DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 18/649,252 filed on 04/29/2024. Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23 are pending in the application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Application 18/649,252, field on 04/29/2024 is a Continuation of application 16/790,473, filed 02/13/2020. Application 16/790,473 claims Priority from Provisional Application 62/509,675, filed 05/22/2017; claims Priority from Provisional Application 60/509,665, filed 10/08/2003; claims Priority from Provisional Application 62/509,660, filed 05/22/2017; claims Priority from Provisional Application 62/509,669, filed 05/22/2017; and claims Priority from Provisional Application 62/509,653, filed 05/22/2017. Application 16/790,473 is a Continuation of application 14/523,642, filed 10/24/2014. Application 14/523,642 claims Priority from Provisional Application 61/896,636, filed 10/28/2013; claims Priority from Provisional Application 61/895,665, filed 10/25/2013; and claims Priority from Provisional Application 61/896,251, filed 10/28/2013.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 12/09/2025 has been acknowledged. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
5. In the response filed January 20, 2026, Applicant amended claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23, and did not cancel any claims. No new claims were presented for examination.
6. Applicant's amendments to claim 1 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim objection; accordingly, this objection has been removed.
7. Applicant's amendments to the claims are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant's arguments filed January 20, 2026, have been fully considered.
9. Applicant submits “ Under Step 1, Examiner alleges that claim 1 is software per se. Without conceding, Applicant has amended the claims to describe a system and to include computing components thereby rendering the rejection moot.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/20/2026, page 6]
In response to the claim amendments removing the “application resident” language and Applicant’s argument that “applicant has amended the claims to describe a system and to include computing components thereby rendering the rejection moot,” it is noted that the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 has been updated to indicate that Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23 is satisfied.
10. Applicant submits “Without conceding, in view of the amendments under Step 2A, Applicant submits that the claims are no longer even arguably directed towards "supply chain interactions", as was alleged by the Examiner... And while the claims do recite language related to supply chain management, it is respectfully submitted that the claims "involve an exception" as opposed to "recite an exception[ MPEP 2106.04(II)(A), subsection 1. Prong One (emphasis in original). Accordingly, and again without conceding, Applicant respectfully submits that the onus is now on the Office to establish a prima facie case in relation to the present claims.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/20/2026, pages 6-7]
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claims recites limitations related to evaluation contractual definition relating to excess and obsolescence, analyzing parts and materials lists in relation to customer specific contract, modifying contract based definitions using learned patterns, and generating claims associated with excess or obsolescence determinations. These limitations fall within the categories of certain methods of organizing human activity, including commercial and contractual relationships, as well as mental processes, such as evaluation information and making determinations based on rules and patterns. Although the amended claim recites one or more computing devices, a customer database, a first database, a second database, a machine learning module, and a graphical user interface, these elements are used to perform data analysis and decision making related to contractual and supply chain information The amendment adding a first database and a second database does not remove the claims from the abstract idea category, as databases are conventional component used to store and retrieve information. Accordingly, the claims recited an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, rather than merely “involving” and exception as submitted by the Applicant. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
11. Applicant submits “Assuming arguendo that the present claims fall into a grouping, there are significant additional elements that improve computer technology or a technological process, such as with the recited databases, especially the customer database, in conjunction with at least the elements related to distinct customers and a filtered GUI.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/20/2026, page 7]
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements in exemplary claim 1 are: one or more computing devices, at least one rule set, a customer database, a first database, a second database, an excess and obsoletion (E&O) engine comprising at least a machine learning module, and a graphical user interface (GUI), which merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (computer-based operating environment) via generic computing hardware, software/instructions, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106.05. Applicant has not provided a persuasive line of reasoning showing how the additional elements are integrated with the abstract idea to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Furthermore, it is noted that the claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no computing devices, databases, engine, machine learning module, graphical user interface, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner.
Moreover, the additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Lastly, in response to Applicant’s argument that “the present claims fall into a grouping, there are significant additional elements that improve computer technology or a technological process, such as with the recited databases, especially the customer database, in conjunction with at least the elements related to distinct customers and a filtered GUI,” it is noted that the recited database, including the customer database, are claimed as repositories for business related information and are not described as providing an improvement to data storage, data retrieval, or computer operation. The use of distinct customers reflects organization of business data rather than a technological improvement to the database itself. The graphical user interface us configured to provide and filter access to information based on stored data. The claims do not recite any specific GUI mechanisms that improves computer functionality or another technological field, but instead facilitate review ad processing of business related information. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive. Applicant should consider amending the claims to clarify how the combination of databases, machine learning module, and the user interface provides a technical improvement.
12. Applicant submits “Additionally, Prong Two requires the Office to determine if the "claim as a whole integrates the judicial exception[ MPEP 2106.04(d) (emphasis added). When viewing the claim as a whole, the combination of the claimed customer database and the distinct customers together establish the filtering for the GUI to thereby improve the technological process of data visualization.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/20/2026, page 7]
In response to Applicant’s argument, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is noted that the claims do not recite a specific visualization technique, rendering method, or computer level mechanism that improves how data is displayed or processed. Instead, the graphical user interface enables users to view information associated with selected customers, which constitutes presentation of results tied to the abstract idea. Applicant’s assertion that the combination of the customer database and distinct customers establishes filtering for the graphical user interface us not supported by the claim language, as the claims do not recite filtering or any mechanism by which data is filtered or visually transformed. When evaluated as a whole, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
13. Applicant submits “that the claims are analogous to those in BASCOM Global Internet V. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Specifically, MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(v) expands and discusses how the non-generic arrangements "for filtering" should be found as an inventive concept. In BASCOM, MPEP 2106.05(B) goes into detail on how the inventive concept was searched for based on "the installation of a filtering tool at a specific [remote] location”.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 01/20/2026, page 7]
Applicant alludes to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry by suggesting that “the claims are analogous to those in BASCOM Global Internet V. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350-51, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1243 (Fed. Cir. 2016).” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to Applicant’s citation to BASCOM, the Examiner points out that the Federal Circuit found that the claims in BASCOM included a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of the additional elements, including installation of a filtering tool at a specific location, remote from end-users, with customizable filtering features specific to each end user. In contrast, Applicant's claims have not been shown to encompass a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of the additional elements. The additional elements of one or more computing devices, at least one rule set, a customer database, a first database, a second database, an excess and obsoletion (E&O) engine comprising at least a machine learning module, and a graphical user interface (GUI) have not been shown to be used or arranged in any unconventional manner or non-generic manner, and therefore the analogy to the CAFC’s eligibility rationale in the BASCOM decision is not persuasive. For the reasons above in addition to the reasons set forth below in the updated §101 rejection, the arguments and amendments are not sufficient to overcome the §101 rejection.
14. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
15. 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.
16. Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
17. Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted
that the system (claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., machine). Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-4 and 7-9 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Mental Processes” and the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” group within the enumerated groupings of abstract ideas set forth in MPEP 2106 since the claims set forth steps that can be performed in the human mind (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and for managing commercial interactions (e.g., sales activities or behaviors; business relations). With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below:
one or more computing devices;
at least one rule set;
a customer database of distinct customers contracted to receive manufactured products from a supply chain, wherein the customer database is relationally accessible in accordance with entries of the distinct customers in the customer database;
a first database comprising one or more parts and materials lists of manufactured products corresponding to a selected entry of the entries of the distinct customer;
a second database comprising definitions from a contract for each of the manufactured products and each of the distinct customers regarding when one from the parts and the materials list become excess, and when another one from the parts and the materials list becomes obsolete, for the manufactured product corresponding to the selected entry of the entries of the distinct customers (This limitation falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.”);
an excess and obsoletion (E&Q) engine comprises at least a machine learning module that learns and recognizes patterns based on the entries of the distinct customers, that modifies definitions from the contract based on the learned and recognized patterns, and that preemptively generates a claim for excess or obsoletion based on data analyzed from the contract compared to at least one of the parts and materials list, a distinct customer, and the manufactured product (This step falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity,” and can also be performed mentally via human observation or perhaps by documenting the patterns with the aid of pen and paper); and
a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to provide access to details of at least the manufactured product, the parts and materials list, and the modified definitions, such that the claim for excess or obsoletion is processed through the GUI against at least one from the parts and materials list in accordance with application of the modified definitions by the at least one rule set (This step falls under the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” by reciting a step for managing commercial interactions such as sales activities or behaviors, and can also be performed mentally via human observation or perhaps by documenting the patterns with the aid of pen and paper).
Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea of managing supply chain interactions between suppliers and sellers, which falls under the realm of managing commercial interactions (e.g., marketing or sales activities or behaviors), thus falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping set forth in MPEP 2106, as well as the “Mental Processes” abstract idea grouping via recitation of activities that be performed in the human mind. Moreover, Applicant’s Specification supports the interpretation of the above-noted steps as implemented in the context of managing relationships or interactions between people (See, e.g., paragraph [0009]: “Moreover, which party, whether it be the contract manufacturer or the customer, is responsible for excess and obsolete parts and materials within the definitions provided in a given contract, and/or to what extent each party is responsible for the foregoing, also generally varies on a contract-by-contract basis. Although it is often the case that obsoletion is a customer's responsibility, and excess is either a shared responsibility or the responsibility of the contract manufacturer, even this apportionment of responsibilities may vary on a contract-by-contract basis. Yet further, there is, of course, the need for a contract manufacturer to provide quality customer service to its customers; and hence, it may be the case that even excess and obsolete parts and materials within the definitions provided in a contract may prove less than desirable to be subjected to an excess or obsolete claim under the contract by the contract manufacturer.”).
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements recited are: one or more computing devices, at least one rule set, a customer database of distinct customers contracted to receive manufactured products from a supply chain, wherein the customer database is relationally accessible in accordance with entries of the distinct customers in the customer database; a first database, a second database, an excess and obsoletion (E&O) engine, a machine learning module, and a graphical user interface (GUI) (claim 1). These elements have been considered, however they merely describe elements of one or more generic computers and/or instructions (software) to implement the abstract idea, similar to simply adding the words “apply it,” which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106. See also, MPEP 2106.05(f). See also, Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Additionally, the steps “wherein the customer database is relationally accessible in accordance with entries of the distinct customers in the customer database; one or more parts and materials lists of manufactured products corresponding to a selected entry of the entries of the distinct customer; and definitions from a contract for each of the manufactured products and each of the distinct customers regarding when one from the parts and the materials list become excess, and when another one from the parts and the materials lists becomes obsolete, for the manufactured product corresponding to the selected entry of the entries of the distinct customers” merely encompass insignificant pre-solution data gathering activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which has been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Furthermore, the additional elements(s) fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements recited are: one or more computing devices, at least one rule set, a customer database of distinct customers contracted to receive manufactured products from a supply chain, wherein the customer database is relationally accessible in accordance with entries of the distinct customers in the customer database; a first database, a second database, an excess and obsoletion (E&O) engine, a machine learning module, and a graphical user interface (GUI) (claim 1). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification describes that generic computer devices that may be used to implement the invention, which cover virtually any computing device under the sun (Specification at paragraph [0032]: “The figures and descriptions provided herein may have been simplified to illustrate aspects that are relevant for a clear understanding of the herein described devices, systems, and methods, while eliminating, for the purpose of clarity, other aspects that may be found in typical similar devices, systems, and methods. Those of ordinary skill may thus recognize that other elements and/or operations may be desirable and/or necessary to implement the devices, systems, and methods described herein. However, because such elements and operations are well known in the art, and because they do not facilitate a better understanding of the present disclosure, a discussion of such elements and operations may not be provided herein. However, the present disclosure is deemed to inherently include all such elements, variations, and modifications to the described aspects that would be known to those of ordinary skill in the art.”). Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Additionally, even if the machine learning module is evaluated as an element beyond software/code for a generic computer to execute, it is noted that that the claimed use of a machine learning module is recited at a high level of generality these elements amount to well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the art, which fails to add significantly more to the claims. See, e.g., Magdon-Ismail et al., US 2009/0055270 (paragraph 39: “Both local and central engines may incorporate analysis techniques, such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and other techniques, which are well known in the art”). See also, Muchkaev, US 2010/0287011 (paragraph 47: “artificial intelligence algorithm such as a search algorithm, a learning algorithm, or any other artificial intelligence algorithm commonly known in the art”).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-7, 9-17, 19, and 21-23 recite the same abstract idea as recited in the independent claims, and when evaluated under Step 2A Prong One are found to merely recite additional details that narrow the abstract idea. For example, claims 2-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23 recite steps for “enables a curative measure, rather than a claim, regarding one of the excess or obsoletion,” “wherein the curative measure comprises use of an excess of obsolete part on behalf of the distinct customer in a different one of the manufactured products,” “wherein the curative measure comprises use of an excess of obsolete part on behalf of a different one of the distinct customers in a different one of the manufactured products,” “wherein ones of the distinct customers viewable are varied by the at least one rule set based on a current user,” “wherein ones of the manufactured products viewable are varied by the at least one rule set based on a current user,” “wherein the at least one rule set allows for exclusions of the claim, in whole or in part, according to a current user,” “provides an automated assessment of a meeting of the definitions,” “providing data regarding a meeting of the definitions,” “wherein the data includes at least order date,” “wherein the data includes at least return and refund definitions,” “wherein the at least one rule set comprises rules generic to all of the distinct customers,” “wherein the at least one rule set comprises rules generic to all of the manufactured products,” “wherein the at least one rule set comprises administrative permissions,” “wherein the definitions are manually input,” “wherein the definitions are automatically input,” “tracking at least need for and inventory of the parts and the materials,” “update the definitions from the contract based on a change in a supply versus demand assessment performed,” “wherein the generated claim for excess or obsoletion is output,” however these steps cover organizing human activity since they flow directly from the distinct customers interactions involving human/commercial interactions, which similar to base claim 1, fall under the same “Certain methods of organizing human activity,” while 5-6, 16, 17, and 19 recite the additional element “GUI” which, although not part of the abstract idea itself, does not amount to a practical application (under Step 2A Prong Two) or significantly more (under Step 2B) because the GUI and display activity merely invokes an interface of a generic computer, which serves to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also, e.g., Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”). The “link to at least one inventory management system” (claim 9), “link to a parts and materials ordering system” (claim 10), “embedded analytics tools” (claims 19) have been evaluated as additional elements as well. However, each of these elements is recited at a high level of generality and fails to yield any discernible improvement to the computer or to any technology, nor set forth any additional function or result that provided meaningful limitation beyond linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., automated/computing environment), and thus fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Allowable over the prior art
16. Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23 are allowable over the prior art of record. The state of the art is reflected via the prior art of record summarized in the Conclusion below. Although Katz et al. and Eisenson et al. collectively teach a supply chain management system, comprising: at least one rule set; a database of distinct customers contracted to receive manufactured products from a supply chain, wherein the database is relationally accessible in accordance with entries of the distinct customers in the database; a parts and materials list of manufactured product; and definitions from a contract for each of the manufactured products and each of the distinct customers regarding when one from the parts and the materials list become excess, and when another one from the parts and the materials list becomes obsolete, for the manufactured product corresponding to the selected entry of the entries of the distinct customers; and a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to provide access to details of at least the manufactured product and the parts and materials list [See Office Action mailed 01/24/2025 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted subject matter], the prior art of record does not teach an excess and obsoletion (E&O) engine comprising at least a machine learning module that learns and recognizes patterns based on the entries of the distinct customers, that modifies definitions from the contract based on the learned and recognized patterns, and that preemptively generates a claim for excess or obsoletion based on data analyzed from the contract compared to at least one of the parts and materials list, a distinct customer, and the manufactured product; and a graphical user interface (GUI) configured to provide access to details of at least the manufactured product, the full parts and materials lists, and the modified definitions, such that the claim for excess or obsoletion is processed through the GUI against at least one from the parts and materials list in accordance with application of the modified definitions by the at least one rule set, as recited in independent claim 1, thus rendering claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23 as allowable over the prior art. Claims 1-7, 9-17, 19, 21, and 23 are not allowable, however, because these claims are rejected under 35 USC §101, as set forth above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Menninger, Pub. No.: US 2003/0069818 A1 – describes a system, method and computer program product for creating contracts using a graphical user interface in a supply chain management framework.
Kalchschmidt, Matteo, Giulio Zotteri, and Roberto Verganti. "Inventory management in a multi-echelon spare parts supply chain." International journal of production economics 81 (2003): 397-413 – describes an integrated system for managing inventories in a multi-echelon spare parts supply chain.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 extension fee 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 DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. 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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625