DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
[1] The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Notice to Applicant
[2] This communication is in response to the amendment filed 23 December 2025. It is noted that this application benefits from Foreign Priority to Application Serial No. 2024-100361 (Japan) filed 21 June 2024. Claims 1-7 have been amended. Claims 8-14 are newly presented. Claims 1-14 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
[3] Claims 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without significantly more.
The following analysis is based on the framework for determining patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101 established in the decisions of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. (See MPEP 2106 subsection III and 2106.03-2106.05) the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register, 17 July 2024 and further clarified in the Reminders on Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 guidance memorandum published 4 August 2025. Claim(s) 1-14 as a whole is/are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained below:
Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might serve to impede, rather than promote, innovation. Still, inventions that integrate the building blocks of human ingenuity into something more by applying the abstract idea in a meaningful way are patent eligible (See MPEP 2106.04).
Consistent with the findings of the Supreme Court in Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Labs., Incorporated and Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. ineligible abstract ideas are defined in groups, namely: (1) Mathematical Concepts (e.g., mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations; (2) Mental Processes (e.g., concepts performed or performable in the human mind including observations, evaluations, judgements, or opinions); and (3) Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity. Groupings of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity include three sub-categories within the group, namely: (1) fundamental economic principles or practices; (2) commercial or legal interactions (e.g., agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); (3) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (e.g., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (See MPEP 2106.04(a).
Eligibility Step 1: Four Categories of Statutory Subject Matter (See MPEP 2106.03): Independent claims 1 and 8 are directed to systems and are reasonably understood to be properly directed to one of the four recognized statutory classes of invention designated by 35 U.S.C. 101; namely, a process or method, a machine or apparatus, an article of manufacture, or a composition of matter. While the claims, generally, are directed to recognized statutory classes of invention, each of method/process, system/apparatus claims, and computer-readable media/articles of manufacture are subject to additional analysis as defined by the Courts to determine whether the particularly claimed subject matter is patent-eligible with respect to these further requirements. In the case of the instant application, each of claims 1 and 8 are determined to be directed to ineligible subject matter based on the following analysis/guidance:
Eligibility Step 2A prong 1: (See MPEP 2106.04): In reference to claim 8, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do/does not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. The claim(s) is/are directed to the abstract idea of grasping a business instruction based on dialog and executing tasks in associated with the instruction, which is reasonably considered to be method comprising processes/functions which are performable by Human Mental Processing and/or or by a human using pen and paper (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
The courts have previously identified subject matter limited to steps/processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper to be ineligible abstract ideas (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Lastly, if a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for a recitation of generic computer components, then the claim is still to be grouped as a mental process unless the limitation cannot practically be performed in the human mind (See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)).
With respect to functions/steps limited to processes performable by Human Mental Processing and/or by a human using pen and paper, representative claim 8 recites:
“…grasps a business instruction from a dialogue with a user and executes a task related to the business instruction…creates the task list by decomposing the business instruction into tasks…and presents an execution result to the user, executes a work by using a corresponding data source…corresponding to the task related to the execution instruction, and refers to the dialogue log at any time, extracts information regarding a predetermined matter set in advance, grasps a context of the dialogue…predicts a content to be dealt with next…”
Respectfully, absent further clarification of the processing steps executed by the recited processor, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily be relied upon to determine an instruction, create task list, and perform tasks while referring to the dialogue employing by the human mental processing (See CyberSource Corp v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“a method that can be performed by human thought alone is merely an abstract idea and is not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C 101).
Claim 8 recites technical elements which have been considered at each step of Examiner’s analysis but are determined to constitute generic computing structures executing generic computing functions previously identified by the courts, as further analyzed under Step 2A prong 2 and Step 2B below.
Eligibility Step 2A prong 2: (See MPEP 2106.04(d)): Under step 2A prong two, Examiners are to consider additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception and evaluate whether those additional elements integrate the exception into a practical application. Further, to be considered a recitation of an element which integrates the judicial exception into a practical application, the additional elements must apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes meaningful limits on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Additional technical elements of claim 8 that potentially integrate the claimed ineligible subject matter into a practical application of the claimed subject are limited to: “processor”, “storage units”, and “generative AI”. With respect to these potential additional elements:
(1) The “processor” is identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “storage” is identified as storing subjective and objective data.
(3) The “generative AI” is identified as receiving information and providing results to the system.
With respect to the above noted functions attributable to the identified additional elements, MPEP 2106.05 stipulates that: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere 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(f); (3) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception – see MPEP 2106.05(g); and/or (4) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) serve as indications that the use of the technology recited does not indicate integration into a practical application of the judicial exception.
