DETAILED ACTION
This FINAL office action is in response to Applicant’s amendment filed January 15, 2026. Applicant’s January 15th amendment amended claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 13, 14, 24, 25, 27, 28 and canceled claims 4, 16-19, 21, 23, 26, 29-64. Currently claims 1-3, 5-15, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28 are pending. Claims 1, 27 and 28 are the independent claims.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Amendment
The Objection to the Title in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendment to the Title.
The 35 U.S.C. 112b rejection of claim 5 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendments to the claims.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-3, 5-15, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28 in the previous office action is maintained.
The 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 11, 13-15, 27, and 28 in the previous office action is withdrawn in response to Applicant's amendments to the claims, however a new grounds of rejection has been applied (Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117016 as in view of Elizondo, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140184391).
Applicant's amendments to the claims necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 12, 13, filed January 15, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1, 5-7, 11, 13-15, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117016 in view of Elizondo, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140184391.
Examiner notes that Applicant’s Specification Paragraph 66, below, defines the phrase “deep scan”, wherein the examiner has adopted Applicant’s deep scan definition for the purposes of examination.
[0066] A “deep scan” refers to a scan of the data tags associated with the medication performed when the medication station 102 is not being accessed, such as at predetermined time intervals, at a predetermined time (e.g., 6 seconds, 2 to 4 seconds, 4 to 6 seconds, 6 to 10 seconds, 10 to 30 seconds, 30 to 60 seconds, 60 seconds or greater, and/or other ranges therebetween) after the inventory scan, and/or at a predetermined time (e.g., 6 seconds, 2 to 4 seconds, 4 to 6 seconds, 6 to 10 seconds, 10 to 30 seconds, 30 to 60 seconds, 60 seconds or greater, and/or other ranges therebetween) after the medication station 102 is accessed. In other words, the deep scans can be performed according to a periodic schedule. Additionally or alternatively, the “deep scan” is a scan of the data tags associated with the item that has a scan length that is greater than or equal to a threshold scan length (e.g., 6 seconds, 2 to 4 seconds, 4 to 6 seconds, 6 to 10 seconds, 10 to 30 seconds, 30 to 60 seconds, 60 seconds or greater, and/or other ranges therebetween). Thus, the deep scans are performed slowly to determine a performance of the data tags which can also be used to identify performance of other elements of the system.
Examiner further notes that performing deeps scans within storage is old, well-known, conventional and routine. Support for this old and well-known fact can be found in at least the following previously cite references: Butler et al., U.S. Patent No. 9953193 - periodic reading/scanning of ID tabs within environment (aircraft, medical equipment) - DETX 461, 576, 586); Russell et al., U.S. Patent No. 9378484 inventory, RFID tags, within compartments/inventory holders - reader station - read RFID tags based on time period threshold, percent of tags read or other similar thresholds (DETX 19); periodic reading of tags DETX 33, read/scan within storage/container Figure 14, DETX 129); and Elizondo, U.S. Patent No. 20140184391 (see detailed discussion below).
Applicant's arguments filed January 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues that he claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (e.g. improves performance of deep scans in medication storage and distribution systems, scanner within station, improves field of medical storage/distribution; Specification: Paragraph 4, 49-55; Remarks: Last Paragraph, Page 9; Last Two Paragraphs, Page 10; Pages 11, 12); the claims are similar to Dejardins et al. (Remarks: Paragraph 2, Page 10); and the claims are similar to MPEP 2106.05(a) subsection I, example xiv (Remarks: Paragraph 1, Page 12).
In response to Applicant’s arguments that the claims are similar to MPEP 2106.05(a) subsection I, example xiv, the examiner request clarification as to which specific subject matter example Applicant is referring to. Examiner suggest Applicant review the list of subject matter eligibility examples and more clearly articulate which specific SME the claims are similar to and why. The current list of subject matter eligibility guidance and examples may be accessed here https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/examination-policy/subject-matter-eligibility
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims are similar to the recent Appeals Review Panel review of Ex parte Desjardins et al., related to U.S. Patent Application No. 16/319,040, assigned to DeepMind Technologies Limited, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
While the Desjardins decision cautions against overbroad application of 35 U.S.C. 101 to artificial intelligence inventions, such inventions not categorically excluded from patentability, the thrust of the decision made clear that improvements to an AI model itself can be sufficient for the purpose of patent eligibility, even when the claims recite, on their face, an ostensibly “abstract idea.” Specifically, the Appeals Review Panel found that the claims under review provided a technical improvement in the functioning of machine learning models by enabling continual learning, reducing storage requirements, and preserving performance across tasks. In particular, the decision emphasized that the claimed invention addresses a technical problem ("catastrophic forgetting") and improves the operation of AI systems, not just through generic computer implementation but by a specific training strategy. To support this determination, the Appeals Review Panel looked to the specification which, on its own, disclosed how the invention would improve functioning of an AI model--in particular, the specification explained how the proposed invention would use less “storage capacity” and lead to “reduced system complexity." These improvements, which the Appeals Review Panel found were incorporated into the claims as a whole, constituted an “improvement to how the machine learning model itself operates”.
While Applicant’s specification discloses the use of a machine learning assessment model (e.g. Specification Paragraph 75) and that data tag scan information may be analyzed using artificial intelligence implements using a machine learning model (e.g. Specification: Paragraph 89) NONE of the claims currently recite the use of machine learning or artificial intelligence much alone recite and disclose an improvement in machine learning itself.
Accordingly, the claims are nothing like those in the Desjardins decision and are therefore not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Should Applicant amend the claims to positively recite the use of machine learning and/or artificial intelligence examiner suggests Applicant review the recently posted 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) in the Federal Register on July 17, 2024 (https://www.federalregister.gov/public-inspection/2024-15377/guidance-2024-update-on-patent-subject-matter-eligibility-including-on-artificial-intelligence ) and specifically review the three new examples 47-49 announced by the 2024 AI SME Update which provide exemplary SME analyses under 35 U.S.C. 101 of hypothetical claims related to AI inventions (https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-AI-SMEUpdateExamples47-49.pdf).
In response to Applicant’s argument that the claims are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claims are directed to a well-known business practice – inventory management – in this the claims are directed either to adjusting, based on a performance metric, a scan parameter OR transmitting, based on the performance metric, an indication associated with the performance of the plurality of data tags for display on a user interface. Representative claims 1 and 28 do NOT require adjusting a scan parameter as argued. Representative claims and 28 do not positively recite WHO or WHAT entity may or may not adjust a scan parameter. Representative claims 1 and 28 may only output performance data “for display on a user interface” which is merely insignificant data output (post-solution activity) as well as non-functional intended use (the indication may or may not actually be displayed on a user interface as currently claimed. Representative claim 27 merely recites “receiving, by the scanner, a control signal causing an adjustment of the scanning of the plurality of data tags by the scanner configured to perform deep scans” and does not positively recite if the scanner actually executes/performs the control signal as claimed (i.e. mere data output from the system, mere data input into the scanner – insignificant extra solution activity). While the claims may represent an improvement to the business process of inventory management and/or medical storage and distribution (a well-known economic practice, not a technical field) they in no way either claimed or disclosed represent a practical application.
Under the see MPEP § 2106.05, the claims are evaluated to determine if additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see Manual of Patent Examining Procedure ("MPEP") §§ 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)- (h)). A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application applies, relies on, or uses 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.
For example, limitations that are indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP § 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP § 2106.05(e).
In contrast, limitations that are not indicative of "integration into a practical application" include:
Adding 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 uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP § 2106.05(±);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception- see MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use - see MPEP 2106.05(h).
In view of the MPEP § 2106.05, one must consider whether there are additional elements set forth in the claims that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The identified additional non-abstract elements recited in the independent claims are the data processor, memory, scanner, user interface, and medication station. These generic computer hardware merely performs generic computer functions of receiving, processing and displaying data and represent a purely conventional implementation of applicant’s inventory management in the general field of medical storage and distribution and do not represent significantly more than the abstract idea. See at least MPEP § 2106.05(a) ("Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field").
These recited additional elements are merely generic computer components. The claims do present any other issues as set forth in the MPEP § 2106.05 regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Rather, the claims merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with 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 (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
outcomes/results of the steps without any details about how the outcomes are accomplished.
Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other — a distinction that the Federal Circuit applied in Enfish, in rejecting a § 101 challenge at the first stage of the Mayo/Alice framework because the claims at issue focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table, designed to improve the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. See Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36. Here the claims simply use a computer as a tool and nothing more.
For the reasons outlined above, that the claims recite a method of organizing human activity, i.e., an abstract idea, and that the additional element recited in the claim beyond the abstract idea (i.e., data processor, memory, scanner, user interface, and medication station) is no more than a generic computer component used as a tool to perform the recited abstract idea. As such, it does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 223-24 (“[Wholly generic computer implementation is not generally the sort of ‘additional featur[e]’ that provides any ‘practical assurance that the process is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea] itself.’” (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 77)).
Accordingly, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step Two of the Mayo/Alice Framework (Step 2B)
Having determined under step one of the Mayo/Alice framework that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, we next consider under Step 2B of the Guidance, the second step of the Mayo/Alice framework, whether the claims include additional elements or a combination of elements that provides an “inventive concept,” i.e., whether an additional element or combination of elements adds specific limitations beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine, conventional activity” in the field (which is indicative that an inventive concept is present) or simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry to the judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.05.
Under step two of the Mayo/Alice framework, the elements of each claim are considered both individually and “as an ordered combination” to determine whether the additional elements, i.e., the elements other than the abstract idea itself, “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217 (citation omitted); see Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73 (requiring that “a process that focuses upon the use of a natural law also contain other elements or a combination of elements, sometimes referred to as an ‘inventive concept,’ sufficient to ensure that the patent in practice amounts to significantly more than a patent upon the natural law itself’ (emphasis added) (citation omitted)).
Here the only additional element recited in the claims beyond the abstract idea is a data processor, memory, scanner, user interface, and medication station” i.e., generic computer component. See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 (“[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention.”). Applicant has not identified any additional elements recited in the claim that, individually or in combination, provides significantly more than the abstract idea.
Similar to the discussion in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. LG Electronics USA, Appeal No. 19-1835 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 30, 2020), where the Federal Circuit reaffirmed that software inventions are patentable in the U.S. with a bright-line statement: “Our precedent is clear that software can make patent-eligible improvements to computer technology, and related claims are eligible as long as they are directed to non-abstract improvements to the functionality of a computer or network platform itself.” the instant application merely applies the abstract idea using a generic computer as a conduit/tool for the abstract idea and does not improve the functioning of a computer or computer networks, does not improve another technical field and does not provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
With regards to Applicant’s argument that the claimed invention improves the improves the performance of deep scans in medication storage and distribution systems and/or improves field of medical storage/distribution, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Medical storage and distribution is not a technical field – it is a well-known, routine and conventional business/economic process performed well-prior to the advent of computers. As discussed above the phrase "deep scan" as defined in Specification Paragraph 66, see above, is merely a periodic (recurring, repeated) scan (reading) of a tag when the medical station is not being accessed (e.g. not open, not in use, in the background, inactive, etc.) OR any scan lasting more than a scan threshold length (i.e. more than a couple of seconds). Nowhere in Applicant’s disclosure is there any discussion at any level that deep scans, as defined by Applicant, improve the functioning of the underlying technology (e.g. scanner, processor, etc.) or improvement another technical field or provide a technical solution to a technical problem. At best deep scans may provide improved inventory accuracy which is an improvement in the abstract idea itself.
As for Applicant’s argument that the invention resolves a technical problem (i.e. fixed rules/static threshold are inefficient/inflexible and do not consider effects they have on completion of orders; improves completion of orders; taking into account predicted times to perform a human task), the examiner respectfully disagrees. At best the argued ‘improvements’ are business improvements in the business problem of managing human pickers picking items/products for orders and in no way represent an improvement in the functioning of a computer or computer network, do not represent an technical solution to a technical problem inherent in computers or another technical field.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 4, this paragraph discloses that inventory scans may be inaccurate for a variety of reasons (damaged tags, improperly placed tags, not claimed) and that it may difficult to determine inventory of an item that is measure inaccurately (not claimed), when or how to correct the positioning of tags (not claimed) and the like. This paragraph, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, does not disclose an improvement in the underlying technology (e.g. scanner, processor, user interface, memory, etc.); does not disclose an improvement in another technical field (medication storage and distribution is not a technical field) and does not disclose providing a technical solution to a technical problem.
With regards to argued Specification Paragraph 49-55, these paragraphs disclose an intended benefit of the system is to improve the accuracy or data tags and performance of medication stations utilizing deep scans or combination of deep scans and inventory scans (e.g. background scans – not claimed), that the performance metrics may be displayed via a dashboard and/or provide an alert, that the system may identify weak/degrading tags, collect drawer statistics and based on the day may adjust or suggest adjustments to one or more scan parameters, that the system may present additional insights into performance the performance of the medication station and the like. These paragraphs, like the remainder of Applicant’s disclosure, does not disclose an improvement in the underlying technology (e.g. scanner, processor, user interface, memory, etc.); does not disclose an improvement in another technical field (medication storage and distribution is not a technical field) and does not disclose providing a technical solution to a technical problem.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1-3, 5-15, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28 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.
Regarding independent Claims 1, 27 and 28, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of inventory management. This is a process (i.e. a series of steps) which (Statutory Category – Yes –process).
The claims recite a judicial exception, a method for organizing human activity, inventory management (Judicial Exception – Yes – organizing human activity). Specifically, the claims are directed to adjust the performance metric of a scanner OR transmit an indication associated with the performance of a plurality of tags, wherein inventory management is a fundamental economic practice that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52. Further all of the steps of “receiving”, “generating”, “adjusting OR “transmitting” recite functions of the inventory management are also directed to an abstract idea that falls into the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The intended purpose of independent claims 1, 27 and 28 appears to be either adjust a scan parameter of a scanner OR transmit an indication associated with the performance of a plurality of data tags.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea – fundamental economic practice, specifically in the abstract idea subcategories of sales activities and/or commercial interactions. The exceptions are the additional limitations of generic computer elements: data processor, memory, scanner, user interface, and medication station. See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 52.
Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong One, we proceed to Step 2A, Prong Two. Considering whether the additional elements set forth in the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (See 2019 Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-55), the previously identified non-abstract elements directed to generic computing components include: data processor, memory, scanner, user interface, and medication station. These generic computing components are merely used to receive/access, process or display data as described extensively in Applicant’s specification (Specification: Figure 8). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Moreover, when viewed as a whole with such additional elements considered as an ordered combination, the claim modified by adding a generic computer would be nothing more than a purely conventional computerized implementation of applicant's inventory management in the general field of business management and would not provide significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Note McRo, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. (837 F.3d 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), guides: "[t]he abstract idea exception prevents patenting a result where 'it matters not by what process or machinery the result is accomplished."' 837 F.3d at 1312 (quoting O'Reilly v. Morse, 56 U.S. 62, 113 (1854)) (emphasis added). The claims are not directed to a particular machine nor do they recite a particular transformation (MPEP § 2106.05(b)).
Additionally, the claims do not recite any specific claim limitations that would provide a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Nor do the claims present any other issues as set forth in the 2019 Revised Guidance regarding a determination of whether the additional generic elements integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. See Revised Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55. Rather, the claims on merely use instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. Thus, under Step 2A, Prong Two (MPEP §§ 2106.05(a)-(c) and (e)- (h)), claims 1-3, 5-15, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Regarding the use of the generic (known, conventional) recited data processor, memory, scanner, user interface, and medication station," the Supreme Court has held "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. 208, 223. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims as a whole do not recite more than what was well-known, routine and conventional in the field (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)). In light of the foregoing and under the 2019 Revised Guidance, that each of the claims, considered as a whole, is directed to a patent-ineligible abstract idea that is not integrated into a practical application and does not include an inventive concept.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Additionally, the claims recite a judicial exception, a mental processes, which can be performed in the human mind or via pen and paper (Judicial Exception – Yes – mental process).
The claimed steps of generating a performance metric and adjusting a scan parameter all describe the abstract idea. These limitations as drafted are directed to a process that under its reasonable interpretation covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of the generic computer components. Other than the recitation of a data processor, memory, scanner, user interface, and medication station nothing in the claimed steps precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. The claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the steps receiving scan data is directed to insignificant pre-solution activity (i.e. data gathering). The step of transmitting an indication associated with the performance of the plurality of tags is directed to insignificant post-solution activity (i.e. data output). The mere nominal recitation of a generic processor/computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process. (Judicial Exception recited – Yes – mental process).
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The generic data processor, memory, scanner, user interface, and medication station are each recited at a high level of generality merely performs generic computer functions of retrieving, processing or displaying data. The generic processor/computer merely applies the abstract idea using generic computer components. The elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not recite improvements to the functioning of a computer or any other technology field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, the claims to do apply the abstract idea with 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 (e.g. data remains data even after processing; MPEP 2106.05(c)), the claims no not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the user of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e. a generic computer) such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The recited generic computing elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. (Integrated into a Practical Application – No).
As discussed above the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than a mere instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computing components, wherein mere instructions to apply an judicial exception using generic computer components cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. For the retrieving and displaying steps that were considered extra-solution activity, this has been re-evaluated and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. Applicant’s specification does not provide any indication that the computer/processor is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is ineligible (Provide Inventive Concept – No).
