Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the IDS filed 8/31/2026. As per the claims filed 6/30/2026:
Claims 1-9 were amended.
Claims 10-16 were added.
No claims were cancelled.
Claims 1-16 are pending.
Claim(s) 1, 9 is/are independent claim(s).
Note Regarding Prior Art
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
Note Regarding AIA Status
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites a system, thus one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter.
However, claim 1 further recites comprising: [a controller configured to] receive a request to determine a desired measured value; [autonomously] create, a proposal as to which of the plurality of measuring devices is suitable for determining the specific measured value; which is an evaluation or judgement that can be performed in the human mind or with the help of pen and paper thus falling within the mental process grouping of abstract ideas. The claim is analogous to a human performing the determination of what measuring device to use after analyzing the material in front of him/her. Claim 1 thus recites an abstract idea.
The claims does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
A controller configured to receive.. autonomously create.. and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is not more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f).
outputting the created proposal to a user of the system by the controller - by MPEP 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a controller (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more, and outputting the created proposal to a user of the system by the controller - by MPEP 2106.05(g), is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data gathering and outputting. Therefore the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus the claim is ineligible.
As per dependent claim 2, The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
A database and the controller configured to access the database and by MPEP 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular source or type of data to be manipulated.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because accessing a database to retrieve data - by MPEP 2106.05(g), is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data gathering and outputting. Therefore the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus the claim is ineligible.
As per dependent claim 3, The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
wherein the database comprises a plurality of information regarding material properties, measurement methods and the plurality of measuring devices, and the controller is configured autonomously creates the proposal based on the plurality of information and by MPEP 2106.05(h) is “restricting the abstract idea to a particular technological environment” by restricting the type of data being analyzed.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)) cannot provide significantly more.
As per dependent claim 4, the claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
wherein the controller is configured to update the database after determining the measured value by MPEP 2106.05(g), insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because updating a database - by MPEP 2106.05(g), is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of consulting and updating a log(2106.05(v)). Therefore the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus the claim is ineligible.
Claim 5 recites only additional mental steps of wherein creating proposal comprises a sequential or simultaneous use of a plurality of the plurality of measuring devices but does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 6 recites only additional mental steps of wherein for a determination of the desired measured value, the measurements made by each of the plurality of measuring devices used is taken into account but does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 7 recites only additional element of wherein determining the desired measured value is carried out autonomously by the controller and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is not more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a controller (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more.
Claim 8 recites only additional mental steps of wherein the controller takes into account a current or future planned operating states of the plurality of measuring devices for creating the proposal but does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 9 recites the system according to claim 1, wherein each of the plurality of measuring devices comprises a controller configured to communicate with the controller of the system and to implement the proposals created by the controller of the system. By MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer cannot integrate and abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, so Claim 9 is rejected as subject-matter ineligible for reasons set forth in the rejections of the respective claims.
As per dependent claim 10, The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
wherein each of the plurality of measuring devices comprises a database, and wherein the controller of the measuring device is configured to access the database of the measuring device and by MPEP 2106.05(g), it is insignificant extra-solution activity of selecting a particular source or type of data to be manipulated.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because accessing a database to retrieve data - by MPEP 2106.05(g), is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data gathering and outputting. Therefore the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus the claim is ineligible.
As per dependent claim 11, The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of:
wherein the database of the measuring device stores information relevant to the measuring device and by MPEP 2106.05(g), it is insignificant extra-solution activity of storing and retrieving data.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because accessing a database to store and retrieve data - by MPEP 2106.05(g), is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data gathering and outputting. Therefore the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus the claim is ineligible.
Claim 12 recites the additional element of wherein the controller and the database of the measuring device are configured to support the controller and the database of the system and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is not more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f). Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a controller (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more.
Claim 13 recites the additional element of wherein each of the plurality of measuring devices comprises a sensor device configured to monitor measuring parameters while determining the measured value and the performance of an abstract idea on a computer is not more than instructions to “apply it” on a computer, by MPEP 2106.05(f) and sensors are generic hardware components. Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because implementation on a controller (MPEP 2106.05(f)) cannot provide significantly more.
As per dependent claim 14, The claim does not include any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the additional elements consist of: wherein the controller is configured to output a warning if necessary when determining the desired measured value which by MPEP 2106.05(g), consists of insignificant extra-solution activity of mere data gathering and outputting.
Thus, the claim is directed towards an abstract idea.
