Non-Final Rejection
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 .
Claims 1-2 and 5-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 1-2 and 5-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103
Claims 3, 4, and 21 have been cancelled by Applicant
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract ideas without significantly more. The claims recite mental processes. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims generally link abstract ideas to a generic computer and perform mere data gathering in relation to the mental processes. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they include mere instructions to perform mental processes on a generic computer.
The claimed invention uses generic computing models to determine a high-level resolution to a generic failure in a computing environment based off of known data. The specification describes the invention as automizing and optimizing procedures previously done by humans (Paragraphs 0018 and 0022-0023).
Claim 1
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
Claim 1 recites:
to analyze (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), judgments, particularly “collecting information, analyzing it, …” are mental processes) … to generate a textual prompt (generating text is a mental process of an opinion that could be completed with a pen and paper, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) … wherein the first machine learning model is a question answering large language model (LLM) (answering questions is considered observing, evaluating, judging, and forming opinions, and thus is considered to be a mental process with respect to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A));
… to analyze (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), judgments, particularly “collecting information, analyzing it, …” are mental processes) … generate … based on at least … wherein the second machine learning model is a configuration generation coding LLM (an opinion of what a resolution or configuration should be based on known, observed information is considered a mental process with regards to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A));
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Claim 1 recites:
A computer-implemented method comprising: (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) …
implementing a configuration remediation system which executes on a processing platform to remediate failures which occur in a computing environment, wherein the configuration remediation system performs a method comprising (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application; MPEP 2106.05(h), specifying a field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application):
obtaining (MPEP 2106.05(g), mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity) state information related to an incident detected in the computing environment, the state information comprising a dynamic state information set and a static state information set, the dynamic state information set comprising one or more of events, traces, logs, and metrics related to the incident and the static state information set comprising one or more of types of entities within the computing environment, numbers of entities within the computing environment, and hardware configurations and infrastructure configurations within the computer environment (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi), limiting the data collection and analysis to a particular field of use does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application);
… executing a first machine learning model of a dual machine learning model architecture … the state information related to the incident … which comprises structured query that summarizes the incident based on the state information (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application; MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity) …
executing a second machine learning model of the dual machine learning model architecture (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) … the textual prompt to generate an output comprising at least (MPEP 2106.05(g), the display and output of data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity) one recommendation for resolving the incident (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), high level, generic solutions are considered mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and thus are not enough to integrate a claim into a practical application; MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity) … the state information related to the incident (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
generating, an automated control signal based on the output comprising the at least one recommendation for resolving the incident, which is output from the second machine learning model (MPEP 2106.05(g), the display and output of data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application);
and sending, the automated control signal to a system on which the computing environment is hosted to automatically reconfigure the computing environment in response to the control signal (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “using a computer in its ordinary capacity … e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data … does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”; MPEP 2106.05(g), the display and output of data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application).
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
The additional elements of the claim do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application. The claims simply state mental processes with mere instructions to perform these abstract ideas on a generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(3)). The computer is cited at such a high level of generality that it cannot be determined to be a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)) and is simply linking the judicial exception to a particular technology (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites only the idea of a solution but fails to recite details as to how the solution to the problem is accomplished, because it leaves a majority of the analysis to the generic computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). The computer is simply used as a tool to complete the mental process (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites:
executing a root cause failure analysis process to analyze the state information to generate a reduced set of information that relates to a subset of entities within the computing environment (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” comparing known information, and pattern matching are mental processes; MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), high level, generic solutions are considered mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and thus are not enough to integrate a claim into a practical application; MPEP 2106.05(h), specifying a field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application; MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity);
wherein the first machine learning model of the dual machine learning model architecture is executed to (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) analyze (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), judgments, particularly “collecting information, analyzing it, …” are mental processes) the reduced set of state information (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity) to generate the textual prompt (generating text is a mental process of an opinion that could be completed with a pen and paper, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim 5
Claim 5 recites:
wherein the configuration generation coding LLM is trained on historical data, the historical data comprising prior incidents in the computing environment and prior resolutions to the prior incidents in the computing environment (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application).
Claim 6
Claim 6 recites:
wherein the one or more of events, traces, logs of the dynamic state information set comprise one or more of events, traces, logs, and metrics of a given time window before and after detection of the incident (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites:
wherein the static state information set further comprises one or more of a state of one or more applications in the computing environment, a state of one or more infrastructure components of the computing environment, a configuration of the computing environment, a configuration of one or more entities in the computing environment and one or more resource types of the computing environment (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity).
