (Patent. No. US 9,203,629 B2). Discloses monitoring data usage for a subscriber session (service request), usage data including usage prices (see at least column 13, lines 60-63; Claim 1).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/3/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §101:
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention provides a practical application through improved accuracy and efficiency for resource utilization monitoring. However, Applicant does not provide adequate background or evidence to support these assertions. Applicant provides a description of the intended benefits of the claimed invention, but does not demonstrate how the alleged practical application and improvements are achieved in a meaningful manner.
See MPEP 2106.05(a), Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field (“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The 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. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”).
Although the claims are directed to a system that can monitor the use of resources, the steps used to monitor those resources are merely activities that are organized by the system/method and any technology included (utilization-based metering system, processor; a memory device, etc.) represent generically recited tools used to perform those steps.
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention is integrated into a particular application and does not monopolize the judicial exception. However, Applicant does not provide adequate background or evidence to support these assertions (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Applicant asserts that the limitations recite how the specific functions of the claims are performed by specific components and are not drafted as a generic function performed by a generic component. However, Applicant does not provide adequate background or evidence to support these assertions (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
It is noted that the rejections do not rely on a well-understood, routine, conventional activity rationale at this time.
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention provides an improvement to the relevant, existing technology. However, Applicant does not provide adequate background or evidence to support these assertions. Applicant provides a description of the intended benefits of the claimed invention, but does not demonstrate how the alleged improvements are achieved over existing technology. Applicant provides no background regarding the existing technology, such as but not limited to, what the deficiencies in the existing technology, how these deficiencies are addressed by the claimed invention, how the alleged improvements are achieved voder those systems, etc. (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Applicant asserts that the claimed invention is performed in an unconventional manner and provides a description of “conventional” systems that are “improved” upon. However, as discussed above, Applicant does not provide adequate background or evidence to support these assertions. Applicant merely asserts that existing systems use the described methods and that Applicant’s version is unconventional and improves over them, without providing anything more (see MPEP 2106.05(a)).
Applicant fails to provide any discussion of the additional elements (including no identification of any particular additional elements) and why they would not be generally linked to the judicial exception, such as how they provide significantly more, integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, provide an improvement, etc.
II. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §102 and 35 U.S.C. §103:
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Additionally, on page 20, Applicant asserts that the office action “…has not articulated a reason why a person skilled in the art would combine the prior art references, does not have adequate evidentiary basis for that finding, and has not provided a satisfactory explanation for the motivation finding that includes an express and rational connection with the evidence presented… has merely supplied a conclusory statement claiming that the combination of references would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.”. The above rejections (including those provided in the previous office action), include articulated motivations and rationales regarding why one of ordinary skill would be motivated to combine them. Applicant has asserted that they are not present, but has not provide any arguments to demonstrate why the motivations/rationales are deficient and/or merely conclusory statements. Applicant rebutted any of the provided motivations/rationales or provided any reasons why they would not be motivated to combine the references.
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 SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6872. 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.
/S.D.S/ Examiner, Art Unit 3629 February 28, 2026
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626