DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 06/12/2026.
Claims 1, 11 and 20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-10 are directed to a method (i.e., a process), claims 11-19 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine) and claim 20 is directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e., a manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-20 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Representative independent claim 11 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea. Note that independent claim 11 is the system claim, while claim 1 covers a method claim and claim 20 covers the matching computer readable medium.
Specifically, independent claim 11 recites:
A system, comprising:
one or more computing devices; and
a non-transitory machine readable memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations comprising:
receiving a new medication order for a first patient, the new medication order including a delivery location for the new medication order;
receiving an electronic identification of a package of an unused medication, the unused medication currently designated to be administered to a second patient but has not been administered to the second patient;
determining a current location of the unused medication;
determining, after receiving the electronic identification and determining the current location of the unused medication, that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication;
responsive to determining that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication:
flagging the unused medication for relocation, determining an order in which to retrieve the unused medication; and
controlling a robotic machine, based on the determined current location of the unused medication and the delivery location for the new medication order, and the determination that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication, to direct the unused medication to the delivery location for the new medication order.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: (a) “certain methods of organizing human activity” because ordering medications, identifying a package of unused medication, preparing unused medication, flagging the unused medication for relocation, determining that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication and directing the unused medication to the delivery location for the new medication order are a part of a prescription workflow process, which relate to managing human behavior/interactions between people. Furthermore, these limitations constitute (b) “a mental process” identifying a package of unused medication and determining that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication are observations/evaluations/analysis that can be performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper. The foregoing underlined limitations also relate to claim 11 (similarly to claims 1 and 20).
Accordingly, the claim describes at least one abstract idea.
In relation to claims 2-9 and 12-19, these claims merely recite determining steps such as: claims 2 & 12 – causing the new medication order to be filled at the preparation area and loading a package of the new medication order onto a delivery cart, claims 3 & 13 – causing the new medication order to be filled at the preparation area, claims 4 & 14 – the new medication is caused to be filled using at least a portion of the unused medication as a component in the new medication order, claims 5 & 15 - determining that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication based on the current location of the unused medication, the delivery location for the new medication order, and the delivery deadline, claims 6 & 16 – determining that the unused medication is reusable based on an expiration of the unused medication, the current location of the unused medication, an estimated amount of time to retrieve the unused medication, the delivery location for the new medication order, and the delivery deadline, claim 7 & 17 – to at least one other medication currently scheduled for pickup by a delivery person, wherein determining the order in which to retrieve the unused medication is based on at least one of: an expiration date of the unused medication, an estimated amount of time to retrieve the unused medication, a degree of urgency associated with the unused medication, a cost associated with the unused medication, an estimated distance to retrieve the unused medication, and a likelihood of reuse of the unused medication, claims 8 & 18 - at least one other medication currently scheduled for pickup by a delivery person, wherein determining an order in which to retrieve the unused medication is indicated by associating a priority value to each factor of: an expiration date of the unused medication, an estimated amount of time to retrieve the unused medication, a degree of urgency associated with the unused medication, a cost associated with the unused medication, an estimated distance to retrieve the unused medication, and a likelihood of reuse of the unused medication, and generating a sum priority value, and claims 9 & 19 - determining that the package of the unused medication should be retrieved from the current location of the unused medication, determining a current geolocation of a mobile device associated with a delivery person and providing, to the mobile device for display by the mobile device via an electronic network, an indication to retrieve the unused medication from the current location.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted, it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.”
The limitations of claims 1, 11 and 20, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system, one or more computing devices, a processor, controlling a robotic machine and a non-transitory machine readable memory having instructions stored to perform the limitations, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation within a health care environment in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the system, one or more computing devices, processor, controlling a robotic machine and non-transitory machine readable memory having instructions stored are recited at high levels of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving data/inputs, determining and providing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components.
Regarding the additional limitations “controlling a robotic machine”, and “receiving a replenishment signal that originates from an infusion device associated with the first patient” of claim 10, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitation “receiving an electronic identification of a package of an unused medication” the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination add nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole, reflect an improvements in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or us the above-noted implement/use to above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see 2019 PEG and MPEP §2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, in representative independent claim 11, regarding the additional limitations of the system, one or more computing devices, processor, controlling a robotic machine and non-transitory machine readable memory having instructions stored, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, representative independent claim 11 and analogous independent claims 1 and 20 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reason discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-20 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunak (US 2007/0027577 A1) in view of Davey (US 9,043,012 B2).
Claim 1:
Lunak discloses A method of reusing unused medications, performed by one or more computing devices (See Figs. 1-2, P0034-P0036 restocking and delivering medication package, transferred to another location.), comprising:
receiving a new medication order for a first patient, the new medication order including a delivery location for the new medication order (See Fig. 8 steps 106 & 107 mentioned in P0055, barcode scan activate work queue refills in P0046 and [P0081] patient information, including name, ID, location, and facility, along with order information such as the order description, route, frequency, dosage, and special instructions.);
receiving an electronic identification of a package of an unused medication, the unused medication currently designated to be administered to a second patient but has not been administered to the second patient (See P0034, P0079-P0080 medications not used, returned to stock. Also, see P0084 patient specific or room specific);
determining a current location of the unused medication (Taught in P0038 as tracking inventories of medications, P0078-P0079 as tracking and processing medications not used and items that might not be used frequently.);
determining, after receiving the electronic identification and determining the current location of the unused medication, that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication (See restocking package process in P0013, P0042 with scanning a bar code, P0079-P0080 returning the unused medication to stock.); and
responsive to determining that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused
medication (See P0034 medications returned and used in another dispensing operation.):
flagging the unused medication for relocation, determining an order in which to retrieve the unused medication (See Fig. 8, P0057 label scan message followed by most efficient path, P0088-P0093 delivers the patient or room specific restocking package.).
Combination of Lunak and Davey teach:
controlling a robotic machine, based on the determined current location of the unused medication and the delivery location for the new medication order, and the determination that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication, to direct the unused medication to the delivery location for the new medication order (at least Lunak’s P0062-P0063, P0091, along with Davey’s column 2, lines 52-64, column 8, lines 54-59, column 11, lines 20-40 and column 14, line 56 to column 15, line 4.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pharmaceutical management using robotics before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system and software of Lunak to include controlling based on the determined current location of the unused medication and the delivery location for the new medication order, and the determination that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication, in view of Davey to include controlling a robotic machine, to direct the unused medication to the delivery location for the new medication order as taught by Davey to make prescription drug distribution more efficient and effective, without requiring any human intervention mentioned in Davey’s column 1, lines 28-40.
Claim 11:
Lunak discloses A system, comprising: one or more computing devices; and a non-transitory machine readable memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations (See processes are implemented in the presently preferred embodiment by software, stored in any appropriate memory device in P0031. Also, see Figs. 1-2, P0034-P0036 restocking and delivering medication package, transferred to another location.), comprising:
receiving a new medication order for a first patient, the new medication order including a delivery location for the new medication order (See Fig. 8 steps 106 & 107 mentioned in P0055, barcode scan activate work queue refills in P0046 and [P0081] patient information, including name, ID, location, and facility, along with order information such as the order description, route, frequency, dosage, and special instructions.);
receiving an electronic identification of a package of an unused medication, the unused medication currently designated to be administered to a second patient but has not been administered to the second patient (See P0034, P0079-P0080 medications not used, returned to stock. Also, see P0084 patient specific or room specific);
determining a current location of the unused medication (Taught in P0038 as tracking inventories of medications, P0078-P0079 as tracking and processing medications not used and items that might not be used frequently.);
determining, after receiving the electronic identification and determining the current location of the unused medication, that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication (See restocking package process in P0013, P0042 with scanning a bar code, P0079-P0080 returning the unused medication to stock.); and
responsive to determining that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication (See P0034 medications returned and used in another dispensing operation.):
flagging the unused medication for relocation, determining an order in which to retrieve the unused medication (See Fig. 8, P0057 label scan message followed by most efficient path, P0088-P0093 delivers the patient or room specific restocking package.).
Combination of Lunak and Davey teach:
controlling a robotic machine, based on the determined current location of the unused medication and the delivery location for the new medication order, and the determination that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication, to direct the unused medication to the delivery location for the new medication order (at least Lunak’s P0062-P0063, P0091, along with Davey’s column 2, lines 52-64, column 8, lines 54-59, column 11, lines 20-40 and column 14, line 56 to column 15, line 4.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pharmaceutical management using robotics before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system and software of Lunak to include controlling based on the determined current location of the unused medication and the delivery location for the new medication order, and the determination that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication, in view of Davey to include controlling a robotic machine, to direct the unused medication to the delivery location for the new medication order as taught by Davey to make prescription drug distribution more efficient and effective, without requiring any human intervention mentioned in Davey’s column 1, lines 28-40.
Claim 20:
Lunak discloses A system, comprising: one or more computing devices; and a non-transitory machine readable memory having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more computing devices, cause the one or more computing devices to perform operations (See processes are implemented in the presently preferred embodiment by software, stored in any appropriate memory device in P0031. Also, see Figs. 1-2, P0034-P0036 restocking and delivering medication package, transferred to another location.), comprising:
receiving a new medication order for a first patient, the new medication order including a delivery location for the new medication order (See Fig. 8 steps 106 & 107 mentioned in P0055, barcode scan activate work queue refills in P0046 and [P0081] patient information, including name, ID, location, and facility, along with order information such as the order description, route, frequency, dosage, and special instructions.);
receiving an electronic identification of a package of an unused medication, the unused medication currently designated to be administered to a second patient but has not been administered to the second patient (See P0034, P0079-P0080 medications not used, returned to stock. Also, see P0084 patient specific or room specific);
determining a current location of the unused medication (Taught in P0038 as tracking inventories of medications, P0078-P0079 as tracking and processing medications not used and items that might not be used frequently.);
determining, after receiving the electronic identification and determining the current location of the unused medication, that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication (See restocking package process in P0013, P0042 with scanning a bar code, P0079-P0080 returning the unused medication to stock.); and
responsive to determining that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication (See P0034 medications returned and used in another dispensing operation.):
flagging the unused medication for relocation, determining an order in which to retrieve the unused medication (See Fig. 8, P0057 label scan message followed by most efficient path, P0088-P0093 delivers the patient or room specific restocking package.).
Combination of Lunak and Davey teach:
controlling a robotic machine, based on the determined current location of the unused medication and the delivery location for the new medication order, and the determination that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication, to direct the unused medication to the delivery location for the new medication order (at least Lunak’s P0062-P0063, P0091, along with Davey’s column 2, lines 52-64, column 8, lines 54-59, column 11, lines 20-40 and column 14, line 56 to column 15, line 4.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pharmaceutical management using robotics before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system and software of Lunak to include controlling based on the determined current location of the unused medication and the delivery location for the new medication order, and the determination that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication, in view of Davey to include controlling a robotic machine, to direct the unused medication to the delivery location for the new medication order as taught by Davey to make prescription drug distribution more efficient and effective, without requiring any human intervention mentioned in Davey’s column 1, lines 28-40.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Lunak and Davey teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11 mentioned above, Lunak teaches further comprising: receiving the unused medication at a preparation area; causing the new medication order to be filled at the preparation area; and robotically loading a package of the new medication order onto a delivery cart (See Fig. 3-6, P0006-P0007, P0009, P0031, P0033, P0045-P0047, P0062-P0063 and P0067.).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Lunak and Davey teach the method of claim 2 and the system of claim 12 mentioned above, Lunak teaches further comprising: causing the new medication order to be filled at the preparation area based on controlling an automated medication preparation robot to prepare at least a portion of the new medication order (See P0062-P0063 and P0067.).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Lunak and Davey teach the method of claim 3 and the system of claim 13 mentioned above, and Lunak teaches wherein the new medication is caused to be filled using at least a portion of the unused medication as a component in the new medication order (See Fig. 1-2, P0034 and P0079.).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Lunak and Davey teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11 mentioned above, Lunak teaches wherein the new medication order includes a delivery deadline, the method further comprising: determining that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication based on the current location of the unused medication, the delivery location for the new medication order, and the delivery deadline (Fig. 1-2, P0015, P0017, P0046, P0065, P0068, P0084 and P0111-P0112.).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Lunak and Davey teach the method of claim 5 and the system of claim 15 mentioned above, Lunak teaches wherein determining that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication comprises: determining that the unused medication is reusable based on an expiration of the unused medication, the current location of the unused medication, an estimated amount of time to retrieve the unused medication, the delivery location for the new medication order, and the delivery deadline (See P0003, P0048 and P0064.).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Lunak and Davey teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11 mentioned above, Lunak teaches wherein the order in which to retrieve the unused medication is with respect to at least one other medication currently scheduled for pickup by a delivery person, wherein determining the order in which to retrieve the unused medication is based on at least one of: an expiration date of the unused medication, an estimated amount of time to retrieve the unused medication, a degree of urgency associated with the unused medication, a cost associated with the unused medication, an estimated distance to retrieve the unused medication, and a likelihood of reuse of the unused medication (See P0003, P0015, P0017, P0046, P0048 and P0064.).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Lunak and Davey teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11 mentioned above, Lunak teaches wherein the order in which to retrieve the unused medication is with respect to at least one other medication currently scheduled for pickup by a delivery person, wherein determining an order in which to retrieve the unused medication is indicated by associating a priority value to each factor of: an expiration date of the unused medication, an estimated amount of time to retrieve the unused medication, a degree of urgency associated with the unused medication, a cost associated with the unused medication, an estimated distance to retrieve the unused medication, and a likelihood of reuse of the unused medication, and generating a sum priority value (See P0003, P0015, P0017, P0046, P0048 and P0064.).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Lunak and Davey teach the method of claim 1 and the system of claim 11 mentioned above, Lunak teaches further comprising: determining that the package of the unused medication should be retrieved from the current location of the unused medication (See P0004-P0005, P0034, P0079) and Davey teaches determining a current geolocation of a mobile device associated with a delivery person; and providing, to the mobile device for display by the mobile device via an electronic network, an indication to retrieve the unused medication from the current location (ref A (para. 4-5, 34,79) and B in Fig. 8, column 4, line 11-24 and 48-60, column 8, lines 54-59 and column 14, line 56 to column 15, line 4.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of pharmaceutical management using robotics before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system and software of Lunak to include determining a current geolocation of a mobile device associated with a delivery person when providing an indication to retrieve the unused medication from the current location as taught by Davey to eliminate or substantially minimize human errors mentioned in Davey’s column 2, lines 25-41.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lunak (US 2007/0027577 A1) in view of Davey (US 9,043,012 B2) further in view of Carpani (US 2015/0238675 A).
