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 .
DETALED ACTION
This action is in response to papers filed on 3/2/2026.
Claims 1, 10, and 11 have been amended.
Claim 2 has been cancelled.
No claims have been added.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 and 3-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
The claims are directed to a process (method as introduced in Claim 1), and/or system (Claim 10), thus Claims 1 and 3-11 fall within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03.
Step 2A, Prong 1:
The claimed invention recites an abstract idea according to MPEP §2106.04. The independent claims which recite the following claim limitations as an abstract idea, are underlined below.
Claims 1 and 10 recite (as represented by the language of Claim 1):
A method of estimating an environmental footprint for a flight of an aircraft, the method implemented by a decentralized electronic estimation system comprising a first entity, a second entity and a third entity, the second entity being distinct from the first entity and from the third entity;
receiving, by the second entity from the first entity, at least one datum which is a measurement coming from a sensor and is chosen from a group consisting of:
a position of the aircraft;
a datum relating to the weather in the environment of the aircraft: and
a datum relating to intrinsic features of the aircraft;
associating, by the second entity a measurement uncertainty with each datum received from the first entity;
sending, to the third entity from the second entity, each datum and the measurement uncertainty associated with the datum; and
estimating, by the third entity, an environmental indicator representative of the environmental footprint, based on at least one datum and the uncertainty associated with the at least one datum.
.
The underlined claim limitations as emphasized above, as drafted, recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers the performance of commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; and/or business relations) in the form of collecting data and determining environmental impacts and footprints for commercial flights. Other than reciting a computer implementation, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from encompassing the performance of commercial or legal interactions which represents the abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. But for the recitation of generic implementation of computer system components, the claimed invention merely recites a process for collecting data and determining environmental impacts and footprints for commercial flights.
Step 2A, Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite an additional elements of a decentralized electronic estimation system and sensors used for measurements.
In particular, the additional elements cited above beyond the abstract idea are recited at a high-level of generality and simply equivalent to a generic recitation and basic functionality that amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using generic computer technology components.
Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception (see specification at page 7, paragraphs 3, 4, and 6, which merely recite generic computers, sensors, vehicles, etc. and there is no indication that they are used in any special manner or configuration outside of their normal function). These claimed additional elements merely recite the words “apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements, individually or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims:
Claims 3-9 and 11 recite further elements related to the data collection and processing steps of the parent claims. These activities fail to differentiate the claims from the related activities in the parent claims and fail to provide any material to render the claimed invention to be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas, as outlined below.
Claims 7 and 11 merely recite further types of data. Claims 3 and 4 recite additional data types for determining uncertainty. Claims 5 and 6 recite steps for selecting an entity. Claims 8 and 9 recite the use of additional entities performing steps of the parent claims. While these claims recite further steps related to determining the environmental impact, they do not make the claims any less abstract and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
The claims do not provide any new additional limitations or meaningful limits beyond abstract idea that are not addressed above in the independent claims therefore, they do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor do they provide significantly more to the abstract idea. Thus, after considering all claim elements, both individually and as a whole, it has been determined that the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Therefore, Claims 3-9 and 11 are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7, 10, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamkin (EP 3 002 716 A1) in view of Borgyos (Pub. No. US 2018/0342166).
In regards to Claims 1 and 10, Lamkin discloses:
A method of estimating an environmental footprint for a flight of an aircraft, the method implemented by a decentralized electronic estimation system comprising multiple entities:
receiving, by [an additional entity] from the first entity, at least one datum which is a measurement coming from a sensor and is chosen from a group consisting of:
a position of the aircraft;
a datum relating to the weather in the environment of the aircraft: and
a datum relating to intrinsic features of the aircraft; ([0012]; [0017]; [0035], data is collected by sensors and includes intrinsic data, weather data, environment data, position data, etc.; see also Fig. 1; Fig. 2; [0017], data is collected from aircraft (first entity) that record “datum relating to the aircraft or the environment thereof during the flight”, such as aircraft orientation, temperature, altitude, airspeed, bank angle, engine status (e.g., fuel flow, engine temperatures), auxiliary power unit (APU) status, flap configuration, weather, etc., [0012]; [0013], the data is transmitted to an aircraft environmental impact processing system (“processing system”, third entity))
estimating, by the [additional entity], an environmental indicator representative of the environmental footprint, based on at least one datum ([0013], and throughout the reference, the collected data is used to determine a real-time environmental impact of the flight (representing an environmental footprint, see also [0002]; [0003]))
Lamkinn discloses and additional entity determining environmental indicator and footprint data based on received flight data, as disclosed above. Lamkin does not explicitly disclose, but Borgyos teaches:
receiving, by [an additional entity] from a first entity, at least one datum relating to the aircraft or the environment thereof during the flight and associating, by the [additional entity] a measurement uncertainty with each datum from the first entity; (Fig. 3; [0037]-[0039], data is received from a first entity (air data computer) by a second entity (flight management computer), including “…intrinsic factors (e.g., modeled parameters indicative of performance of the aerial vehicle)…”, examples of intrinsic factors include altitude, airspeed, engine temperature, etc. or extrinsic factors, such as weather, etc.; [0020]; [0039]; [0048]; [0052], flight management computer uses intrinsic and extrinsic data to make predictions (regarding flight paths), and these predictions can include uncertainties based on uncertainties associated with the intrinsic and extrinsic data (demonstrating that the intrinsic and extrinsic data are associated with uncertainties as part of the determination)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have further modified the system of Lamkin so as to have included associating, by the [additional entity] a measurement uncertainty with each datum received by the [additional entity], as taught by Borgyos.