With respect to the identification of the using generative AI, Examiner notes the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including Artificial Intelligence (2024 AI SME Update) published in the Federal Register on 17 July 2024. In particular, Examiner respectfully directs Applicant’s attention to Example 47, claim 2. Specifically, the instant recitations of “by the AI” are analogous to the training of an artificial neural network based on input data and receiving continuous training data of Examiner 47. Reasonably, the training data and feedback data are limited to mere data gathering and generating an output at a high level of generality and, by extension, are reasonably understood to constitute insignificant extra solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). The recited training process is limited to a recitation of the inputs and outputs to be applied to an undefined training process absent any technical specificity regarding actual training and/or particular machine learning models. Accordingly, the recited machine-learning processes and associated training are reasonably understood to be generic machine learning processes.
Each of the above noted limitations states a result (e.g., instructions are grasped from dialogue, tasks are performed as associated with a respective “processor” or “memory”. A recitation of “by a “processor” or “in memory”, absent clarification of particular processing steps executed by the underlying technology to produce the result are reasonably understood to be an equivalent of “apply it”. The identified functions performed by the recited technology are limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., instructions and tasks); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., objective and subjective information); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., grasping instructions) (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, claim 8 is reasonably understood to be conducting standard, and formally manually performed process of abstract idea of grasping a business instruction based on dialog and executing tasks in associated with the instruction using the generic devices as tools to perform the abstract idea. The identified functions of the recited additional elements reasonably constitute a general linking of the abstract idea to a generic technological environment. The claimed abstract idea of grasping a business instruction based on dialog and executing tasks in associated with the instruction benefits from the inherent efficiencies gained by data transmission, data storage, and information display capacities of generic computing devices, but fails to present an additional element(s) which practical integrates the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception.
Eligibility Step 2B: (See MPEP 2106.05): Analysis under step 2B is further subject to the Revised Examination Procedure responsive to the Subject Matter Eligibility Decision in Berkheimer v. HP, Inc. issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (19 April 2018). Examiner respectfully submits that the recited uses of the underlying computer technology constitute well-known, routine, and conventional uses of generic computers operating in a network environment. In support of Examiner’s conclusion that the recited functions/role of the computer as presented in the present form of the claims constitutes known and conventional uses of generic computing technology, Examiner provides the following:
In reference to the Specification as originally filed. In the noted disclosure, the Specification provides listings of generic computing systems, e.g., a general computing platform including exemplary servers, network configurations and various processor configuration which are identified as capable and interchangeable for performing the disclosed processes. The disclosure does not identify any particular modifications to the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that this disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
While the above noted disclosure serves to provide sufficient explanation of technical elements required to perform the inventive method using available computing technology, the disclosure does not appear to identify any particular modifications or inventive configurations of the underlying hardware elements required to perform the inventive methods and functions. Accordingly, it is reasonably understood that the disclosure indicates that the hardware elements and network configurations suitable for performing the inventive methods are limited to commercially available systems at the time of the invention. Further, absent further clarification, it is reasonably understood that any modifications/improvements to the underlying technology attributable to the inventive method/system are limited to improvements realized by the disclosed computer-executable routines and the associated processes performed.
The claims specify that the above identified generic computing structures and associated functions/routines include:
(1) The “processor” is identified as engaged in an unspecified, general manner in the performance of each of the recited steps/functions.
(2) The “storage” is identified as storing subjective and objective data.
(3) The “generative AI” is identified as receiving information and providing results to the system.
While Examiner acknowledges that the noted limitations are computer-implemented, Examiner respectfully submits that, in aggregate (e.g., “as a whole”) they do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/ineligible subject matter to which the claimed invention is primarily directed.
While utilizing a computer, the claimed invention is not rooted in computer technology nor does it improve the performance of the underlying computer technology. The computer-implemented features of the claimed invention noted above are reasonably limited to: (1) receiving and sending data via a computer network (e.g., instructions and tasks); (2) storing and retrieving information and data from a generic computer memory (e.g., objective and subjective information); and (3) performing repetitive calculations and/or mental observations using the obtaining information/data (e.g., grasping instructions).
The above listed computer-implemented functions are distinguished from the generic data storage, retrieval, transmission, and data manipulation/processing capacities of the generic systems identified in the Specification solely by the recited identification of particular data elements that are of utility to a user performing the specific method of abstract idea of grasping a business instruction based on dialog and executing tasks in associated with the instruction. In summary, the computer of the instant invention is facilitating non-technical aims, i.e., abstract idea of grasping a business instruction based on dialog and executing tasks in associated with the instruction, because it has been programmed to store, retrieve, and transmit specific data elements and/or instructions that is/are of utility to the user. The non-technical functions of abstract idea of grasping a business instruction based on dialog and executing tasks in associated with the instruction benefit from the use of computer technology, but fail to improve the underlying technology.
In support, the courts have previously found that utilization of a computer to receive or transmit data and communications over a network and/or employing generic computer memory and processor capacities store and retrieve information from a computer memory are insufficient computer-implemented functions to establish that an otherwise unpatentable judicial exception (e.g. abstract idea) is patent eligible. With respect to the determinations of the Courts regarding using a computer for sending and receiving data or information over a computer network and storing and retrieving information from computer memory, see at least: receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362; sending messages over a network OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); receiving and sending information over a network buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and see performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199; and Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) with respect to the performance of repetitive calculations does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims.
Independent claim 1, directed to an apparatus/system is rejected for substantially the same reasons, in that the generically recited computer components in the apparatus/system and computer readable media claims add nothing of substance to the underlying abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-14, when analyzed as a whole are held to be ineligible subject matter and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claimed invention is not directed to an abstract idea.
For further guidance and authority, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. 573 U.S.____ (2014)) (See MPEP 2106).
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.
[4] Claim(s) 1-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0190449 hereinafter ‘Zhang’) in view of Pathan et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0298962 hereinafter ‘Pathan’) and further in view of Tan et al. (United States Patent Application Publication No. 2025/0285055 hereinafter ‘Tan’).
With respect to (currently amended) claim 1, Zhang discloses an agent system that grasps a business instruction from a dialogue with a user and executes a task related to the business instruction, the agent system comprising: means for grasping the business instruction ; means for creating a task list ; means for executing a work ; and means for referring to the dialogue log, each of which is capable of individually using generative AI (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0038] [0041]-[0043] [0085]; See at least general question and answer dashboard, prompt and response, i.e., dialogue. See further agent orchestrator, task allocation and specialization module, agent selection module, agent interaction module), wherein the means for grasping the business instruction grasps the business instruction by the dialogue with the user by the generative AI, and stores a content of the dialogue with the user as a dialogue log in a short-term storage unit (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0038]-[0039] [0049]-[0050]; See at least prompt optimization and storing and reusing prompts in cache memory), the means for creating the task list creates the task by decomposing the business instruction grasped by the means for grasping the business instruction into tasks by the generative AI (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0034] [0048] [0079]-[0080]; See at least disambiguation of prompt, extraction of features, and generation of tasks), passes an execution instruction of each task to the means for executing the work, and presents an execution result by the means for executing the work to the user via the means for grasping the business instruction (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0052] [0085] [0093]-[0094]; See at least agent selection for sequence of tasks, execution of tasks, and display of responses on user GUI/dashboard), the means for executing the work executes the work by using a corresponding data source by the generative AI corresponding to the task related to the execution instruction passed from the means for creating the task list and passes the execution result to the means for creating the task list (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0079]-[0085] [0093]; See at least analytical tasks executed and results reported), and the means for referring to the dialogue log refers to the dialogue log at any time (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0039] [0093]; See at least orchestrator accesses stored prompts and responses), extracts information regarding a predetermined matter set in advance, grasps a context of the dialogue by the generative AI (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0041] [0048]] [0054]; See at least extracts contextual data from prompt disambiguation. Predicts intent and AI agents for tasks), predicts a content to be dealt with next, stores the content as a summary in a short-term storage unit (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0051] [0075] [0085]; See at least caching of prompts and selection/modification of reusable prompts in advance of execution), and allows the dialogue unit, the solution unit, and the execution unit to refer to the content at any time (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0027] [0039] [0085]; See at least access to stored prompts and response, i.e., dialogue).
With respect to the recitation of “dialogue”, Zhang discloses a natural language exchange between the user and the system to determine and refine prompts/commands to AI agents to perform specified data analytical tasks. While these functions reasonably constitute a dialogue, Zhang fails to expressly state that a dialogue is performed.
However, as evidenced by Pathan, it is well-known in the art to maintain a ongoing dialogue and dialogue log between a user and AI agents and to extract AI instructions from the maintained dialogue (Pathan et al.; paragraphs [0058] [0078]-[0080]; See at least dialogue manager and extraction of context and instruction from dialogue).
Claim 1 has been further amended with respect to the short-term memory. Neither Zhang nor Pathan disclose theses elements.
However, Tan discloses “…a summary in a short-term subjective storage unit, stores text data of the content of the summary in a long-term subjective storage unit, and allows the means for grasping the business instruction, the means for creating the task list, and the means for executing the work to refer to the content at any time...” (Tan et al.; paragraphs [0035] [0080]; See at least use of short-term storage for in context, i.e., subjective, learning and long-term for storing vector data, i.e., objective data)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the natural language interactions and extraction of command prompts of Zhang by further including the well-known practice of enabling an ongoing dialogue between user and generative AI functions as taught by Pathan. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of extracting task information and generating instructions usable to generative AI models from natural language communications. As Zhang disclose the use of natural language interactions and extraction of command prompts in the context of a system and method for extracting task information and generating instructions usable to generative AI models from natural language communications and Pathan similarly discloses the utility of enabling an ongoing dialogue between user and generative AI functions in the context of a system and method for extracting task information and generating instructions usable to generative AI models from natural language communications, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of enabling accurate and contextually appropriate interactions within a user-agent dialogue framework (Pathan et al.; Abstract).
Regarding the combination that includes Tan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified the cache and hard drive storage of Zhang by further including the well-known practice of use of short-term storage for in context, i.e., subjective, learning and long-term for storing vector data, i.e., objective data as taught by Tan. The instant invention is directed to a system and method of extracting task information and generating instructions usable to generative AI models from natural language communications. As Zhang disclose the use of cache and hard drive storage in the context of a system and method for extracting task information and generating instructions usable to generative AI models from natural language communications and Tan similarly discloses the utility of use of short-term storage for in context, i.e., subjective, learning and long-term for storing vector data, i.e., objective data in the context of a system and method for extracting task information and generating instructions usable to generative AI models from natural language communications, the teachings are reasonably considered to have been derived from analogous references and applied in the manner disclosed by the respective references. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the noted combination/modification as rationalized by combining prior art elements accordingly to known methods to yield the predictable results of enabling accurate and contextually appropriate interactions within a user-agent dialogue framework.
Claims 2-7 have been amended to align with the amendments to claim 1 above. The amendments are addressed as provided above with respect to claim 1
With respect to claim 2, Zhang discloses an agent system wherein the dialogue unit confirms whether the task list created by the solution unit needs to be corrected by the user through the dialogue with the user (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0038]-[0040] [0075]; See at least disambiguation including clarifications to/by user), passes a correction content instructed by the user to the solution unit to instruct correction of the task list in a case where correction is required, and instructs the solution unit to execute the task list in a case where correction is not required (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0037]-[0038] [0085]; See at least task allocation of both modified prompts/instructions and prompts determined to be correct).
With respect to claim 3, Zhang discloses an agent system wherein when a dialogue between the dialogue unit and the user ends, the monitoring unit extracts predetermined information regarding a business background and/or a business situation of the user by the generative AI on a basis of the dialogue log, stores the extracted information in a long-term storage unit (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0051] [0075] [0085]; See at least caching of prompts and selection/modification of reusable prompts in advance of execution), and allows the dialogue unit and the solution unit to refer to the extracted information at any time (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0027] [0039] [0085]; See at least access to stored prompts and response, i.e., dialogue).
With respect to claim 4, Zhang discloses an agent system wherein when creating the task list by decomposing the business instruction grasped by the dialogue unit into tasks by the generative AI, the solution unit uses, as input information to the generative AI, information including a summary of the dialogue with the user stored in the short-term storage unit (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0039] [0051]; See at least prompt and response history accessed to generate task instructions), a past business instruction acquired from the long-term storage unit and similar to the business instruction, and a task design at that time (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0038]-[0040] [0051]; See at least mapping of similar entities and associated stored prompts).
With respect to claim 5, Zhang discloses an agent system wherein the execution unit determines whether each task related to the execution instruction passed from the solution unit is executable by corresponding generative AI, and requests the solution unit to correct a target task in a case where the task is inexecutable (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0038]-[0040] [0048]-[0059]; See at least prompt optimization and data assembly to ensure execution of function/tasks).
With respect to claim 6, Zhang discloses an agent system wherein in a case where the target task is executable, the execution unit determines whether information necessary for executing the work by using the corresponding data source is insufficient, and in a case where the information is insufficient, the execution unit refers to information in the short-term storage unit and supplements the information (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0039] [0049] [0051]; See at least prompt disambiguation and analysis of structured data).
With respect to claim 7, Zhang discloses an agent system wherein in a case where the information necessary for executing the work using the data source corresponding to the target task is insufficient, the execution unit makes an inquiry to the user via the dialogue unit to supplement the information (Zhang et al.; paragraphs [0038]-[0040] [0051]; See at least mapping of similar entities and associated stored prompts).
Claims 8-14 substantially repeat the subject matter addressed above with respect to claims 1-7 as directed to an alternate illustration of the inventive system. Accordingly, claims 8-14 are rejected under the applied teachings, conclusions obviousness, and rationale to modify as discussed above with respect to claims 1-7.
Response to Remarks/Amendment
[5] Applicant's remarks filed 23 December 2025 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
[i] Applicant’s remarks directed to previous rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7 under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable as set forth in the previous Office Action mailed 1 October 2025 have been fully considered and are moot in light of newly added grounds of rejection responsive to the amendments to the subject claims. See revised rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 presented above.
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 ROBERT D RINES whose telephone number is (571)272-5585. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am - 5pm.
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 V 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.
/ROBERT D RINES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625