The claims are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding dependent claims 2, 3, 5-15, 20, 22, 24, and 25, the claims are directed to the abstract idea of inventory management and merely further limit the abstract idea claimed in independent claims 1, 27 and 28.
Claim 2 further limits the abstract idea by selecting the scanner from a plurality of scanners (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 3 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the deep scan parameter to ONE or more of scan length, scanning path, scan frequency or scanning interval (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 5 further limits the abstract idea by performing a ‘deep’ scan to assess the performance of a plurality of data tags (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 6 further limits the abstract idea by dynamically adjusting an inventory scan setting and determining an medications inventory within the medication station (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 7 further limits he abstract idea by limiting the indication to indicate ONE or more of a failure of at least one data tag, an unacceptable degradation of one of the data tags, improper placement of the data tag OR failure of the scanner (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 8 further limits the abstract idea by comparing the performance metric to a prior/baseline metric and determining the metric does not correspond to the prior/baseline performance metric (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 9 further limits the abstract idea by generating a prediction of a failure of at least ONE of the data tags and wherein the indication comprises the prediction (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 10 further limits the abstract idea by detecting and logging use of an unauthorized tag (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 11 further limits the abstract idea to recommending positioning of one of the tags, performance a maintenance check on the tags and adjusting the deep scan parameter (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 12 further limits the abstract idea by determining the performance metric fails a threshold (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 13 further limits the abstract idea by receiving updated scanner data and generating an updated performance metric (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 14 further limits the abstract idea by adjusting deep scan parameter based on the updated performance metric OR transmitting the updated performance metric (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 15 further limits the abstract idea by request ONE or more of a barcode scan or key access to medication station OR witness to view a user accessing the station (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 20 further limits the abstract idea by limiting the scan data to ONE or more of signal strength, total scans per period, total number of scanners OR user information (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 22 further limits the abstract idea by coupling the tags to medication stored in the station (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 24 further limits the abstract idea by associating the performance metric with a first station, comparing the performance metric of the first station to the performance metric of a second station and displaying information representing the presentation (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea). Claim 25 further limits the abstract idea by associating the performance metric with a first medical facility, comparing the performance metric of a first facility to a performance metric of a second facility and displaying information representing the comparison (a more detailed abstract idea remains an abstract idea).
None of the limitations considered as an ordered combination provide eligibility because taken as a whole the claims simply instruct the practitioner to apply the abstract idea to a generic computer.
Further regarding claims 1-3, 5-15, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27 and 28, Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a data processor, memory, scanner, user interface, and medication station at best merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 8). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the terms merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims merely recite manipulating data utilizing generic computer hardware (e.g. memory, processor, etc.). Generic computers performing generic computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the lack of detail of the claimed embodiment in Applicant’s disclosure is an indication that the claims are directed to an abstract idea and not a specific improvement to a machine.
Accordingly given the broadest reasonable interpretation and in light of the specification the claims are interpreted to include the process steps being performed by a human mind or via pen and paper. The claim limitations which recite a computer implemented method is at best recite generic, well-known hardware. However, the recited generic hardware simply performs generic computer function of displaying or processing data. Generic computers performing generic, well known computer functions, alone, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Further the recited memories are part of every conventional general-purpose computer.
Applicant has not demonstrated that a special purpose machine/computer is required to carry out the claimed invention. A special purpose machine is now evaluated as part of the significantly more analysis established by the Alice decision and current 35 U.S.C. 101 guidelines. It involves/requires more than a machine only broadly applying the abstract idea and/or performing conventional functions.
Applicant’s specification discloses that the claimed elements directed to a data processor, memory, scanner, user interface, and medication stations merely comprise generic computer hardware which is commercially available (Specification: Figure 8). More specifically Applicant’s claimed features directed to a system and components do not represent custom or specific computer hardware circuits, instead the term system merely refers to commercially available software and/or hardware. Thus, as to the system recited, "the system claims are no different from the method claims in substance. The method claims recite the abstract idea implemented on a generic computer; the system claims recite a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea." See Alice Corp. Pry. Ltd., 134 S.Ct. at 2360.
Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 11, 13-15, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117016 in view of Elizondo, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140184391.
Regarding Claim 1 Carson et al. discloses a system and method comprising:
At least one data processor, at least one memory storing instructions which when executed by the data processor result in operations (Figure 15) comprising:
Receiving from a scanner of a medication station (Figures 1, 2, 11) scan data associated with a scan of a plurality of data tags positioned within the medication station (Figure 16);
Generating, based on the scan data, a performance metric (value, data, etc.) indicating performance of the plurality of data tags (e.g. unexpected code, incorrect label/scan/product, etc.; Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17; Figure 23, Element 714); and
Adjusting, based on the performance metric a scan parameter of the scanner (e.g. number of scans, re-label etc.; Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 37, Lines 50-68; Column 38, Lines 1-6) OR transmitting based on the performance metric an indication associated with the plurality of data tags (Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17; Column 37, Lines 50-68; Column 38, Lines 1-6).
Carlson et al. does not disclose that the scanner is located within the components of the station or deep scans as claimed.
For the purposes of examination, the phrase "deep scan" as defined in Specification Paragraph 66, see above, is any scanner/scan performed periodically OR any scan lasting more than a scan than a couple of seconds (see discussion above).
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71), discloses a system and method comprising:
At least one data processor; and at least one memory storing instructions which, when executed by the at least one data processor, result in operations comprising:
Receiving, from a scanner of a medication station located within components of the medication station (Abstract; Paragraphs 6, 7, 20, 24, 31; Claims 10, 20), scan data associated with a deep scan of a plurality of data tags positioned within components of the medication station, wherein the deep scan is performed on a periodic schedule (Paragraphs 10, 12, 18, 19, 21, 24) and comprises a scan of the plurality of data tags when the medication station is not being accessed (Paragraphs 7, 42, 72 ; Claim 1);
Adjusting, based on the performance metric, a scan parameter of the scanner of the plurality of data tags configured to perform deep scans (Paragraphs 20, 22).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Carson et al. would have benefited from performing locating the scanner within the station and to perform deep scans in view of the disclosure of Elizondo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 27, Carson et al. discloses a system and method comprising:
At least one data processor, at least one memory storing instructions which when executed by the data processor result in operations (Figure 15) comprising:
Scanning by a scanner of a medication station scan data associated with a scan of a plurality of data tags positioned within the medication station (Figures 1, 2, 11; Figure 15, Element 36; Abstract; Column 2, Lines 50-68; Column 23, Lines 15-25; Claim 1);
Generating, based on the scan data, a performance metric indicating performance of the plurality of data tags (e.g. unexpected code, incorrect label/scan/product, etc.; Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17; Figure 23, Element 714);
Transmitting, by the scanner, the scan data (Figure 15; Column 22, Lines 60-68; Column 23, Lines 1-12); and
Receiving, by the scanner, a control signal causing adjustment of the scanning of the plurality of data tags by the scanner (e.g. print new label, re-label, etc.; Column 4, Lines 12-28; Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17; Column 37, Lines 50-68; Column 38, Lines 1-6).
Carlson et al. does not disclose that the scanner is located within the components of the station or deep scans as claimed.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method comprising:
Scanning (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71), by a scanner of a medication station located within compartments of the medical station, a plurality of data tags coupled to a plurality of medications positioned within the medication station (Abstract; Paragraphs 6, 7, 20, 24, 31; Claims 10, 20), wherein the scanning is performed on a periodic schedule (Paragraphs 10, 12, 18, 19, 21, 24) and comprises a scan of the plurality of data tags when the medication station is not being accessed (Paragraphs 7, 42, 72 ; Claim 1);
Generating, by the scanner and during the scanning, scan data associated with the scanning, wherein the scan data is associated with a deep scan of the plurality of data tags positioned within compartments of the medication station (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71).
Regarding Claim 28, Carson et al. discloses a medication station, system and method comprising:
At least one data processor, at least one memory storing instructions which when executed by the data processor result in operations (Figure 15) comprising:
Scanning a data tag coupled to a medication stored in the medication station scan (Abstract; Column 2, Lines 50-68; Column 23, Lines 15-25; Claim 1) wherein the medication station includes a scanner configured to scan the data tag (Figure 15, Element 36);
Generating, based on the scan data, a performance metric indicating performance of the plurality of data tags (e.g. unexpected code, incorrect label/scan/product, etc.; Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17; Figure 23, Element 714); and
Adjusting, based on the performance metric a scan parameter of the scanner (e.g. number of scans, re-label etc.; Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 37, Lines 50-68; Column 38, Lines 1-6) OR transmitting based on the performance metric an indication associated with the plurality of data tags (Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17; Column 37, Lines 50-68; Column 38, Lines 1-6).
Carlson et al. does not disclose that the scanner is located within the components of the station or deep scaning as claimed.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method comprising:
Deep scanning a data tag coupled to a medication stored in a compartment of the medication station (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71), wherein the medication station includes a scanner configured to scan the data tag (Abstract; Paragraphs 6, 7, 20, 24, 31; Claims 10, 20), wherein the deep scan is performed on a periodic schedule (Paragraphs 10, 12, 18, 19, 21, 24) and when the medication station is not being accessed (Paragraphs 7, 42, 72 ; Claim 1); and
Generating, during the deep scanning, scan data associated with the scanning (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71).
Regarding Claim 2, Carson et al. does not disclose that the scan parameter comprises a selection of the scanner as claimed.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method wherein a scan parameter comprises a selection of a scanner from the plurality of scanners of the medication station to scan at least one data tag from a plurality of data tags (Paragraphs 26, 27, 32; Claim 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Carson et al. discloses a system and method further comprising performing a ‘deep’ scan to asses the performance of a plurality of data (Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17; Figure 23, Element 714; Figure 15).
Regarding Claim 6, Carson et al. discloses a system and method wherein dynamically adjusting an inventory scan setting, the inventory scan determining an inventory of a plurality of medications within the medication stations after the medication station is access, wherein each of the plurality of data tags are coupled to a corresponding medication of the plurality of medications (Column 24, Lines 15-33; Colum 36, Lines 60-68; Column 37, Lines 1-35; Figure 20).
Regarding Claim 7, Carson et al. discloses a system and method wherein the indication indicates ONE or more failure of at least one data tag, an unacceptable degradation of one of the data tags, improper placement of the data tag OR failure of the scanner (Figure 23, Element 714; Figure 16 -0 output error/correct label; Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 35, Lines 5-17).
Regarding Claim 11, Carson et al. discloses a system and method further comprising recommending positioning of one of the tags (e.g. remove/replace/re-label; Column 4, Lines 12-27; Column 7, Lines 45-68; Column 8, Lines 1-18), performance a maintenance check on the tags (e.g. verification; Column 7, Lines 25-68; Column 8, Lines 1-10) and adjusting the scan parameter (Column 27, Lines 1-39; Column 37, Lines 50-68; Column 38, Lines 1-).
Regarding Claim 13, Carson et al. discloses a system and method further comprising receiving updated scanner data and generating an updated performance metric (Column 27, Lines 40-50; Column 29, Lines 18-50; Figure 16).
Carson et al. does not disclose deeps scans, as discussed above.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method comprising: receiving from the scanner updated deep scan data associated with an updated deep scan of a plurality of data tags, the updated deep scan occurring after adjusting OR transmitting (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71).
Regarding Claim 14, Carson et al. discloses a system and method further comprising adjusting scan parameter based on the updated performance metric OR transmitting the updated performance metric (Column 27, Lines 40-50; Column 29, Lines 18-50; Figure 16).
Carson et al. does not disclose deeps scans, as discussed above.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method comprising: teaches updated deep scan data (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71).
Regarding Claim 15, Carson et al. discloses a system and method further requesting ONE or more of a barcode scan (Column 9, Lines 44-68) or key access to medication station (Column 25, Lines 30-45; Figure 22) OR witness to view a user accessing the station.
Regarding Claim 22, Carson et al. discloses a system and method wherein plurality of data tags are each coupled to a medication stored within the medication station (Column 1, Lines 40-68; Column 9, Lines 44-68; Column 25, Lines 5-25; Figure 15, Elements 356, 362).
Claims 3, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117016 in view of Elizondo, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140184391 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Jain et al., U.S. Patent No. 9076119.
Regarding Claim 3, Carson et al. does not disclose that the scan parameter is limited to ONE or more of scan length, scanning path, scan frequency or scanning interval as claimed.
Carson et al. does not disclose deeps scans, as discussed above.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method comprising deep scans (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71).
Jian et al., from the same field of inventory management/adjusting scanning parameters, discloses a system and method comprising adjusting scanning parameters wherein the scan parameters are ONE or more of scan length, scanning path, scan frequency or scanning interval (Abstract; Column 6, Lines 42-57; Column 13, Lines 20-68; Column 16, Lines 38-57).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Carson et al. would have benefited from adjusting scanning parameters wherein the scan parameters are ONE or more of scan length, scanning path, scan frequency or scanning interval in view of the disclosure of Jian et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 8, Carson et al. does not disclose a prior performance metric or baseline as claimed.
Jain et al., from the same field of endeavor of medication inventory management, discloses a system and method comprising:
Comparing the performance metric to a prior performance metric OR baseline performance metric (e.g. threshold; Abstract; Figure 5; Column 2, Lines 50-68; Column 3, Lines 1-20; Column 5, Lines 20-40; Column 13, Lines 10-19); and
Determining the performance metric does not correspond to the prior performance metric OR baseline performance metric (e.g. threshold; Abstract; Figure 5; Column 2, Lines 50-68; Column 3, Lines 1-20; Column 5, Lines 20-40; Column 13, Lines 10-19).
Regarding Claim 12, Carson et al. does not disclose determining the performance metric fails a threshold as claimed.
Jain et al., from the same field of endeavor of wireless scanning, discloses a system and method further comprising determining the performance metric fails a threshold metric (Abstract; Figure 5; Column 2, Lines 50-68; Column 3, Lines 1-20; Column 5, Lines 20-40; Column 13, Lines 10-19).
Claim 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117016 in view of Elizondo, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140184391 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Hoffman et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20170316373.
Regarding Claim 9, Carson et al. does not disclose generating a prediction as claimed.
Hoffman et al., from the same field of endeavor of inventory management, discloses a system and method further comprising generating based on the determination a predication of a failure of at least one data tag of the plurality of data tags; and wherein the indication comprises the prediction (Abstract; Paragraphs 10, 11, 28, 34; Figure 2, Element 206).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Carson et al. would have benefited from predicting a failure in view of the disclosure of Hoffman et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Regarding Claim 10, Carson et al. does not disclose detecting/logging an unauthorized tag as claimed.
Hoffman et al., from the same field of endeavor of wireless tag scanning, discloses a system and method further comprising detecting and logging based on a determination use of an unauthorized tag (Paragraphs 48, 74; Claim 7).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117016 in view of Elizondo, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140184391 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Onderko et al., U.S. Patent No. 7623036.
Regarding Claim 20, Carson et al. does not disclose that the scan data comprises ONE or more of signal strength, total scans per period, total number of scanners OR user information associated with user positioning of the plurality of data tags as claimed.
Onderko et al., from the same field of wireless scanning, discloses a system and method for adaptively/dynamically adjusting scanning parameters in a wireless scanning system comprising scan data comprises ONE or more of signal strength, total scans per period, total number of scanners OR user information associated with user positioning of the plurality of data tags (Paragraph 32).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Carson et al. would have benefited from scan data comprises ONE or more of signal strength, total scans per period, total number of scanners OR user information associated with user positioning of the plurality of data tags in view of the disclosure of Onderko et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117016 in view of Elizondo, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140184391 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Ouyang et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140266615.
Regarding Claim 24, Carson et al. does not disclose deeps scans, as discussed above.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method comprising deep scans (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71).
While benchmarking/comparing performance metrics is old and very well-known, Carson et al. does not comparing first/second station performance metrics as claimed.
Ouyang et al., from the same field of endeavor of wireless scanning, discloses a system and method comprising associating the performance metric with a first station, comparing the performance metric of the first station to the performance metric of a second station and displaying information representing the presentation (Abstract; Paragraphs 13, 44, 46; Claim 8).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Carson et al. would have benefited from comparing performance metrics in view of the disclosure of Ouyang et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carson et al., U.S. Patent No. 9117016 in view of Elizondo, U.S. Patent Publication No. 20140184391 as applied to the claims above, and further in view of McDaniel et al., U.S. Patent Publication No. 20100134260.
Regarding Claim 25, Carson et al. does not disclose deeps scans, as discussed above.
Elizondo, from the same field of endeavor of medical station inventory scanning, discloses a system and method comprising deep scans (Figures 2, 3, 6, 7; Paragraphs 37, 38, 51, 57, 67, 71).
While benchmarking/comparing performance metrics is old and very well-known, Carson et al. does not comparing the performance metric of a first facility to a performance metric of a second facility and displaying information representing the comparison as claimed.
McDaniel et al., from the same field of endeavor of wireless scanning, discloses a system and method comprising associating the performance metric with a first facility and comparing the performance metric of a first facility to a performance metric of a second facility and displaying information representing the comparison (Paragraphs 31, 36).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that the system and method as disclosed by Carson et al. would have benefited from comparing performance metrics in view of the disclosure of McDaniel et al., since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Conclusion
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 SCOTT L JARRETT whose telephone number is (571)272-7033. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 6am-4:30PM.
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, Beth Boswell can be reached at (571) 272-6737. 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.
SCOTT L. JARRETT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/SCOTT L JARRETT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625