Further, the additional elements, alone or in combination do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself, because outputting the created proposal to a user of the system by the controller - by MPEP 2106.05(g), is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity of data gathering and outputting. Therefore the combination of additional elements does not provide an inventive concept. Thus the claim is ineligible.
Claim 15 recites only additional mental steps of interrupt the determining of the measured value if necessary when determining the desired measured value but does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 16 recites only additional mental steps of autonomously change the measuring parameters of the measuring device if necessary when determining the desired measured value but does not recite any new additional elements which could integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Michael Aryev et al.(US Pat No. 6581012; Published: 06/17/2003)(hereinafter: Aryev).
Claim 1:
As per independent claim 1, Arvey discloses a system comprising a plurality of measuring devices [[col 5, lines 53-64] the VIFA framework provides a set of specimen processing modules (SPM) 50. Each SPM is a hardware/software entity that is under the control of VIFA workflow automation programming. The SPM is responsible for implementing the programming of processing and/or analyzing the specimen…Each SPM 50 preferably encloses all instrument hardware and embedded process control software within a component of the VIFA framework, namely the physical instrument shell.]
A controller configured to receive a request to determine a desired measured value [[col 2-3, lines 63-3] The work flow automation programming includes 1) request processing programming for processing a user request for any of the tests which are available to be performed by the specimen processing modules, and also includes 2) functional control programming providing functional control of specimen processing modules for performing any of the tests];
to autonomously create a proposal as to which of the plurality of measuring devices is suitable for determining the desired measured value [[col 8, lines 26-30] order entry and test planning block 80 communicates with Instrument complex block 90. Instrument complex block 90 provides complete management functions for any of the different types of SPMs 50 which are supported by the work flow automation layer 56. [col 11, lines 7-12] The test plan object 206 describes a specimen in terms of the test activities it is subjected to. It also provides dynamic representation of the state of all tests ordered on a given specimen. The test plan object 206 is uniquely associated with a corresponding specimen object 208 [col 11, lines 17-21] Test activity objects 204 are created within instrument complex block 90 by the test plans object. A logical instrument object 202 maps a test activity object 204 into a specific command from an SPM supported repertoire] The controller autonomously creates a proposal as to which measuring device is suitable; and
to output the created proposal to a user of the system [[col 3, lines 2-8] 3) result data management programming which provides processing of test result data of any of the tests. Integrated user interface programming communicates with the integrated work flow automation programming for permitting a user to control and monitor all aspects of the computer system operation].
Claim 2:
As per dependent claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Aryev further discloses further comprising a database, wherein the controller is configured to access the database for creating the proposal [[col 3, lines 50-55] the work flow automation programming can include programming for maintaining a database of test result data received from of the specimen processing module. Such test result database is preferably accessible by the programming for result data management described above].
Claim 3:
As per claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Aryev discloses wherein the database comprises a plurality of information regarding material properties, measurement methods and, and the controller is configured to autonomously create the proposal based on the plurality of information [[col 3, lines 50-55] the work flow automation programming can include programming for maintaining a database of test result data received from of the specimen processing module. Such test result database is preferably accessible by the programming for result data management described above].
the plurality of measuring devices [[col 11, lines 7-12] The test plan object 206 describes a specimen in terms of the test activities it is subjected to. It also provides dynamic representation of the state of all tests ordered on a given specimen. The test plan object 206 is uniquely associated with a corresponding specimen object 208]
Claim 4:
As per dependent claim 4, which depends on claim 2, Aryev further discloses wherein the controller is configured to update the database after determining the measured value. [[col 3, lines 50-55] the work flow automation programming can include programming for maintaining a database of test result data received from of the specimen processing module. Such test result database is preferably accessible by the programming for result data management described above].
Claim 5:
As per dependent claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Aryev further discloses wherein the controller is configured to create the proposal such that it comprises a sequential or simultaneous use of a plurality of the plurality of measuring devices [[col 15, lines 18-23] FIGS. 13-25 are object interaction diagrams (OIDs) which present a sequence of operations performed by different objects collaborating in the major aspects of the work flow from the order processing and specimen receipt to results processing and release of test results].
Claim 6:
As per dependent claim 6, which depends on claim 5, Aryev further discloses wherein for a determination of the desired measured value, the measurements made by each of the plurality of measuring devices used are taken into account [[col 9, lines 21-28] , results processing and verification block 120 participates in the external integration of the work flow by enabling concurrent use of result verification functions for data accumulated in the system. It also supports the internal integration of automated work flow process by means of collaboration with the order entry and test planning block 80.].
Claim 7:
As per claim 7, which depends on claim 6, Aryev further discloses wherein the controller is configured to determine the desired measured value [[col 6, lines 32-38] The work flow automation layer 56 encompasses and implements complete test request processing, result data management, workload management and multiple instrument control. It also includes functional control over operations of specific instruments, their status monitoring and quality control].
Claim 8:
As per claim 8, which depends on claim 1, Aryev further discloses wherein the controller is configured to take into account a current or future planned operating states of the plurality of measuring devices for creating the proposal [[col 9, lines 12-19] Integration of result verification with knowledge based expert systems is also enabled within this component. While the main purpose of the result processing and verification block 120 is to handle the raw data processing and verification semantics of test result data, it also preferably plays a key role in supporting efficient automation of lab work flow.] current results integrated into knowledge bases system and taken into account to create future results.
9. A system comprising a plurality of measuring devices configured to perform the method according claim 1.
Claim 16:
As per claim 16, which depends on claim 13, Aryev discloses wherein the controller is configured to autonomously change the measuring parameters of the measuring device if necessary when determining the desired measured value [[col 11, lines 17-27] Test activity objects 204 are created within instrument complex block 90 by the test plans object. A logical instrument object 202 maps a test activity object 204 into a specific command from an SPM supported repertoire. The mapping of a test activity object 204 into commands is determined by the SPM embedded process implementation. According to a preferred embodiment, the test activity object 204 is not required to change to support a new SPM. Instead, a new mapping of test activity objects 204 into commands for the new SPM is defined. This mapping facilitates the extension of the logical instruments complex 90].
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aryev as applied to claim 1 above in view of Florian Kramer et al (US PG Pub No: US2020/0300899; Published: 09/24/2020) (hereinafter: Kramer).
Claim 10:
As per claim 10, which depends on claim 9, Aryev discloses accessing a database [[col 3, lines 50-55] the work flow automation programming can include programming for maintaining a database of test result data received from of the specimen processing module. Such test result database is preferably accessible by the programming for result data management described above].
However, Aryev failed to specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of measuring devices comprises a database, and wherein the controller of the measuring device is configured to access the database of the measuring device.
Kramer, in the same field of measuring devices discloses this limitations in that [[0041] The monitoring device can additionally have a memory for storing a value for the monitored currents. A memory can e.g. be used to store and compare a plurality of currents determined for respectively one component to be monitored. [0050] The current detection devices 9 are connected in the present exemplary embodiment with a computing unit 14, which compares the measured currents with reference values stored in a memory 15, which is likewise connected to the computing unit 14, and with currents measured in previously performed measurements.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the measuring device of Aryev such that each of the plurality of measuring devices comprises a database, and wherein the controller of the measuring device is configured to access the database of the measuring device as disclosed by Kramer. The motivation for doing so would have been to have localized memory in order to achieve higher process reliability and/or accident safety (0013).
Claim 11:
As per claim 11, which depends on claim 10, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10 above. Additionally, Aryev and Kramer disclose wherein the database of the measuring device stores information relevant to the measuring device. Kramer [[0041] The monitoring device can additionally have a memory for storing a value for the monitored currents. A memory can e.g. be used to store and compare a plurality of currents determined for respectively one component to be monitored.
Claim 12:
As per claim 12, which depends on claim 11, it is rejected under the same rationale as claim 10 above. Additionally, Aryev and Kramer disclose wherein the controller and the database of the measuring device are configured to support the controller and the database of the system. Kramer [[0050] The current detection devices 9 are connected in the present exemplary embodiment with a computing unit 14, which compares the measured currents with reference values stored in a memory 15, which is likewise connected to the computing unit 14, and with currents measured in previously performed measurements.]
Claim 13:
As per claim 13, which depends on claim 9, Aryev discloses a measuring device, however, Aryev failed to specifically disclose wherein each of the plurality of measuring devices comprises a sensor device configured to monitor measuring parameters while determining the measured value.
Kramer, in the same field of measuring devices discloses this limitations in that [[0035-0037] current being monitored by device].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the measuring device of Aryev such that each of the plurality of measuring devices comprises a sensor device configured to monitor measuring parameters while determining the measured value as disclosed by Kramer. The motivation for doing so would have been to have localized sensors in order to achieve higher process reliability and/or accident safety (0013).
