DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the Application Number 18/712,438 filed on 5/22/2024.
Claims 2, 3 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 4-14 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL in response to the “Amendment” and “Remarks” filed on 1/21/2026.
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, 4-7, 10, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP § 2106, the examiner is to perform an analysis (Step 1, Step 2A (Prong One and Prong Two), and Step 2B) to evaluate whether the claims are drawn to patent-eligible subject matter.
Step 1 – Evaluate whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: Process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter.
In the instant case, Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 14 are directed to a machine, and Claim 13 is directed to a process. Thus, each of the pending claims is directed to one of the statutory categories. Consequently, the analysis proceeds to the two-step framework previously set forth in Alice/Mayo.
Revised Step 2A: Prong One – Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception
To determine whether a claim recites an abstract idea, examiners are to (a) identify the specific limitations of the claims under examination that the examiner believes recite an abstract idea and (b) determine whether the identified limitations fall within one of the following subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP § 2106.04(a):
(a) Mathematical concepts—mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
(b) Certain method of organizing human activity—fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities of behaviors; business relations); maintaining personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
(c) Mental processes—concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
An information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out:
A generation process of generating a delivery plan that minimizes an evaluation function or has an evaluation function value smaller than an evaluation function value of a current delivery plan, by relaxing one or more constraint conditions being associated with at least one of a capacity and a time window, by changing a manipulated variable defined for each destination;
A specification process of specifying, based on the delivery plan, a destination in which the manipulated variable has been changed to minimize the evaluation function or to result in an evaluation function value smaller than an evaluation function value of the current delivery plan, from among a plurality of destinations;
A determination process of determining the specified destination as a destination targeted for negotiation to propose a change to the manipulated variable; and
An output process of outputting information including a negotiation description for the destination determined in the determination process,
Wherein the manipulated variable is at least one of the capacity and the time window, and
Wherein the negotiation description is how to change the manipulated variable of the targeted destination.
Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 13, 14 are directed to a system that evaluates multiple options and makes a final selection for a delivery destination, and considers various constraints corresponding to each destination, such as capacity, timeframes, and likelihood of negotiation success. Accordingly, the concept presented in these claims is considered a mental process. Consequently, the claims require further analysis under Prong Two.
Revised Step 2A: Prong Two – If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites Additional Elements that Integrate the Exception into a Practical Application of that Exception.
A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. Claims 1, 4-7, 10 recite the use of common computer components such as a “processing apparatus,” “processor,” and “computer-readable non-transitory storage medium.” However, in this instance, this recitation of these components is the equivalent of a recitation of the words “apply it” and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. See MPEP 21106.05(f). Claim 10 further provides that a negotiation description is provided to a destination targeted for negotiation. However, the Office considers this step to be post-solution activity that is well-known in the field of evaluating information and making a determination based on the information. Consequently, the claims fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: If the Claim is directed to a Judicial Exception, Evaluate Whether the Claim Provides an Inventive Concept.
If a claim has been determined to be directed to a judicial exception under revised Step 2A, examiners should then evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination under Step 2B to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). Here, in regard to Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 13, 14, this system does not add significantly more because this process can be accomplished by the human mind. Consequently, the Examiner concludes that the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea, and consequently remain ineligible.
Moreover, “considered as an ordered combination, the computer components of [applicant’s] method add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately.” Alice v. CLS Bank, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1985 (2014). Consequently, the Examiner concludes that the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea, and consequently remain ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
These claims teach generating a delivery plan that “has an evaluation function value smaller than an evaluation function value of a current delivery plan.” The Examiner could not find support in the drawings or the Specification for this limitation. The Applicant should amend the limitation to be commensurate in scope with the Specification, or clarify where existing support is provided.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 6, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite.
Claim 1 further uses the term “capacity” as one of the potentially manipulated variables. The Examiner could not ascertain what this term means, and is interpreting it to refer to a carrying capacity of a delivery vehicle or a capacity to receive shipment sizes at a particular location or destination.
Claim 6 teaches “wherein the one or more constraint conditions or the evaluation function includes a constraint regarding a consideration required for negotiation with a negotiation target.” The Examiner could not ascertain what this means, and is interpreting this limitation to mean that when determining a destination, various constraints or variables present at each potential destination are considered prior to making a determination.
Claims 13, 14 contain language similar to that described above in Claim 1.
These claims should be amended to more clearly convey the meanings of these limitations, consistent with the Instant Specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 6-10, 13, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtsuka (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0324984 A1), in view of Tanno (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0220785 A1), in further view of Herrin (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0344943 A1).