Lamkin discloses a “base” method/system system/method for collecting intrinsic and extrinsic data from an aircraft (first entity) and an additional entity using that data to determine environmental impact and determine optimized flight paths to address the environmental impact, as shown above. Borgyos teaches a comparable method/system system/method for collecting intrinsic and extrinsic data from an aircraft (first entity) and an additional entity using that data to determine optimized flight paths, as shown above. Borgyos also teaches an embodiment in which a measurement uncertainty is associated with each datum received by the [additional entity], as shown above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the adaptation of associating, by the [additional entity] a measurement uncertainty with each datum received by the [additional entity] to Lamkin could be performed with the technical expertise demonstrated in the applied references. (See KSR [127 S Ct. at 1739] "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.")
Additionally, Lamkin/Borgyos disclose distributed systems that include multiple individual entities and both references are not limited to the organization/structure of interacting entities used as examples (see Borgyos, [0074]; Lamkin, [0039]; [0041]).
Although Lamkin/Borgyos does not disclose the specific first entity, a second entity and a third entity as described in the claims, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, would have recognized that both system perform similar functions and merely disclose different determination techniques. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the entities could be combined in the manner described in the claims without significantly altering or destroying either system and the references demonstrate the necessary components and skill to do so. For example, the entity in Borgyos that determines uncertainties (by intaking aircraft data from a first entity, associating that data with uncertainties, and providing data for other entities) could merely receive the aircraft data from the first entity in Lamkin (in the same manner as it does in Borgyos, and then provide the flight and uncertainty data to the environmental indicator determination entity in Lamkin (making it the third entity).
Lamkin provides a system/method for collecting intrinsic and extrinsic data from an aircraft (first entity) and an additional entity using that data to determine environmental impact and determine optimized flight paths to address the environmental impact ([0015]). Additionally, Borgyos provides a system/method for collecting intrinsic and extrinsic data from an aircraft (first entity) and an additional entity using that data to determine optimized flight paths. One of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would recognize that the combination of the entity for associating uncertainties with the data from Borgyos to the system/method of Lamkin would improve Lamkin by adding the additional step of considering uncertainty of the data when determining environmental impact and optimized flight paths.
In regards to Claim 7, Lamkin discloses:
wherein the environmental indicator is chosen from a group comprising:
a quantity of carbon dioxide emit;
a quantity of carbon dioxide equivalent;
a radiative forcing;
a potential of global warming; and
a change in temperature over a predetermined period of time
([0007]; [0008]; 0027]; etc., includes at least C02 and potential of global warming)
In regards to Claim 11, Lamkin discloses:
wherein the group further comprises a position of other vehicles in the environment of the aircraft ([0018], the data is additionally collected from a traffic collision avoidance system)
Claim(s) 3, 4 ,8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamkin (EP 3 002 716 A1) in view of Borgyos (Pub. No. US 2018/0342166) in further view of Hale (Pub. No. US 2016/0093222 A1).
In regards to Claim 3, Lamkin/Borgyos discloses the above system and method for associating uncertainty with collected aircraft data. Lamkin/Borgyos does not explicitly disclose that the uncertainty data includes completeness index or index of confidence, however, Hale teaches:
wherein the uncertainty associated with each datum received comprises a completeness index representative of a uniformity of the data and an index of confidence in the datum relating to the measurement of the datum; ([0010]; [0046]; [0055]; [0065], flight data including environmental information (such as weather) can be derived from an aircraft and in real-time (such as during a flight); [0053]; [0062], flight information can be received from various sources and added to a “flight information object”; [0050], flight information objects can be related to such environmental data as weather, and that weather data can include confidence indexes (representing uncertainty measurements, as described by Applicant in Claim 9), this demonstrates that the real-time weather data received and added to the flight information object is associated with a measurement uncertainty by the receiving entity (entity that receives data and adds it to a flight information object; [0063]; [0068], functionality and services may be distributed among multiple systems (entities), such as data processing being performed by third-party systems (second entity), each entity would produce their own calculations)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Lamkin/Borgyos so as to have included wherein the uncertainty associated with each datum received comprises a completeness index representative of a uniformity of the data and an index of confidence in the datum relating to the measurement of the datum, as taught by Hale in order to ensure that data is avail be and not lost though redundancy and distributed functionality (Hale, [0068]).
In regards to Claim 4, Lamkin/Borgyos discloses a method/system in which the completeness index and the confidence index of each datum are determined by the second entity, based data received from the first entity, as shown above.
Additionally, Lamkin discloses that historical data can also be received from an aircraft ([0022], historical data, previously received from the aircraft, is stored for analysis with current data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included the historical data in the uncertainty measurement in order to provide a baseline for determining confidence and completeness of data (Lamkin, [0022]).
In regards to Claim 8, Lamkin/Borgyos discloses the above system/method in which data can be sent to a second entity for determining uncertainties. Lamkin/Borgyos does not explicitly close two second entities performing the determination of measurement uncertainties and applying them to the datum, However, Hale teaches that any process or services can be distributed over multiple entities and includes distributed functionality and redundancy ([0010]; [0046]; [0055]; [0065], flight data including environmental information (such as weather) can be derived from an aircraft and in real-time (such as during a flight); [0053]; [0062], flight information can be received from various sources and added to a “flight information object”; [0050], flight information objects can be related to such environmental data as weather, and that weather data can include confidence indexes (representing uncertainty measurements, as described by Applicant in Claim 9), this demonstrates that the real-time weather data received and added to the flight information object is associated with a measurement uncertainty by the receiving entity (entity that receives data and adds it to a flight information object; [0063]; [0068], functionality and services may be distributed among multiple systems (entities), such as data processing being performed by third-party systems (second entity), each entity would produce their own calculations)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Lamkin/Borgyos so as to have included sending the data to multiple second entities top perform measurement uncertainty determination, as taught by Hale in order to ensure that data is available and not lost though redundancy and distributed functionality (Hale, [0068]).
In regards to Claim 9, Lamkin/Borgyos discloses the above system/method in which data can be sent to a second entity for determining uncertainties. Lamkin/Borgyos does not explicitly close two second entities performing the determination of measurement uncertainties and applying them to the environmental indicator, However, Hale teaches that any process or services can be distributed over multiple entities and includes distributed functionality and redundancy ([0010]; [0046]; [0055]; [0065], flight data including environmental information (such as weather) can be derived from an aircraft and in real-time (such as during a flight); [0053]; [0062], flight information can be received from various sources and added to a “flight information object”; [0050], flight information objects can be related to such environmental data as weather, and that weather data can include confidence indexes (representing uncertainty measurements, as described by Applicant in Claim 9), this demonstrates that the real-time weather data received and added to the flight information object is associated with a measurement uncertainty by the receiving entity (entity that receives data and adds it to a flight information object; [0063]; [0068], functionality and services may be distributed among multiple systems (entities), such as data processing being performed by third-party systems (second entity), each entity would produce their own calculations)
It is noted that the process for assigning uncertainty measurements to environmental indicators would be performed in a similar manner as the datum and the claims do not include any material indicating that the process would perform differently.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Lamkin/Borgyos so as to have included sending the data to multiple second entities top perform measurement uncertainty determination, as taught by Hale in order to ensure that data is available and not lost though redundancy and distributed functionality (Hale, [0068]).
Claim(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lamkin (EP 3 002 716 A1) in view of Borgyos (Pub. No. US 2018/0342166) in further view of Yan (Pub. No. US 2020/0334685 A1)
In regards to Claims 5 and 6, Lamkin/Borgyos disclose the above decentralized system/method for using additional entities for processing data. Lamkin/Borgyos does not explicitly disclose using a credibility value applied to entities or using those credibility values to determine entities to exclude. However, Yan teaches the use of credibility values for entities and using those values to exclude entities ([0017]; [0060]; [0057], “…endorsement of a particular social cause or viewpoint, endorsement of a third party company that has a pronounced agenda or objective…” would be indicative of objectivity; [0062], “…set a threshold score for one or more factors (i.e., subscores, or measures underlying the subscores), above or below which they will not consider transacting business with…” (exclude))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the system of Lamkin/Borgyos so as to have included he use of credibility values for entities and using those values to exclude entities, as taught by Yan in order to allow users the ability to exclude non-credible entities (Yan, [0062]).
Additional Prior Art References Identified, but not Relied Upon
Dupont et la. (FR 2988851 A1). Discloses sensors collecting data for aircraft, indexes, and determining credibility of data (see at least page 1, Description; page 2, lines 18-37; page 3, lines 12-21; page 5, lines 19-26page 8, lines 15-30)
Riland et la. (Pub. No. US 2016/0343093 A1). Discloses uncertainty determinations including completeness and confidence (see at least [0120]).
Thouvenot et la. (WO 2020127781 A1). Discloses sensors collecting data for aircraft and making predictions, including the use of multiple entities (see at least page 2; page 3, lines 6-14; page 4; page 7).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §101:
Step 2A, Prong 1: Applicant argues that [t]he first entities 12, also called oracles, are, e.g., sensors integrated in the aircraft, the third entities are aggregators and particular types of oracles, demonstrating that the solution of the present invention is not an abstract concept, but a structural component that causes a physical transformation of physical measurements of sensors into an environmental footprint. First, Applicant fails to provide sufficient explanation and/or evidence to demonstrate how/why the cited components provide sufficient structural components that go beyond the abstract ideas. For example, Applicant has not demonstrated that the recited components (aggregators, oracles, sensors, etc.) are not generic or general-purpose components used in their normal capacity as tools for applying the abstract ideas. Second, Applicant has failed to demonstrate how/why the calculating of the footprint from measurements would constitute a meaningful transformation that would be significantly more than the identified abstract ideas. It is not clear that this would be significantly more than merely processing the data or performing preset calculations to derive the footprint from the collected data.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Applicant argues that the claims are integrated into a practical applications because it requires three distinct entities. Applicant then argues that a particular machine integral to and necessary to achieve the technical effect. However, Applicant fails to provide sufficient explanation and/or evidence to demonstrate how/why the particular machine is integral or necessary to achieve the alleged technical effect, how the three entities are related to the alleged practical application, or explain how the three entities and particular machine are related in this context.
Step 2B: Applicant fails to provide sufficient explanation and/or evidence to demonstrate how/why the claims amount to significantly more. Applicant fails to explain why the claimed invention would not be well-understood, routine or conventional in the context of environmental footprint determination. Additionally, it is noted that, the above rejection does not rely on a well-understood, routine or conventional determination at this time.
Applicant’s remaining arguments fail for the same reasons as provided above. Applicant; makes assertions, but does not provide sufficient explanation, background, evidence, etc. to demonstrate how/why those assertions would be true.
See MPEP 2106.05(a), Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or To Any Other Technology or Technical Field (“If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology.”).
II. Rejection of Claims under 35 U.S.C. §103:
Claim 1: Applicant argues that Lamkin fails to show or suggest a third entity to which a measurement uncertainty is sent, nor that an estimate of an environmental indicator is made by this third entity…fails to show or suggest that the second entity is distinct from the third entity. Lamkin was not use d alone to demonstrate the arrangement of entities, as explained in the above rejection. Applicant has not addressed the part of the rejection regarding this combination. It is not clear how Lamkin being a centralized solution makes this combination impossible. Applicant has not demonstrated that the combination of Lamkin and Borgyos, as explained above, would not be able to achieve the same synergistic technical affect or improvements alleged by Applicant. Applicant has not explained why the combination of references could not provide the arrangement of entities and entity activities in a manner similar to the claims.
Applicant argues that Borgyos fails to show or suggest associating measurement uncertainty with each piece of data received by a second entity from a first entity. determine the uncertainty of the performance model - not a measurement uncertainty. Borgyos determination of uncertainty includes uncertainty for multiple intrinsic and extrinsic factors (each piece of data). One (non-limiting) example includes [0049], which recites multiple factors that can have uncertainty and effect the model (such as wind speed, weather conditions, temperature, and/or humidity).
Regarding Applicant’s remarks drawn to motivation and modification of Lamkin, Applicant provides no explanation or reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine the references or why one of ordinary skill in the art would have determined that the references could not be combined. Applicant does not address the motivations and rationales provided in the above rejections.
Claims 3, 4, 8 and 9: Applicant asserts that Hale fails to disclose material such as confidence index relating to measurements of data. However, Applicant fails to address the above rejections and demonstrate how/why the indexes would not be related to the measurements of the weather data and merely asserts that it does not.
Claims 5 and 6, Claims 7 and 11, Claim 10: Applicant’s remarks in these section fail for the same reason as provided in the above sections.
Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Applicant's arguments do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAUN D SENSENIG whose telephone number is (571)270-5393. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 10:00am-4:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6872. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.D.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3629 March 11, 2026
/SARAH M MONFELDT/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3629