Claim 14:
As per claim 14, which depends on to claim 13, Aryev and Kramer disclose wherein the controller is configured to output a warning if necessary when determining the desired measured value. [[0053] shown in the exemplary embodiment of FIG. 1, said reference value can be stored in the memory 15 or generated as an analog value. After the comparison, a warning condition is checked and a warning is issued when the warning condition is met.]
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the measuring device of Aryev to output a warning if necessary when determining the desired measured value as disclosed by Kramer. The motivation for doing so would have been to have display warnings to users in order achieve higher process reliability and/or accident safety (0013).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aryev and Kramer in view of Koji Katsuki (US PG Pub No: US2011/0174638; Published: 07/21/2011) (hereinafter: Katsuki).
Claim 15:
As per claim 15, which depends on to claim 13, Aryev and Kramer failed to specifically disclose wherein the controller is configured to interrupt the determining of the measured value if necessary when determining the desired measured value.
Katsuki, in the same field of measuring devices discloses this limitation in that [[0188] the temperature control unit 13 outputs, to the sensor control unit 12, an instruction (instruction signal) having a content of stopping the measurement of the glucose concentration by the glucose sensor 4, thus interrupting the measurement of the glucose concentration].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the measuring device of Aryev to interrupt the determining of the measured value if necessary when determining the desired measured value as disclosed by Katsuki. The motivation for doing so would have been to make sure conditions are being met when taking the measurements, thus increasing measurement reliability.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits “the technical feature of controller controls and executes the measurement process and therefore constitutes an integration of an abstract idea into a practical application and therefore complies with the regulations of MPEP 2106.05(f).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
As per MPEP 2106.05 Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include:
i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 225-26, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), in this particular claim, the introduction of the controller executing the measurement process is merely indicating the function being performed by a hardware component.
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.
Applicant's arguments filed 6/30/2026 regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant submits: “However, according to Aryev, the test order object 212 is a requisition for work to be performed on one or more specimens. Such a direct requisition already comprises information concerning which measuring devices are to be used to test said specimen. The test activity object 204 on the other hand merely represents a single activity within the context of specimen processing which is created from a test plan object 206 which is created from a test order object 212. Consequently, in the parlance of the present application, the creation of a proposal as to which measuring device is suitable is completed at the latest by the creation of a test order object 212, not of a test activity object 204. According to Aryev, the test order objects 212 are created by interpreting user test orders. Since the user manually orders the test to be performed, the choice of which measuring device to use (i.e. the proposal) for said test is also manually locked in by the user, and is not determined by the system”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant submits: Such a direct requisition already comprises information concerning which measuring devices are to be used to test said specimen… Since the user manually orders the test to be performed, the choice of which measuring device to use (i.e. the proposal) for said test is also manually locked in by the user, and is not determined by the system.
The claim limitation at question is “to autonomously create a proposal as to which of the plurality of measuring devices is suitable for determining the desired measured value”. The claim limitation does not preclude a limited list of measuring devices to be defined prior to the determination. Aryev discloses (Col 5, lines 50-63) “the VIFA framework provides a set of specimen processing modules (SPM) 50. Each SPM is a hardware/software entity that is under the control of VIFA workflow automation programming. The SPM is responsible for implementing the programming of processing and/or analyzing the specimen. For example, the SPM can include specimen preparation, specimen testing, or test data delivery. Each SPM 50 preferably encloses all instrument hardware and embedded process control software within a component of the VIFA framework, namely the physical instrument shell” That is, each SPM encloses all possible measuring devices to be used, but the controller (control software) makes the decision on which to use.
Additionally, even in cases where “the user manually orders the test to be performed, the choice of which measuring device to use (i.e. the proposal) for said test is also manually locked in by the user” it is the system, based on the test order that makes the determination of which instruments are selected. Aryev discloses this in (col 8, lines 26-50) order entry and test planning block 80 communicates with Instrument complex block 90. Instrument complex block 90 provides complete management functions for any of the different types of SPMs 50 which are supported by the work flow automation layer 56. According to a preferred embodiment, these management functions include but are not limited to, instruments status monitoring and control, test repertoire specification, instrument calibration, and remote diagnostics…Such functions can include workload distribution and on-line configuration management (e.g. addition and removal of instruments). In general, instrument complex 90 implements a layer of abstraction for various types of physical instruments that isolates users of the virtual instrument complex from the physical instrument detail and manages each individual SPM 50 as a resource within the virtual instrument complex. Thus Aryev discloses the claimed limitations.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOWARD CORTES whose telephone number is (571)270-1383. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott T Baderman can be reached on (571)272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HOWARD CORTES/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
