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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 1-17 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a vehicle comprising components and performing at least one step. Thus, the claim is to a machine which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
Limitation “compare the first document with a second document stored locally on a second memory of a second vehicle communicably coupled to the local network, the second document being a second vehicle operation manual including user instructions for operating at least one of the prime mover or the implement”. This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses mental processes. The core underlying concept of this step is an evaluation or judgment between two documents. This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Limitation “store the second document locally on the vehicle in response to a determination the second document is more recent than the first document”. This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses mental processes based on the determination logic. “Evaluations, judgments” are examples of mental processes. The determination constitutes a judgment or evaluation that can practically be performed in the human mind.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the mentioned steps fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas and are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: the claim recites the additional elements:
a chassis;
a plurality of tractive elements supported by the chassis;
a prime mover configured to drive at least one of the plurality of tractive elements;
an implement configured to receive power from the prime mover;
a controller configured to;
receive, via a local network communicably coupled to the vehicle, a first document associated with the vehicle;
store the first document locally in a first memory on the vehicle, the first document being a first vehicle operation manual including user instructions for operating at least one of the prime mover or the implement;
receive, via a user interface of the vehicle, a request for the second document; and
display the second document stored locally on the vehicle on the user interface.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
The additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea regarding improvements. The step “store the first document locally in a first memory” is data storage and “receive... via a local network” and “receive … for the second document” is data gathering do not reflect an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine.
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application based on implementing with a particular machine or manufacture. The controller is a generic computer component, and the chassis, tractive elements, prime mover, and implement are vehicle components that do not give a meaningful limit to the mental process. A generic controller used for receiving and displaying documents does not constitute a particular machine tailored to solve a technical problem beyond the abstract idea.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The additional limitations do not have a particular transformation or reduction of an article. The steps “store the first document,” “store the second document,” and “display the second document” involve information stored in memory or output to a display.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides: Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, ... (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation ( an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 .... The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184... In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S._ .... In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(e). The additional limitations “receiving, via a user interface, a request…” and “displaying the second document…” are not meaningful limitations because receiving and displaying are pre- and post-solution activities. The limitations are not meaningful limitations.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The steps “receive... via a local network”, “receiving, via a user interface, a request…” and “display... on the user interface” are data input and output operations that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The step “store the first document locally…” is also extra-solution activity.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Limitations “a vehicle”, “a chassis”, “tractive elements”, “a prime mover”, “an implement”, “a controller”, “a local network”, “a user interface” are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. (Step 2A, Prong Two: YES).
Step 2B, examine the elements of the independent claim-both individually and as an ordered combination-to see if they provide an inventive concept that adds "significantly more" than the exception itself. The additional elements, including a chassis, tractive elements, a prime mover, an implement, a controller, receiving data via a local network, storing documents in memory, receiving requests via a user interface, and displaying documents, are well-understood activity. There is no unconventional configuration that goes beyond conventional practices. The claim limitations describe standard data processing steps using generic components. Because the claim only utilizes standard computer functions to execute the mental process of comparison, determination, it does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the local network is a local mesh network established by the vehicle and the second vehicle” This step simply making connections between electronic devices. There is no technical improvement to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, network or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the local network is a local mesh network established by the second vehicle and a third vehicle” This step simply making connections between electronic devices. There is no technical improvement to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, network or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to: detect the second vehicle; and automatically join the local network in response to detecting the second vehicle.” This step simply making connections between electronic devices. There is no technical improvement to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, network or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the user interface further comprises a user input and display, wherein the controller is further configured to: receive the request for the second document via the user input; and provide the second document to the display.” The claim includes collecting data (e.g., receive a request) and display data via generic computer components. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to not provide the first document to the display when the controller provides the second document to the display.” The claim includes display data (e.g., second document only) via generic computer components. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 recites “wherein the vehicle is a lift device” A lift device is recited as a generic device and there is no technical improvement to the functionalities of the lift device. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to receive the first document from a remote server coupled to the local network” The claim includes collecting data (e.g., receive first document). There is no technical improvement to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, network or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to: receive, via the local network, a second request for a third document from the second vehicle; and provide, via the local network, the third document from the vehicle to the second vehicle” Collecting data (e.g., receive a request) and transmit data (e.g., provide data via the local network) do not make any technical improvement to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, network or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 recites “wherein to compare the first document with the second document the controller is further configured to determine if the first document is more recent than the second document” Comparing/matching simply are observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to provide the first document to the second vehicle in response to a determination the first document is more recent than the second document” Transmitting data (e.g., provide the first document to the second vehicle) does not make any technical improvement to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, network or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 12
Step 1, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a documentation system comprising a plurality of vehicles and a controller configured to perform at least one step. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
Limitation “determine the second vehicle is of a same type the same as the first vehicle”. This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses mental processes. The core underlying concept of this step is an evaluation or judgment between two the vehicles. This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Limitation “compare a first document stored locally in the first vehicle with a second document stored locally in the second vehicle, wherein the first document and the second document are vehicle operation manuals including user instructions for operating the first vehicle”. This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses mental processes. The core underlying concept of this step is an evaluation or judgment between two documents. This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Limitation “store the second document locally on the first vehicle when the second document is more recent than the first document”. This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses mental processes based on the determination logic. “Evaluations, judgments” are examples of mental processes. The determination constitutes a judgment or evaluation that can practically be performed in the human mind.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the mentioned steps fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas and are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two, the claim recites the additional elements:
a plurality of vehicles including a first vehicle and a second vehicle, wherein the first vehicle and the second vehicle are communicatively connected to establish a local area network;
the first vehicle comprises a controller;
store the second document locally on the first vehicle when the second document is more recent than the first document.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
The claim fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the limitations describe generic data storage and network connections without specifying how these steps improve computer technology itself or another technical field. Storing a new manual file on a drive does not improve the functioning of the computer's architecture or network protocols.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine.
The claim fails to integrate the judicial exception because the “documentation system” and “vehicles” are generic systems. A generic controller is not sufficient to transform the abstract idea of comparing documents into a patent-eligible application.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The claim fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the limitations describe generic data storage. Storing a document is considered generic data storage activity rather than a transformation of a physical object. Thus, the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the storage limitation is generic to the field.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
The claim fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the additional elements include generic network connections and storage operations that are well-understood in the computer field.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The claim fails to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the step of “store the second document locally... when the second document is more recent” functions as extra-solution activity where data is stored after the mental comparison or evaluation step. This limitation does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and remains insignificant within the eligibility analysis.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Merely reciting a “local area network” connecting vehicles or applying the process within the context of vehicle operation does not amount to an improvement in technology but rather limits the claim to a particular technological environment in a generic way.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. (Step 2A, Prong Two: YES).
Step 2B, examine the elements of the independent claim-both individually and as an ordered combination-to see if they provide an inventive concept that adds "significantly more" than the exception itself. The limitations determining type, comparing manuals, storing recent data are merely well-understood activities applied in a generic computing environment, which fail to provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea of evaluating and comparing information. The claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 13 recites “wherein to compare the first document with the second document the controller is further configured to determine if the first document is more recent than the second document, and in response to a determination the second document is more recent than the first document, store the second document locally on the first vehicle” Comparing data is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind. Storing data does not make any improvements to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the controller is further configured to determine if the first document is more recent than the second document, and provide the first document to the second vehicle in response to a determination the first document is more recent than the second document” Comparing data is nothing more than observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind. Storing data does not make any improvements to the functionalities of a computer, database technology, or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the first vehicle further comprises a user interface comprising a display, and wherein the controller is further configured to: receive a request for the second document; and provide, via the display, the second document stored locally on the first vehicle to a user” Collecting data (e.g., receive request for second document) and display data via generic components do not make any improvements to the functionalities of a computer or any other technologies. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the controller is configured to not provide the first document when the controller provides the second document.” The claim includes display data (e.g., second document only) via generic computer components. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the first vehicle is a lift device” A lift device is recited as a generic device and there is no technical improvement to the functionalities of the lift device. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 21
Step 1, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a vehicle comprising a chassis… and a controller configured to that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One, this part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
Limitation “compare the first document with a second document stored locally on a second vehicle communicably coupled to the local network, the second document indexed corresponding to a state of the vehicle”. This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses mental processes. The core underlying concept of this step is an evaluation or judgment between two documents. This falls within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Limitation “store the second document locally on the vehicle in response to a determination the second document is more recent than the first document”. This limitation recites a judicial exception because it encompasses mental processes based on the determination logic. “Evaluations, judgments” are examples of mental processes. The determination constitutes a judgment or evaluation that can practically be performed in the human mind.
“Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. “For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record.” MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Under such circumstances, however, the Supreme Court has treated such claims in the same manner as claims reciting a single judicial exception. Id. (discussing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593 (2010)). Here, the mentioned steps fall within the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas and are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A, Prong Two: the claim recites the additional elements:
a chassis;
a plurality of tractive elements supported by the chassis;
a prime mover configured to drive at least one of the plurality of tractive elements;
an implement configured to receive power from the prime mover;
a sensor configured to detect one or more states of the vehicle;
receive, via a local network communicably coupled to the vehicle, a first document associated with the vehicle;
store the first document locally on the vehicle, the first document being a first vehicle operation manual;
receive, via the sensor, a first state of the vehicle;
receive, via a user interface of the vehicle, a request for the second document, based on the first state of the vehicle;
display the second document stored locally on the vehicle to the user interface, based on the first state of the vehicle and the request;
generic computer components: the controller and local network.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field.
The claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements involving data reception, storage are standard computer operations that do not necessarily improve the underlying technology of the vehicle or the network communication infrastructure. Storing documents on a vehicle utilizes standard data management functions rather than improving how computers function or solve a technical problem.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine.
The additional elements “a controller,” “local network communicably coupled to the vehicle” do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these are generic components that amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic machine.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there is no physical transformation of physical article. The “transformation” described is merely the transfer of data (e.g., receiving a document, storing it).
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
The additional elements “receive, via the sensor,” “receive, via a user interface,” and “display the second document” do not impose meaningful limits on the mental processes or abstract ideas identified in Step 2A Prong One. These additional elements generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular environment (a vehicle).
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The additional elements “receiving data via a sensor or network” and “storing documents” are well-understood activities. These activities are extra-solution, thus failing to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
The additional elements “vehicle” or “local network communicably coupled to the vehicle” generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g., in a vehicle) does not provide an inventive concept that integrates the exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, examine the elements of the independent claim-both individually and as an ordered combination-to see if they provide an inventive concept that adds "significantly more" than the exception itself. The claim fails Step 2B because the additional elements (chassis, controller, sensor, network components, data storage and display operations) are well-understood activity. The claim merely applies the abstract mental processes of comparing documents and determining recency using generic controller to perform a document management function. Therefore, the claim does not amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
Response to Arguments
Section 35 U.S.C 101 -pg. 8-9
Applicant argues “… The amendments to Claim 1 specify that the controller stores the first document "locally in a first memory on the vehicle," and compares the first document with a second document "stored locally on a second memory" of a second vehicle. Applicant respectfully submits that such vehicle memories are tangible physical components.
And the amendments to Claim 1 link the controller's store and compare steps for storing the second vehicle operation manual onboard the vehicle with the "prime mover" and the "implement," which are both clearly tangible physical components of a vehicle. Specifically, amended claim 1 recites that the vehicle operation manuals include "user instructions for operating at least one of the prime mover or the implement." Therefore, the amendments to claim 1 amount to significantly more than a mental process or an abstract idea…”
Applicant argues that the claim is eligible because it uses real, physical parts like a "first memory," a "second memory," a "prime mover", and an "implement." The arguments point out that because the manuals contain instructions for this real machinery, the claim is more than an abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees because merely stating that data is stored in a "memory" or processed by a "controller" does not make an abstract idea patentable. These are just ordinary computer tools doing their basic job of storing and processing data. Also, the manuals give instructions about the engine and implement, the tasks of storing or comparing files do not physically change or improve the engine or implement actually run.
Applicant argues “Furthermore, and/or in addition to, Applicant respectfully disagrees with the Office Action's characterization of claim 1 as a mental process and submits that claim 1 does not recite a mental process…
…
Therefore, amended claim 1 is not a mental process, as the human mind is not equipped to perform the claim limitations recited in amended claim 1…”
Applicant argues that the claim is not a "mental process" because a human mind cannot physically receive data over a local network, store files in digital memory, or interact with a user interface. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the steps of receiving data over a network, saving it to memory, and using an interface are additional elements. A claim can still be grouped as a mental process even if it uses generic computer tools to gather or display information. Further, the actual software task being performed is comparing two documents to see which date is newer, and determining to keep the more recent one. A human can easily do this exact task mentally or with a pen and paper-such as looking at the print date on two physical instruction booklets and keeping the newer copy. Because the core decision-making step is a standard evaluation that a human can do, executing it through generic hardware elements does not make the claim patent-eligible. Because the task is just automating a basic human thinking process (i.e., comparison, determination) on standard technology, the claim still recites a mental process exception.
Since claim 12 is similar to claim 1. The same answer is applied to claim 12.
Section 35 U.S.C 102 and 103
The rejections are withdrawn as necessitated by Amendment
Section New Claim 21
Please see the rejection above.
Conclusion
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.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights