DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office action. In response to Non-Final communications received 8/19/2025, Applicant, on 1/20/2026, amended Claims 27, 31, 33-35, 39-40, 42-43, and 45-46. Claims 27-46 are pending in this action, have been considered in full, and are rejected below.
Response to Arguments
Arguments regarding the Claims Interpretations – The interpretation has been removed in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Software Per Se – The rejection as Applicant has not argued this and further the computer system and network in the claims has no structure and can be interpreted as being software.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Signals Per Se – The rejection is removed in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §101 Alice – Applicant asserts that the claims utilize 2 methods that provide an optimized schedule, which is used to reallocate task between machines to improve performance, and then that optimized schedule is used to control the operation of the machines. Examiner disagrees as the limitations as claimed recite limitations which are instructional and could be used as a report or instructions by a user to manually reallocate the tasks and control the machine. Further the limitations of the current invention are not necessarily rooted in computer technology, but rather utilize current technologies such as a computer system, network, and algorithms, to perform the abstract limitations of the Claims. There are two identified abstract ideas, as per the rejection below. The claims recite limitation which describe abstract processes of both a “Mental Process” and a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”, as the claims recite limitations for the purposes of reallocation of tasks, which is inherently Managing Human Activity. These additional elements of a computer system, network, etc. are all run on generic computing components which are not improved, either alone or in combination, and there is no improvement to any technology or technological field. This is “Applying It”, similar to Alice, on a generic computing system.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the Claims are ineligible as there is no inventive concept, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 101.
Arguments regarding 35 USC §102/103 – Examiner notes that 102 has been removed in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant asserts that Howie does not teach the amended limitations of the claims, particularly the amended limitations of the Claims. Examiner disagrees as Howie teaches receiving a plurality of tasks to be performed by the group of machines as in Fig. 4 #10 to 140 and Col. 10, L. 54 to Col 11, L.39, using a first method to generate an initial schedule for the group of machines, comprising allocating one task of the plurality of tasks or a time-ordered list of some of the plurality of tasks to each machine of the group of machines as in Col 11, lines 40-56 where the times are changed for the schedules of machines and when they are used such as the first cut, using a second method to optimize the schedule generated by the first method as in Col 11, 57-66 and Col 13, 1-26 where a second method is used to optimize, to provide the schedule for the group of machines to the group of machines in the factory via the communication means as in Col 12, 4-6 and Col. 14, L. 22-24, and adjusting of a schedule and tasks do to slack as in C.15, L39 – C.16, L29. Applicant’s Specification defines a more expensive algorithm as:
“The second method may be computationally more expensive than the first method. The first method may comprise heuristic rules, dispatch rules, constraint programming or using a previously-generated schedule for the plurality of machines. The second method may comprise Mixed-Integer Linear Programming, constraint programming, an advanced heuristic method or a metaheuristic method.”Which is being interpretated as any type of complex and/or fast algorithm such as linear programming, shortest path, constraint programming, heuristic, or metaheuristic methods.
Augenstein teaches updating of schedules for new tasks and subtasks of groups of machines/satellites as in [0041], which is a reallocation of tasks between machine to improve performance, and use of fast algorithms using constraint optimization as in [0044]. These algorithms are for [0069] optimization such as maximum utility or cost, and use multiple “expensive” algorithms such as optimal path, Dijkstra’s algorithm, Bellman-Ford, etc., and as in [0044] they control the performance of the machines/satellites. This combination teaches the amended limitations of the Claims.
Therefore, the arguments are non-persuasive, the combination of Howie and Augenstein teaches the amended limitations of the Claims, and the rejection of the Claims and their dependents are maintained under 35 USC 103.
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.
Software Per Se - Claims 27-44, drawn to system defined merely by software, or terms synonymous with software or files, represents functional descriptive material (e.g. data structures or software) per se. Such material is considered non-statutory when claimed without appropriate corresponding structure. Here, in Claim 27, the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the applicant's system elements of a computer system and a communication means encompass functions that can be executed entirely as software per se. Programs do not recite a structure, and in the broadest reasonable interpretation can be software which is used for controlling hardware. As currently written, the claimed system lacks structure, and thus is non-statutory. The dependent claims inherit the deficiencies of the independent claim they depend on and thus are similarly rejected.
Therefore, the Claim and its dependents are rejected.
Alice – Claims 27-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 27, 45, and 46 are directed to the limitations for receiving a plurality of tasks to be performed by the group of machines (Collecting Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, i.e. Managing Tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), using a first method to generate an initial schedule for the group of machines, comprising allocating one task of the plurality of tasks or a time-ordered list of some of the plurality of tasks to each machine of the group of machines (Analyzing and Transmitting Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, i.e. Managing Tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and using a second method that is computationally more expensive than the first method to optimize the initial schedule generated by the first method for the group of machines to provide an optimized scheduled, wherein the initial schedule is optimized by reallocating tasks between machines in the group of machines to improve performance of the group of machines (Analyzing the Information, an Evaluation, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, i.e. Managing Tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), and to provide the optimized schedule for the group of machines to the group of machines in the factory and control operation of the group of machines according to the optimized schedule (Transmitting the Analyzed Information, an Evaluation and Judgment, a Mental Process; Managing Human Activity, i.e. Managing Tasks; a Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity), which under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind for the purposes of managing tasks of users but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system, computer system, and communication network, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed or read into the mind for the purposes of manage tasks on machines by users. For example, using a first method to generate a schedule for the group of machines, comprising allocating one task of the plurality of tasks or a time-ordered list of some of the plurality of tasks to each machine of the group of machines encompasses scheduler, engineer, etc. scheduling tasks for someone to use or program a machine for, task by task, an observation, evaluation, and judgment. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, an observation, evaluation, and judgement. Further, as described above, the claims recite limitations for Managing Human Activity, managing tasks, a “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity”. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the above stated additional elements to perform the abstract limitations as above. The system, computer system, and communication network above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic software/module performing a generic computer function of storing, retrieving, sending, and processing data) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Even if taken as an additional element, the receiving and transmitting steps above are insignificant extra-solution activity as these are receiving, storing, and transmitting data as per the MPEP 2106.05(d), which, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a user being transmitted instructions to then control operation of a group of machines, clearly extra-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional 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 claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element being used to perform the abstract limitations stated above amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Applicant’s Specification states:
“The means for sending the collected data to the computer system 11 may comprise one or more computers in communication with the means for collecting data from the factory 10, such as via a wired or wireless connection. The means for sending the collected data to the computer system 11 may be in communication with the computer system 1, for example via a network.”
Which states that any computing system with computers, such as a smart phone, mobile computing device, laptop, etc., can be used to perform the abstract limitations, and from this interpretation, one would reasonably deduce the aforementioned steps are all functions that can be done on generic components, and thus application of an abstract idea on a generic computer, as per the Alice decision and not requiring further analysis under Berkheimer, but for edification the Applicant’s specification has been used as above satisfying any such requirement. This is “Applying It” by utilizing current technologies such as a computer, to perform the abstract limitations of the claims. For the receiving and transmitting steps that were considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A above, if they were to be considered additional elements, they have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that the additional elements, such as the systems, communication means, etc., nor the receiving or transmitting steps as above, are anything other than a generic, and the MPEP Section 2106.05(d) indicates that mere collection or receipt, storing, or transmission 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 not patent eligible.
Claims 28-44 contain the identified abstract ideas, further narrowing them, with the additional elements of one or more sensors and one or more computers, which are all highly generalized when considered as part of a practical application or under prong 2 of the Alice Analysis of the MPEP, thus not integrated into a practical application, nor are they significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. Therefore, the claims and dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 27-32, 39, and 41-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howie (U.S. Patent No. 5,093,794) in view of Augenstein (U.S. Publication No. 2016/015,5073).
Regarding Claims 27 and 45-46, Howie, a job scheduling system, teaches a system for providing a schedule for a group of machines in a factory, the system comprising a computer system for generating the schedule for the group of machines, and a communication means for providing the schedule to the group of machines in the factory, wherein the computer system is configured to generate the schedule for the group of machines (Col.2, l7 to Col.4 L8) by performing the steps of:
receiving a plurality of tasks to be performed by the group of machines (Fig. 4 #10 to 140 and Col. 10, L. 54 to Col 11, L.39);
using a first method to generate an initial schedule for the group of machines, comprising allocating one task of the plurality of tasks or a time-ordered list of some of the plurality of tasks to each machine of the group of machines (Col 11, lines 40-56 times are changed for the schedules of machines and when they are used such as the first cut); and
using a second method to optimise the schedule generated by the first method (Col 11, 57-66 and Col 13, 1-26 where a second method is used to optimize); and
wherein the computer system is further configured to provide the schedule for the group of machines to the group of machines in the factory via the communication means (Col 12, 4-6 and Col. 14, L. 22-24).
Although Howie teaches using a communication means and an initial schedule which is determined by algorithms for the group of machines as above, as well as adjusting of a schedule and tasks do to slack as in C.15, L39 – C.16, L29, it does not explicitly state a communications network or a more expensive algorithm being utilized, which is defined in Applicant’s Specification as:
“The second method may be computationally more expensive than the first method. The first method may comprise heuristic rules, dispatch rules, constraint programming or using a previously-generated schedule for the plurality of machines. The second method may comprise Mixed-Integer Linear Programming, constraint programming, an advanced heuristic method or a metaheuristic method.”
Which is being interpretated as any type of complex and/or fast algorithm such as linear programming, shortest path, constraint programming, heuristic, or metaheuristic methods.
Augenstein, a satellite scheduling system, teaches updating of schedules for new tasks and subtasks of groups of machines/satellites as in [0041], which is a reallocation of tasks between machine to improve performance, and use of fast algorithms using constraint optimization as in [0044]. These algorithms are for [0069] optimization such as maximum utility or cost, and use multiple “expensive” algorithms such as optimal path, Dijkstra’s algorithm, Bellman-Ford, etc., and as in [0044] they control the performance of the machines/satellites.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to combine the scheduling system of Howie, which removes tasks based on constraints, with the constraints of the scheduling system of Augenstein as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions in the field of scheduling, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase the efficiency of the scheduling and maximize utilization as taught in [0043] of Augenstein.
Examiner notes Howie teaches a computer software product (Col.24 51-69 where there is software used to program the system).
Regarding Claim 28, Howie teaches wherein the computer system is further configured to perform a filtering step after using the first method to generate the schedule, wherein the filtering step comprises generating a filtered schedule by removing at least one of the plurality of tasks from the schedule generated by the first method (C.15, L. 10-26 – the schedule is optimized and jobs are removed in a filter type step) and wherein using the second method to optimise the schedule generated by the first method comprises optimising the filtered schedule (C. 9, L21-31 – the schedule is optimized using the steps as in C. 15 above)
Regarding Claim 29, Howie teaches wherein removing at least one of the plurality of tasks from the schedule generated by the first method as in the Claims above, and teaches removing of any of the plurality of tasks which are scheduled to begin as in C.15, L. 10-26 where the schedule is optimized and jobs are removed, but does not explicitly state beyond a time limit.
Augenstein, a satellite scheduling system, teaches use of thresholds and updating of schedules depending on desired start and end times as in [0035], which are predetermined time limits.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to combine the scheduling system of Howie, which removes tasks based on constraints, with the constraints of the scheduling system of Augenstein as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions in the field of scheduling, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase the efficiency of the scheduling and maximize utilization as taught in [0043] of Augenstein.
Regarding Claim 30, Howie teaches using the second method to optimise the schedule and the filtering of task by removing tasks from the schedule as in Claims 27 and 28 above, but does not explicitly teach amending the schedule.
Augenstein teaches quickly updating schedules to respond to needs, requests, and constraints as in [0079].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to combine the scheduling system of Howie, which removes tasks based on constraints, with the updating of schedules of the scheduling system of Augenstein as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions in the field of scheduling, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase the efficiency of the scheduling and maximize utilization as taught in [0043] of Augenstein.
Regarding Claim 31, Howie teaches The system of claim 27, further comprising one or more sensors configured to collect data from the factory (C.9, L35-41 – data is collected from work order manager and also in Claim 27 above), and one or more computers configured for sending the data to the computer system, and optionally wherein the data conveys the plurality of tasks to be performed by the group of machines (As above in Claim 27 - Col 12, 4-6 and Col. 14, L. 22-24 where information is sent to the machines to perform the work order)
Regarding Claim 32, Howie wherein the computer system is configured to generate the schedule for the group of machines using the data from the factory (C.14, L22-45 - Operational mode dispatches/sends queued job to work center/factory for processing)
Regarding Claim 39, Howie teaches The system of claim 27, wherein the computer system is further configured generate a schedule for additional resources required by the group of machines to perform the plurality of tasks, wherein the schedule for additional resources allocates the additional resources to one or more machines in the group of machines so that the group of machines can operate in accordance with the schedule for the group of machines, and wherein the computer system is further configured to provide the schedule of additional resources to the factory via the communication network (C. 9, L21-42 – resource brokers identify resource bottlenecks and assign resources to the work center/factories using the means as in Claims above)
Regarding Claim 41, Howie teaches The system of claim 27, wherein the group of machines comprises two or more different types of machine, wherein the machines in the group of machines are coupled together by at least one operational constraint such as a time link constraint, a maximum number of products which can be operated on by the group of machines, a Kanban process flow constraint and/or a high degree of re-entrancy of products moving between the machines (C.8, L. 5-20 the system uses time constraints for maximizing the amount of work that can be done by (C.12, L. 27-45) different operations, which means different machines).
Regarding Claim 42, Howie teaches The system of claim 27, wherein the communication network/means comprises one or more user interfaces in the factory for displaying the schedule for the group of machines and/or wherein the communication means comprises means to transmit control signals, wherein the control signals automatically operate the machines in the group of machines in accordance with the schedule and/or wherein the control signals automatically operate processes in the factory to enable the machines to operate in accordance with the schedule for the group of machines, and optionally wherein the system further comprises the group of machines (C.5, L44-50 – the system uses interfaces to display strategies and schedules, which are then used to operation the group of machines based on what is chosen as in C.17, L30-60 where assumptions and constraints are chosen to operate the machines).
Examiner notes the network was taught in Claim 27 above.
Regarding Claim 43, Howie teaches the first method to generate the schedule for the plurality of machines, the computer system is configured to perform a grouping step into smaller group and groups of machine into smaller groups where it states:
“(2) Referring to FIG. 1, there is shown a block diagram of the overall system. The top block, referred to as the master scheduler, is the overall driver program that communicates with the others. This central point is a convenient place to enter global parameters such as, the priority of different classes of jobs, the rules governing priority and both on the overall shop level and within a smaller group referred to a resource. Conventionally, the standard priority is to meet the due dates that have been assigned to an individual job. Other priorities, such as reducing the amount of work in progress, may also be implemented. Different priorities and goals may be assigned to different areas of the shop at this central point.
(109) CSS uses a hierarchical representation for the activities performed in the shop. Each task to be performed can be part of a higher level task. It can also contain lower level tasks that must be performed to achieve it. CSS recognizes four types of tasks: 1) work order packages, 2) work orders, 3) operations, and 4) primitive actions. Work order packages are groups of work orders, work orders are groups of operations and operations are groups of primitive actions. Primitive actions are the most detailed level of task represented by CSS. Examples are to mount a fixture or drill a hole. Each task level, except the lowest level, primitive actions, is related to its lower level tasks by a plan. Operations contain "detail plans" that describe the primitive actions that must be done to achieve the operation and the precedence constraints between the primitive actions. Similarly, work orders have "process plans" that specify the manufacturing sequence for the part. Finally, work order packages have "task plans" that specify the temporal constraints between the work orders. Throughout CSS time maps are used to represent the temporal relations between activities.”
And teaches to provide the schedule for the one or more groups of machines to the factory via the communication means as in Claims 27 and 28 above, it does not explicitly state this is clustering or use of sub-groups/chunks.
Augenstein teaches diving the groups into subgroups or chunks as in [0082] where the groups are divided into clusters.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to combine the scheduling system of Howie, which removes tasks based on constraints, with the dividing into groups of the scheduling system of Augenstein as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions in the field of scheduling, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase the efficiency of the scheduling and maximize utilization as taught in [0043] of Augenstein.
Examiner notes the network was taught in Claim 27 above.
Regarding Claim 44, How teaches using the second method to optimise the schedule generated by the first method as in Claims 27 and 28 above, and grouping as in Claim 43 above, but does not explicitly state smaller divisions.
Augenstein teaches diving the groups into subgroups or chunks, a division of tasks, as in [0082] where the groups are divided into clusters.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to combine the scheduling system of Howie, which removes tasks based on constraints, with the dividing into groups of the scheduling system of Augenstein as they are both analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions in the field of scheduling, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would increase the efficiency of the scheduling and maximize utilization as taught in [0043] of Augenstein.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howie (U.S. Patent No. 5,093,794) in view of Augenstein (U.S. Publication No. 2016/015,5073) in further view of Barto (U.S. Patent No. 7,813,993).
Regarding Claim 40, Howie teaches wherein the computer system is further configured to generate a schedule in the factory, wherein the schedule comprises instructions to move one or more products on which the plurality of tasks are to be performed and/or to move additional resources required by the group of machines to perform the plurality of tasks, so that the group of machines can operate in accordance with the schedule for the group of machines (Col 11, lines 40-56 times are changed for the schedules of machines and when they are used such in order to make a product, and Col 11, 57-66 and Col 13, 1-26 where a second method is used to optimize); and wherein the computer system is further configured to provide the schedule to the factory via the communication means (Col 12, 4-6 and Col. 14, L. 22-24 the schedule is provided via a network and screen), but neither Howie nor Augenstein teaches use of an AMHS scheduling system.
Barto, a method and system for scheduling a resource, teach use of an AMHS scheduling system with scheduling as in C.7, L. 50-67.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filling date to combine the scheduling system of the combination of Howie and Augenstein, which provides a schedule for the production of products, with the use of an AMHS in the scheduling system of Barto, as they are all analogous art along with the claimed invention which teach solutions in the field of scheduling, and the combination would lead to an improved system which would “ improve on time delivery” as taught in Barto.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 33-38 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if the independent claims were amended in such a way as to overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and any other rejections. Examiner notes these amendments must contain claims and limitations they depend on.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20210181726 A1
Shi; Weiping
CONTROL PRODUCT FLOW OF SEMICONDUCTOR MANUFACTURE PROCESS UNDER TIME CONSTRAINTS
US 20210125133 A1
PERSON; Subechya et al.
DISPATCH SYSTEM FOR SCHEDULING WORKERS
US 20200379801 A1
Ghosh; Priyadarshi et al.
MEMORY-EFFICIENT DYNAMIC DEFERRAL OF SCHEDULED TASKS
US 20160155073 A1
Augenstein; Sean et al.
Satellite Scheduling System
US 7813993 B1
Barto; Larry D. et al.
Method and apparatus for scheduling a resource
US 5093794 A
Howie; George R. et al.
Job scheduling system
US 20220121181 A1
SOBALVARRO; Patrick et al.
OPTIMIZED FACTORY SCHEDULE AND LAYOUT GENERATION
US 20210304306 A1
Sun; Hongbo et al.
Stochastic Bidding Strategy for Virtual Power Plants with Mobile Energy Storages
US 20200371823 A1
Magazine; Anuj et al.
METHOD TO PERSONALIZE WORKSPACE EXPERIENCE BASED ON THE USERS AVAILABLE TIME
US 20180157222 A1
Weatherbee; Paul et al.
Apparatus And Method For Dynamic Operation Of Machines
US 7702411 B2
Bagchi; Sugato et al.
Integration of job shop scheduling with discreet event simulation for manufacturing facilities
US 7054703 B2
Wu; Kan et al.
Control system and methods for managing a production operating under time constaraints
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 JOSEPH M WAESCO whose telephone number is (571)272-9913. The examiner can normally be reached on 8 AM - 5 PM M-F.
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 on (571) 272-6737. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1348.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH M WAESCO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625B 2/3/2026