In regard to Claim 1, Ohtsuka teaches an information processing apparatus comprising at least one processor, the at least one processor carrying out (see Abstract, Paragraph 22 lines 8-9, Paragraph 23 lines 1-4 teaching a loading support system containing a control unit 2 with a central processing unit):
An output process of outputting information including a negotiation description for a destination determined in a determination process (see Paragraph 13 lines 1-3 teaching that the loading support system may further include an output unit configured to output the loading location determined by the loading location determination unit).
Ohtsuka fails to teach a generation process of generating a delivery plan that minimizes an evaluation function or has an evaluation function value smaller than an evaluation function value of a current delivery plan, by relaxing one or more constraint conditions being associated with a time window, by changing a manipulated variable defined for each destination;
A specification process of specifying, based on the delivery plan, a destination in which the manipulated variable has been changed to minimize the evaluation function or to result in an evaluation function value smaller than an evaluation function value of the current delivery plan, from among a plurality of destinations; and
Wherein the manipulated variable is the time window.
However, Tanno teaches a generation process of generating a delivery plan that minimizes an evaluation function or has an evaluation function value smaller than an evaluation function value of a current delivery plan, by relaxing one or more constraint conditions being associated with a time window, by changing a manipulated variable defined for each destination (see Paragraph 26 lines 6-8, Paragraph 30 lines 1-2, Paragraph 35 lines 5-11, Paragraph 59 lines 5-9 teaching a delivery route optimization system that generates delivery routes and is capable of minimizing route constraints, such as distances between stops, or modifying existing routes in order to decrease a particular constraint, such as removing an order, by relaxing a constraint, such as increasing a delivery time window);
A specification process of specifying, based on the delivery plan, a destination in which the manipulated variable has been changed to minimize the evaluation function or to result in an evaluation function value smaller than an evaluation function value of the current delivery plan, from among a plurality of destinations (see Paragraph 35 lines 5-11 teaching that a particular stop can be identified and removed in order to optimize the route); and
Wherein the manipulated variable is the time window (see Paragraph 35 lines 5-11 teaching that the delivery route is modified by increasing or shifting a time window).
Ohtsuka and Tanno are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of delivery systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohtsuka’s invention to incorporate a feature capable of generating or modifying a route to minimize or decrease a constraint value by relaxing the constraint, such as a delivery time window as taught by Tanno. Doing so could improve delivery scheduling systems by finding potential updates or modifications that would optimize delivery routes, such as by decreasing route completion times or fuel costs.
Ohtsuka further fails to teach a determination process of determining the specified destination as a destination targeted for negotiation to propose a change to the manipulated variable;
Wherein the negotiation description is how to change the manipulated variable of the targeted destination; and
Wherein the constraint condition is a capacity.
However, Herrin teaches a determination process of determining the specified destination as a destination targeted for negotiation to propose a change to the manipulated variable (see Paragraph 69 lines 1-5 teaching a delivery route adjustment system wherein a route change is proposed for Store1 510 such that it receives more shipments); and
Wherein the negotiation description is how to change the manipulated variable of the targeted destination (see Paragraph 69 lines 1-5 teaching that the proposed change instructs how many additional shipments and where they should come from); and
Wherein the constraint condition is a capacity (see Paragraph 28 lines 1-4, Paragraph 58 lines 1-4 teaching that Store1 contains a capacity attribute, which relates to the shipment size that the store can receive).
Ohtsuka and Herrin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of delivery systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohtsuka’s invention to incorporate a feature capable of identifying proposed changes to delivery routes for specific stops or locations, wherein the proposed changes instruct the details of the change, and wherein the variable to be changed is a destination’s capacity to receive an amount of goods of shipments as taught by Herrin. Doing so could improve delivery scheduling systems by finding or receiving potential updates or modifications that would optimize delivery routes, such as by minimizing required trips by maximizing shipment sizes.
In regard to Claim 6, Ohtsuka further teaches wherein the one or more constraint conditions or the evaluation function includes a constraint regarding a consideration required for negotiation with a negotiation target (see Paragraph 44 lines 1-6 teaching that the selection unit selects a container suitable for the load based at least on each container’s shape and empty space information).
In regard to Claim 7, Ohtsuka further teaches wherein the one or more constraint conditions includes a constraint condition regarding only the capacity, out of the capacity and the time window (see Figure 4, Paragraph 30 lines 1-12 teaching that the different containers have different volume capacities).
In regard to Claim 8, Ohtsuka further teaches wherein the at least one processor further carries out:
An obtaining process of obtaining a negotiation result with the destination targeted for negotiation (see Paragraph 30 lines 9-12 teaching that the container selection unit 11 selects a container suitable for a shape of a load B to be loaded on the cargo bed 21 from the containers A1 to A3).
Ohtsuka fails to teach an updating process of, by referring to an update result, updating a constraint condition corresponding to the update result to a relaxed constraint condition based on the changed manipulated variable.
However, Tanno teaches an updating process of, by referring to an update result, updating a constraint condition corresponding to the update result to a relaxed constraint condition based on the changed manipulated variable (see Paragraph 35 lines 5-11 teaching that the delivery route is modified by increasing a delivery time window).
Ohtsuka and Tanno are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of delivery systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohtsuka’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a delivery time window could be increased or relaxed as taught by Tanno. Doing so could improve a delivery system by implementing updates that would optimize delivery routes, such as by decreasing route completion times or fuel costs.
Ohsuka further fails to teach wherein the update result is the result of a negotiation, and
Wherein the negotiation result indicates whether the proposed change to the manipulated variable is accepted or rejected by the destination.
However, Herrin teaches wherein the update result is the result of a negotiation (see Paragraph 30 lines 1-6 teaching that a record represents information regarding route change requests), and
Wherein the negotiation result indicates whether the proposed change to the manipulated variable is accepted or rejected by the destination (see Paragraph 30 lines 1-6, Paragraph 52 lines 1-3 teaching that the record indicates whether new generated routes have been accepted or rejected by all affected entities).
Ohtsuka and Herrin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of delivery systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohtsuka’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein proposed change results are indicated as such, as well as indicating whether the proposed change has been accepted by affected entities as taught by Herrin. Doing so could help show route update trends, and inform future route-building operations, increasing efficiency and streamlining future anticipated updates.
In regard to Claim 9, Ohtsuka fails to teach wherein in the obtaining process, information indicating whether the proposed change to the manipulated variable is accepted or rejected by the destination is stored for each negotiation target.
However, Herrin teaches wherein in the obtaining process, information indicating whether the proposed change to the manipulated variable is accepted or rejected by the destination is stored for each negotiation target (see Paragraph 53 teaching that acceptance for new routes by all effected entities is recorded in a database).
Ohtsuka and Herrin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of delivery systems. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohtsuka’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein new route acceptance is recorded in a database as taught by Herrin. Doing so could help show route update trends, and inform future route-building operations, increasing efficiency and streamlining future anticipated updates.
In regard to Claim 10, Ohtsuka further teaches wherein in the output process, the at least one processor generates output data including the negotiation description for the destination targeted for negotiation and provides the generated output data to the destination targeted for negotiation (see Paragraph 50 teaching that when the loading location determined by the loading location determination unit 16 is output, it is possible to improve workability of a loading worker).
Here, the Examiner is interpreting the phrase “it is possible to improve workability of a loading worker [via the output data],” to mean that the output data is transmitted to a loading worker that then loads the delivery load at the loading destination.
Claim 13 is substantially similar to Claim 1. Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claim 14 is substantially similar to Claim 1. Please see the rejection of Claim 1 above for analysis.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtsuka (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0324984 A1), in view of Tanno (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0220785 A1), in further view of Herrin (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0344943 A1), in further view of Lopke (U.S. Patent 6,553,310 B1).
In regard to Claim 4, Ohtsuka fails to teach wherein the one or more constraint conditions or the evaluation function includes a constraint regarding a probability of success in negotiation with a negotiation target.
However, Lopke teaches wherein the one or more constraint conditions or the evaluation function includes a constraint regarding a probability of success in negotiation with a negotiation target (see Column 3 lines 48-53 teaching an information retrieval system in which the system computes a likelihood that one of several nearby resources will be able to satisfy a user’s requirements).
Ohtsuka and Lopke are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of digital systems that determine and compare the suitability of multiple resources for a user’s particular purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohtsuka’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the system could evaluate a likelihood of suitability as taught by Lopke. Doing so could decrease the amount of time required to find a suitable destination or solution by prioritizing examining or analyzing resources that have a higher likelihood of meeting the user’s needs or requirements.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtsuka (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0324984 A1), in view of Tanno (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0220785 A1), in further view of Herrin (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0344943 A1), in further view of Merriman (U.S. Patent 7,844,488 B2).
In regard to Claim 5, Ohtsuka fails to teach wherein the one or more constraint conditions or the evaluation function includes a constraint regarding a time required for negotiation with a negotiation target.
However, Merriman teaches wherein the one or more constraint conditions or the evaluation function includes a constraint regarding a time required for negotiation with a negotiation target (see Claim 17 teaching a delivery, targeting, and measurement system that compares advertisements for delivery, wherein the time remaining to select an advertisement for delivery is determined).
Ohtsuka and Merriman are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of systems that determine and compare the suitability of multiple resources for a user’s particular purpose. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohtsuka’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein the system could evaluate a time remaining for selection or determination as taught by Merriman. Doing so decrease the amount of time required to find a suitable destination or solution by prioritizing examining or analyzing resources that have a higher time remaining for selection or determination.
Claims 11, 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtsuka (U.S. Patent Publication 2020/0324984 A1), in view of Tanno (U.S. Patent Publication 2019/0220785 A1), in further view of Herrin (U.S. Patent Publication 2017/0344943 A1), in further view of Maloney (U.S. Patent 9,710,779 B1).
In regard to Claim 11, Ohtsuka fails to teach wherein the negotiation description presents a plurality of options of the time window or a plurality of options of the capacity, and invites a receiver at the destination targeted for negotiation to specify an acceptable option.
However, Maloney teaches wherein the negotiation description presents a plurality of options of the time window or a plurality of options of the capacity, and invites a receiver at the destination targeted for negotiation to specify an acceptable option (see Claim 7 teaching that a mobile device displaying a user interface presents a set of tentative delivery time frames and provides an option to accept each of the set of tentative delivery time frames).
Ohtsuka and Maloney are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of digital systems that coordinate delivery plans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohtsuka’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a user can approve a delivery timeframe as taught by Maloney. Doing so could improve a delivery system by enabling the user to confirm one or more delivery timeframe selections in order to minimize the amount of remaining timeframes that the system needs to analyze or adhere to. This could decrease the amount of time required to confirm a delivery service or order.
In regard to Claim 12, Ohtsuka fails to teach wherein the negotiation description presents a plurality of options of the time window or a plurality of options of the capacity, and invites a receiver at the destination targeted for negotiation to specify an unacceptable option.
However, Maloney teaches wherein the negotiation description presents a plurality of options of the time window or a plurality of options of the capacity, and invites a receiver at the destination targeted for negotiation to specify an unacceptable option (see Claim 7 teaching that a mobile device displaying a user interface presents a set of tentative delivery time frames and provides an option to reject each of the set of tentative delivery time frames).
Ohtsuka and Maloney are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of digital systems that coordinate delivery plans. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Ohtsuka’s invention to incorporate a feature wherein a user can reject a delivery timeframe as taught by Maloney. Doing so could improve a delivery system by enabling the user to reject one or more delivery timeframe selections in order to minimize the amount of remaining timeframes that the system needs to analyze or adhere to. This could decrease the amount of time required to confirm a delivery service or order.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s arguments and remarks with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of Claim has been fully considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections of Claims 8, 9, 11, 12 have been withdrawn, in light of the claim amendments. The rejections of Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 13, 14 have been maintained. The Examiner maintains the position that these claims are directed to a process of proposing various updates to a delivery plan by relaxing constraints related to capacity, time window, probability that an end user agrees to the update, time required for negotiation with the end user, and outputting information relating to the potential updates. The Examiner considers these claims to constitute a mental process, such as determining an adjustment to a delivery schedule after reconsidering the importance of maintaining a delivery vehicle below a certain weight or adjusting the schedule to accommodate earlier delivery windows. Claim 10 specifically teaches providing proposed updates to end users, but the Examiner considers this step to be insignificant post-solution activity. The concept of sending information after the information has been determined or processed is not foundational to the disclosed process and is well-known in numerous applications of processing or generating data. The Examiner further maintains that Claims 1, 4-7, 10, 13, 14 do not integrate the mental process into a practical application. The claims do not recite any limitations that elevate the disclosed process above simple ideas that can be accomplished mentally. The Applicant argues that Claim 1 provides significantly more and/or an inventive concept as an ordered combination because it requires (a) constraint relaxation tied to capacity/time window, (b) minimization of an evaluation function or generation of a delivery plan having an evaluation function value smaller than an evaluation function value of a current delivery plan, (c) pinpointing the destination whose manipulated variable change achieved that minimization or resulted in the smaller evaluation function value, and (d) outputting specific operational instructions for how to change capacity/time window for the targeted destination. The Examiner disagrees. The human mind could theoretically analyze a delivery schedule, ascertain that if a single delivery destination adjusted its delivery window (relaxing that particular constraint), the route could be optimized in a particular way, and create an updated route based on the new time window for the particular destination.
Some of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been amended or withdrawn, in light of the claim amendments.
New 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejections of Claims 1, 13, 14 have been introduced in light of the claim amendments.
Two new references (Herrin, Tanno) have been introduced in light of the amendments made to Claims 1, 8, 9.
Claims 4-7, 10-12 remain rejected for rationales similar to those used in Claim 1 or under the rationales provided in the previous office action.
The Applicant’s amendments, arguments, and remarks do not overcome these prior art rejections.
Conclusion
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 PAUL W ARELLANO whose telephone number is (571)270-0102. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30 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, Ramon Mercado, can be reached on (571) 270-5744. 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.
/PAUL W ARELLANO/Examiner, Art Unit 3658
/Ramon A. Mercado/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3658
Prosecution Insights