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites:
wherein the incident indicates a potential functional failure of the computing environment (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(h), specifying a field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites:
wherein the incident indicates a potential performance failure of the computing environment (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(h)(vi), limiting the data collection and analysis to a particular field of use does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application).
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites:
wherein the at least one recommendation for resolving the incident comprises recommended changes to a configuration of the computing environment (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A), “observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” and pattern matching are mental processes; MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), high level, generic solutions are considered mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and thus are not enough to integrate a claim into a practical application).
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites:
wherein the output from the second machine learning model is input into the first machine learning model to retrain the first machine learning model (MPEP 2106.05(g), mere data gathering is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a generic computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application; MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity) with the at least one recommendation for resolving the incident, wherein the at least one recommendation for resolving the incident comprises at least one remediated configuration (determining what a configuration should be is a judgment with respect to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A); MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(f)(1), high level, generic solutions are considered mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and thus are not enough to integrate a claim into a practical application).
Claim 12
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
Claim 12 recites:
Please see the above rejection of Claim 1 regarding limitations that have been identified as abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Claim 12 recites:
A computer system comprising: a processor set (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application);
a set of one or more computer-readable storage media (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2), “using a computer in its ordinary capacity … e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data … does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application”);
and program instructions, collectively stored in the set of one or more storage media, for causing the processor set to … operations comprising (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) …
Please see the above rejection of Claim 1 regarding the remaining limitations that have been identified as additional elements.
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
Please see the above rejection of Claim 1 for the analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 13-15
All limitations of Claims 13-15 have been addressed in the analyses of Claims 2 and 6-7, respectively. Please see the above rejections for further details.
Claim 16
wherein the incident indicates at least one of a potential functional failure of the computing environment and a potential performance failure of the computing environment (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(h), specifying a field of use or technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application).
Claim 17
Step 2A Prong 1: Identification of Abstract Ideas
Claim 17 recites:
Please see the above rejection of Claim 1 regarding limitations that have been identified as abstract ideas.
Step 2A Prong 2: Identification of Additional Elements
Claim 17 recites:
A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to … operations comprising (MPEP 2106.05(f), mere instructions to apply an abstract idea on a computer is not enough to integrate the claim into a practical application) …
Please see the above rejection of Claim 1 regarding the remaining limitations that have been identified as additional elements.
Step 2B: Significantly More Analysis
Please see the above rejection of Claim 1 for the analysis under Step 2B.
Claims 18-20
All limitations of Claims 18-20 have been addressed in the analyses of Claims 2 and 6-7, respectively. Please see the above rejections for further details.
Claim 22
Claim 22 recites:
wherein the recommended changes to a configuration of the computing environment comprises one or more configuration remediation recommendations phrased in at least one of natural language or code (MPEP 2106.05(g), “selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated” is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; MPEP 2106.05(g), the display and output of data is considered insignificant extra-solution activity; an opinion formed in natural language or code is considered a mental process with respect to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(A)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2 and 5-20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bellam et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2024/0345911 A1), hereinafter referred to as Bellam, in view of Côrte-Real et al. (U.S. Patent No. 12,487,875 B1), hereinafter referred to as Côrte-Real.
With regards to Claim 1, Bellam teaches:
A computer-implemented method comprising (Paragraph 0025, description of the overall method; Paragraphs 0090-0092, implementing the method on a computer):
implementing a configuration remediation system which executes on a processing platform to remediate failures which occur in a computing environment, wherein the configuration remediation system performs a method comprising (Paragraph 0025, description of the overall method; Paragraphs 0090-0092, implementing the method on a computer):
obtaining state information related to an incident (Paragraphs 0051-0052, data obtained for an anomaly), the state information comprising a dynamic state information set and a static state information set (Paragraph 0052, telemetry and event data; Paragraphs 0033-0038, details of what telemetry and event data may include), the dynamic state information set comprising one or more of events, traces, logs, and metrics related to the incident (Paragraphs 0033 and 0037, data used for the analysis includes logs and metrics; Paragraphs 0034-0035, description of logs and metrics) and the static state information set comprising one or more of types of entities within the computing environment, numbers of entities within the computing environment, and hardware configurations and infrastructure configurations within the computing environment (Paragraphs 0033 and 0037, data used for the analysis includes change events and hardware changes; Paragraph 0036, versions, configurations management, and change events; Paragraphs 0034 and 0038, various counts, numbers, hardware measurements, etc., that may be considered);
executing a first machine learning model of a dual machine learning model architecture to analyze, the state information related to the incident (Paragraph 0008; Fig. 1, multiple models; Paragraphs 0049, 0051, and 0066, using resources of AI to analyze the information with the diagnostics module) to generate a textual prompt which comprises structured query that summarizes the incident based on the state information (Paragraph 0067, diagnostic results are output in the form of a report) … question answering … model (Paragraphs 0029-0031, the system can answer questions “in a human-like way”);
executing a second machine learning model of the dual machine learning model architecture to analyze the textual prompt to generate an output comprising at least one recommendation for resolving the incident, based on the state information related to the incident, wherein the second machine learning model is a configuration generation coding LLM (Paragraph 0067-0068, report input into module to create an automated resolution; Paragraphs 0066 and 0070, LLM and AI components powering the modules; Fig. 1; Paragraph 0090, code);
generating an automated control signal based on the output comprising the at least one recommendation for resolving the incident, which is output from the second machine learning model (Paragraphs 0068 and 0070, the recommendation being able to be automated; Paragraph 0090, executing the method using code);
and sending the automated control signal to a system on which the computing environment is hosted to automatically reconfigure the computing environment in response to the control signal (Paragraphs 0068 and 0070, the recommendation being able to be automated; Paragraph 0090, executing the method using code; Paragraph 0030 and Fig. 1, implementing solutions on the same or another device).
Bellam does not explicitly teach:
… wherein the first machine learning model is a … large language … (LLM) …
However, Côrte-Real teaches:
executing a first machine learning model of a dual machine learning model architecture to analyze the state information related to the incident to generate a textual prompt which comprises structured query that summarizes the incident based on the state information wherein the first machine learning model is a question answering large language model (LLM) (Col. 12, Lines 44-57, LLM for summarization; Col. 17, Lines 21-33, LLM-powered chatbot);
executing a second machine learning model of the dual machine learning model architecture … to generate an output comprising at least one recommendation for resolving the incident, based on the state information related to the incident, wherein the second machine learning model is a configuration generation coding LLM (Col. 11, Lines 60-67 and Col. 14, Line 61-Col. 15, Line 5, LLMs to generate code remediation) …;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in which said subject matter pertains to, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, implement an LLM as the first model of the method of Bellam, as taught by Côrte-Real, so that the different LLMs can be fine-tuned for different tasks, allowing for better results (Côrte-Real, Col. 20, Lines 23-50). Additionally, both the first model of Bellam and the LLM of Côrte-Real are used for natural language processing (Côrte-Real, Col. 22, Lines 15-26; Bellam, Paragraph 0031).
With regards to Claim 2, Bellam in view of Côrte-Real teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Bellam in view of Côrte-Real further teaches:
executing a root cause failure analysis process to analyze the state information to generate a reduced set of information that relates to a subset of entities within the computing environment (Bellam, Paragraphs 0053-0055, finding the root cause(s));
wherein the first machine learning model of the dual machine learning model architecture is executed to analyze the reduced set of state information to generate the textual prompt (Bellam, Paragraph 0055, further analyzing resulting information to complete the report).
With regards to Claim 5, Bellam in view of Côrte-Real teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Bellam in view of Côrte-Real further teaches:
wherein the configuration generation coding LLM is trained on historical data, the historical data comprising prior incidents in the computing environment and prior resolutions to the prior incidents in the computing environment (Bellam, Paragraph 0076, knowledge base of prior troubleshooting guides; Bellam, Paragraph 0088, various historical training data).
With regards to Claim 6, Bellam in view of Côrte-Real teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Bellam in view of Côrte-Real further teaches:
wherein the one or more of events, traces, logs of the dynamic state information set comprise one or more of events, traces, logs, and metrics of a given time window before and after detection of the incident (Bellam, Paragraphs 0033 and 0037, data used for the analysis includes logs and metrics; Bellam, Paragraphs 0034-0035, description of logs and metrics).
With regards to Claim 7, Bellam in view of Côrte-Real teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Bellam in view of Côrte-Real further teaches:
wherein the static state information set further comprises one or more of a state of one or more applications in the computing environment, a state of one or more infrastructure components of the computing environment, a configuration of the computing environment, a configuration of one or more entities in the computing environment and one or more resource types of the computing environment (Bellam, Paragraphs 0033 and 0037, data used for the analysis includes change events; Bellam, Paragraph 0036, versions, configurations management, and change events).
With regards to Claim 8, Bellam in view of Côrte-Real teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Bellam in view of Côrte-Real further teaches:
wherein the incident indicates a potential functional failure of the computing environment (Bellam, Paragraph 0037, monitoring system resources for failure).
With regards to Claim 9, Bellam in view of Côrte-Real teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Bellam in view of Côrte-Real further teaches:
wherein the incident indicates a potential performance failure of the computing environment (Bellam, Paragraph 0035, performance being monitored to detect a failure; Paragraph 0038, errors related to performance).
With regards to Claim 10, Bellam in view of Côrte-Real teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Bellam in view of Côrte-Real further teaches:
wherein the at least one recommendation for resolving the incident comprises recommended changes to a configuration of the computing environment (Bellam, Paragraph 0068, resolution and changes made; Col. 11, Lines 60-67 and Col. 14, Line 61-Col. 15, Line 5, recommended remediation and code).
With regards to Claim 11, Bellam in view of Côrte-Real teaches the method of Claim 1 as referenced above. Bellam in view of Côrte-Real further teaches:
wherein the output from the second machine learning model is input into the second machine learning model to retrain the second machine learning model with the at least one recommendation for resolving the incident (Bellam, Paragraph 0069, solutions reviewed to improve the ML; Bellam, Paragraph 0076, previous solutions stored in the knowledge base), wherein the at least one recommendation for resolving the incident comprises at least one remediated configuration (Bellam, Paragraph 0070, TSGs created from existing solutions in the knowledge base).
With regards to Claim 12, Bellam teaches:
A computer system comprising: a processor set (Paragraphs 0092-0093);
a set of one or more computer-readable storage media (Paragraph 0090);
and program instructions, collectively stored in the set of one or more storage media, for causing the processor set to … operations comprising (Paragraph 0090):
Bellam in view of Côrte-Real teaches the remaining limitations. Please see the above rejection of Claim 1 for citations of these limitations, as well as the motivation to combine references in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103.
All limitations of Claims 13-15 have been addressed in the analyses of Claims 2 and 6-7, respectively. Please see the above rejections for further details.
With regards to Claim 16, Bellam in view of Côrte-Real teaches the system of Claim 12 as referenced above. Bellam in view of Côrte-Real further teaches:
wherein the incident indicates at least one of a potential functional failure of the computing environment (Bellam, Paragraph 0037, monitoring system resources for failure) and a potential performance failure of the computing environment (Bellam, Paragraph 0035, performance being monitored to detect a failure; Paragraph 0038, errors related to performance).
With regards to Claim 17, Bellam teaches:
A computer program product comprising a computer readable storage medium having program instructions embodied therewith, the program instructions executable by one or more processors to cause the one or more processors to … operations comprising (Paragraph 0090):
Bellam in view of Côrte-Real teaches the remaining limitations. Please see the above rejection of Claim 1 for citations of these limitations, as well as the motivation to combine references in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 103.
All limitations of Claims 18-20 have been addressed in the analyses of Claims 2 and 6-7, respectively. Please see the above rejections for further details.
With regards to Claim 22, Bellam in view of Côrte-Real teaches the method of Claim 10 as referenced above. Bellam in view of Côrte-Real further teaches:
wherein the recommended changes to a configuration of the computing environment comprises one or more configuration remediation recommendations phrased in at least one of natural language or code (Côrte-Real, Col. 14, Line 61-Col. 15, Line 5, various code related changes as a remediation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on July 28th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The rejection of Claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) has been withdrawn due to the amendment.
Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
With regards to arguments that the claims contain limitations that are not mental processes, Examiner notes that not all limitations of the claims are mental processes, and some are additional elements that are not enough to integrate the claims into a practical application. These limitations are appropriately separated and identified in the above rejection. The various mental processes are not claimed at a level that cannot be done in the human mind, with or without a tool. The data is also not claimed at great enough detail to which the process could not be done by a human. The specification explicitly states that this process can be done by humans in Paragraphs 0018 and 0022-0023 and is simply implementing this process on a computer. As per MPEP 2106.05(f), simply implementing an existing process on a computer is not a practical application. Applicant further argues that implementing this process on a computer improves efficiency and is therefore an improvement to the art; however, "’claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer’ does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)).
Applicant argues that the prior art does not teach the amended features of the claims. As shown above, Bellam in view of Côrte-Real teaches all limitations of the amended claims. Examiner notes that many terms, such as metrics, events, entities, etc., are fairly broad. All terms are given the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., distinguishing features of the dynamic and static state information sets) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The information sets are defined by exemplary data points in the claims, not by specific properties of what constitutes “dynamic” vs “static.”
Examiner also notes that change events are not the only element of Bellam cited as static state information, and configurations, hardware, and other information is also cited.
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).
Please see the above rejections for further details.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GABRIELLA SHELTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3117. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-3PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bryce Bonzo can be reached at (571) 272-3655. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/G.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2113 /BRYCE P BONZO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2113