Regarding claim 10, although Lunak and Davey teach the method of claim 1 mentioned above, Lunak and Davey do not explicitly teach receiving a replenishment signal that originates from an infusion device associated with the first patient. Carpani teaches wherein receiving the new medication order comprises: receiving a replenishment signal that originates from an infusion device associated with the first patient (See Figs. 1-3, P0028 and P0032-P0034.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of hemodialysis blood treatment before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method, system and software of Lunak and Davey to include receiving a replenishment signal that originates from an infusion device associated with the first patient as taught by Carpani for providing solutions which can be implemented with minimal changes to conventional blood treatment apparatus mentioned in Carpani’s P0015-P0017.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that claim 1 recites a specific and integrated process for controlling the physical redirection of an unused medication package in a healthcare workflow, the robotic-machine control is not merely appended as a generic extra element after an abstract decision. see pg. 9 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
The claimed, recited steps that Applicant is talking about: (i) receiving a new medication order for a first patient, including a delivery location; (ii) receiving an electronic identification of a package of unused medication that had been designated for a second patient but not administered; (iii) determining a current location of the unused medication; (iv) determining that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication; and then, responsive to that determination, (v) flagging the unused medication for relocation, (vi) determining an order in which to retrieve the unused medication are physical and mental tasks performed by a human.
Furthermore, the recited (vii) controlling a robotic machine, based on the determined current location of the unused medication and the delivery location for the new medication order, and the determination that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication, to direct the unused medication to the delivery location for the new medication order is insignificant extrasolution activity and not significantly more than an abstract idea. The preceding steps of claims 1, 11 and 20, can be done in the human mind, where a user would apply one’s knowledge of managing medication inventory in a healthcare environment, managing patient medications and routes/pathways when delivering the patient medications. The robotic machine is an additional element using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and are mere instructions to apply the abstract idea. For example, determining the location of unused medication, determining the delivery location and determining whether the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication is information that needs to be communicated with a computing device and network server. The only improvement is an improvement to the abstract idea, and not a technological improvement and/or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Applicant argues on the basis that the Lunak reference does not disclose “receiving an electronic identification of a package of an unused medication that is currently designated to be administered to a second patient but has not been administered to the second patient.” Rather, Lunak’s scanned barcode identifies all medications that are unable to be used because of expiration conditions (P0048, P0063- P0064) when unused medications are [P0034] returned for a variety of reasons such as the patient has checked out, been moved, or the patient's medication may have been changed. Also, see Lunak’s P0079-P0080 where an operator returns unused medications for a variety of reasons and utilization rates for all medications are tracked. It should be noted that besides restocking medication packages, Lunak’s medications are returned for reuse when patients do not use the medications for the above reasons.
Applicant argues on the basis that the Lunak reference does not disclose “determining, after receiving the electronic identification and determining the current location of the unused medication, that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication.” Besides determining minimized travel distance to pick up medications in carousel inventory, an operator returning and crediting unused medications (P0079-P0080) would allow the new medication order to be prepared using the unused medication.
Applicant further argues on the basis that the Lunak reference does not disclose controlling a robotic machine, based on the determined current location of the unused medication and the delivery location for the new medication order, and the determination that the new medication order can be prepared using the unused medication, to direct the unused medication to the delivery location for the new medication order. See the new rejection with Lunak in view of Davey which was necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TERESA S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-5509. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30 am -6:30 pm.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/T.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3687 09/05/2026
/MAMON OBEID/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights