DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This final action is in response to applicant’s amended filing of 04/27/2026.
Claims 1-11 are currently pending and have been examined. Applicant has amended claims 1-9 and added new claims 10-11.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-9 rejected under 35 USC § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that amended limitations fail to disclose the cited mental process because processing electronic shape data obtained from the sensor cannot be practically performed in the human mind, and that obtaining said electronic shape data is not insignificant extra-solution activity and integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the mental process is directed toward “estimat[ing] a target shape of the constructing target” which can be practically performed in the human mind. The mere recitation of the obtaining being done by the electronic sensor to produce electronic data prior for the processor and memory to estimate the target shape is not enough to disqualify it as a mental process practically performed in the human mind. Furthermore, obtaining electronic shape data of a constructed area based on a sensor amounts to mere data-gathering preceding the estimating step, and therefore amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity that does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-9 rejected under 35 USC § 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that Yokoyama does not anticipate the amended limitations, namely “…estimat[ing] a target shape of the constructing target and obtain[ing] electronic data of the estimated target shape, based on the obtained electronic shape data of the constructed area.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees. ¶ [0042] of Yokoyama recites “In the near-side region of the work site illustrated in FIG. 3, excavation by means of the hydraulic shovel 1 has already been completed and a sloped surface 28 has been formed. In far-side region of the current work site, there exists, below the bucket 6, a construction surface 15 which is the object of the current excavation task.” This completed sloped surface anticipates the claimed “part that has already been constructed.” The reference points are then used to match the completed slope surface as a target slope and are detected by a distance measurement device attached to the cabin of the hydraulic excavator to produce the electronic data for presenting the target slope in the display (see ¶ [0044-0049]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 recites:
“…the hardware processor is further configured to obtain the electronic shape data of the constructed area constructed by a work machine operated by a person having an experience value higher than a predetermined threshold.”
The closest reference in the Applicant’s disclosure is page 32, lines 24-28 of the specification: “For example, the skilled person is an operator who has a relatively long experience in operation of the shovel and a relatively high experience value in the operation of the shovel.” No explicit reference is available in the Applicant’s disclosure describing a predetermined threshold for the experience value of the operator. It is therefore unclear how the value determines whether electronic shape data is obtained. What does the experience value represent, or what does the value measure, to determine the predetermined threshold for obtaining electronic shape data? What experience level is acceptable to achieve the predetermined threshold? How does the operator’s experience value contribute to the constructed area such that the electronic shape data is obtained? None of these questions are answered with the present disclosure, and therefore fails to convey to one of reasonable skill in the art that the Applicant has possession of the claimed invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 10 and 11 recite the limitation "the hardware processor" in their respective preambles. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claims. Both claims are dependent on claim 1, and while claim 1 recites “a processor connected to the memory,” it does not recite “hardware processor” to indicate that claims 10 and 11 refer to the same processor.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
In January, 2019 (updated October 2019), the USPTO released new examination guidelines setting forth a two-step inquiry for determining whether a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter. According to the guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 1 and 8-9 are directed toward non-statutory subject matter, as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories? Yes. Claims 1 and 8-9 are directed to corresponding supporting device, work machine, and non-transitory computer readable recording medium for obtaining data and estimating a target shape for a constructing target.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Are the claims directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? Yes, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The supporting device of claim 1, work machine of claim 8, and non-transitory computer readable recording medium of claim 9 are directed toward a mental process and, therefore, an abstract idea. They recite:
“…obtain electronic shape data of a constructed area of a constructing target based on an output of a sensor, the constructed area being a part that has already been constructed in the constructing target,
and estimate a target shape of the constructing target and obtain electronic data of the estimated target shape based on the obtained electronic shape data of the constructed area.”
The “estimating” step underlined above is an action that can be performed in the human mind. Particularly, a person can receive shape information of a constructing target and estimate the target shape of the constructing target. The Examiner notes that under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), the courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961,1965 ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same). As such, a person in an operating role can perceive the grading of a construction slope and estimate grade during the excavating task based on their perception. The mere nominal recitation that the estimating is being executed by a processor and memory does not take the limitation out of the mental process grouping.
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Do the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claims 1 and 8-9 further recites the limitations:
“…obtain electronic shape data of a constructed area of a constructing target based on an output of a sensor, the constructed area being a part that has already been constructed in the constructing target,
and estimate a target shape of the constructing target and obtain electronic data of the estimated target shape based on the obtained electronic shape data of the constructed area.”
The “obtaining” step recited in the claim recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of gathering construction shape information), and amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity.
Therefore, this additional limitation does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claims are directed to the judicial exception.
STEP 2B: Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? No, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim 1 recites:
“A supporting device, comprising:
a memory;
and a processor connected to the memory and configured to [execute the aforementioned steps]…”
Claim 8 recites:
“A work machine, comprising:
a memory;
and a processor connected to the memory and configured to [execute the aforementioned steps]…”
Claim 9 recites:
“A non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process, the process comprising [the aforementioned steps]…”
Claims 1 and 8-9 recite the aforementioned steps being performed by processors connected to memory storing programming that cause computers and/or work machines to execute the aforementioned steps/actions. This processor, memory, and medium are used to merely automate the “obtaining” and “estimating” steps that are well-understood, routine, and conventional (i.e. WURC) activities that processors connected to corresponding memories are well known to be able to perform. Therefore, these limitations to not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Thus, since claims 1 and 8-9 are: (a) directed toward an abstract idea, (b) do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and (c) do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, it is clear that claims 1 and 8-9 are directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 10-11 further limit the abstract idea without integrating the abstract idea into practical application or adding significantly more. Claims 2-4 are directed to further limit the “estimating” step and therefore are directed toward the abstract idea. Claims 5-6 further limit the claims by introducing “displaying” and “correcting” steps that are performed after the “estimating” step – as currently presented, these steps merely recite insignificant post-solution activities to the judicial exception without integrating it into a practical application or amounting to significantly more. Claims 2 and 7 further limit the “obtaining” and “estimating” steps by incorporating a trained machine learning model, but it is recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a means of processing information) and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As such, claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 USC 101 as being drawn to an abstract idea without significantly more, and thus are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yokoyama et al. (US 20070010925 A1; reference provided in IDS filed 09/09/2024).
Regarding claims 1 and 8-9, Yokoyama discloses a supporting device (claim 1; see at least abstract and ¶ [0042] disclosing a construction target indicator device) and work machine (claim 8; see at least abstract and ¶ [0042] disclosing a construction target indicator device installed on a construction machine), comprising:
a memory (claims 1 and 8; see at least ¶ [0047] disclosing a computer with a storage device storing a program);
a processor connected to the memory (claims 1 and 8; see at least ¶ [0047] disclosing a computer with a storage device storing a program);
and a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing a program (claim 9; see at least ¶ [0047] disclosing a computer with a storage device storing a program) causing a computer to execute a process, the process comprising:
obtaining electronic shape data of a constructed area of a constructing target based on output of a sensor, the constructed area being a part that has already been constructed in the constructing target (see at least ¶ [0042], [0044], and [0050] disclosing a distance measurement device and cameras used to detect and measure parts of a construction surface that has already been completed and marked with reference points to distance),
and estimating a target shape of the constructing target and obtaining electronic data of the estimated target shape, based on the obtained electronic shape data of the constructed area (see at least ¶ [0044], [0047-0049], and [0053-0055] disclosing a calculation device that determines reference points and converts coordinates for a target sloped surface of the parts of the construction surface according to data gathered by the distance measurement device locating the reference points).
Regarding claim 3, Yokoyama discloses the processor is further configured to estimate the target shape of the constructing target by duplicating or extending a shape of the constructed area in a direction in accordance with the constructing target (see at least ¶ [0042], [0055], and [0057-0058] disclosing the calculation device uses reference points to calculate virtual lines and cross-sectional shapes of the target sloped surface, where the virtual line extends into and through the construction surface to emulate the target sloped surface).
Regarding claim 4, Yokoyama discloses the processor is further configured to estimate the target shape of the constructing target based on data on a trajectory of a work portion of a work machine during construction of the constructed area performed by the work machine (see at least ¶ [0042] and [0053-0055] disclosing a calculation device that determines reference points and converts coordinates for a target sloped surface of the parts of the construction surface by using a placed pair of reference marker cords on the construction surface the hydraulic excavator has already completed).
Regarding claim 5, Yokoyama discloses the processor is further configured to display the estimated target shape of the constructing target (see at least ¶ [0046-0049] disclosing the calculation device creating display data to display cross-sectional shapes to a display screen).
Regarding claim 6, Yokoyama discloses the processor is further configured to correct the estimated target shape of the constructing target in response to an input from a user (see at least ¶ [0060] and [0069-0070] disclosing an operator specifying coordinates for reference points of a cross-sectional shape to generate a corresponding virtual line for the target sloped shape, accounting for coordinate correction and positional error).
Regarding claim 11, Yokoyama discloses the hardware processor is further configured to move a work machine to construct another area of the constructing target, based on the obtained electronic data of the estimated target shape of the constructing target or in accordance with an operator's operation based on the obtained electronic data of the estimated target shape of the constructing target (see at least abstract and ¶ [0043] disclosing the hydraulic excavator is controlled by an operator to perform excavation tasks).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 20070010925 A1) in view of Kikani et al. (US 20220412057 A1) and Hiromatsu et al. (US 20190218749 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Yokoyama does not explicitly disclose the processor is further configured to estimate the target shape of the constructing target by using a trained model that is trained by machine learning based on training data, the training data being a dataset of:
a shape of a constructed area of one or more constructing targets;
and a target shape of said each of the one or more constructing targets.
However, Kikani suggests the processor is further configured to estimate the target shape of the constructing target by using a trained model that is trained by machine learning based on training data (see at least ¶ [0052], [0055-0056], and [0077] disclosing a machine learning model trained to coordinate control surfaces of an earth moving vehicle (EMV) to perform earth moving routines and accomplish work site preparation, digging or excavation objectives - including digging, dumping, grading, filling, trenching, compacting, backfill, wall cutback etc.).
Additionally, Hiromatsu suggests the training data being a dataset of:
a shape of a constructed area of one or more constructing targets (see at least ¶ [0048-0056], [0061], and [0066-0068] disclosing data corresponding to a plurality of work patterns is collected during and for a hydraulic excavator, with the results being used as training data for a nearest neighbor algorithm in performing the work pattern);
and a target shape of said each of the one or more constructing targets (see at least ¶ [0048-0056], [0061], and [0066-0068] disclosing data corresponding to a plurality of work patterns is collected during and for a hydraulic excavator, with the results being used as training data for a nearest neighbor algorithm in performing the work pattern).
Kikani demonstrates the use of machine learning models to improve performing earth moving objectives analogous to the operations disclosed in Yokoyama. While it does not explicitly describe using work site data to train the machine learning model, Hiromatsu is relied on to demonstrate that work pattern results can be used as training data for algorithmic control of work implements. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the machine learning model of Kikani and the work pattern training data of Hiromatsu into the target shape estimation of Yokoyama with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating work machinery toward earth-moving operations with an emphasis on collecting and processing data from the work site to facilitate operations. These modifications would allow the system to more accurately model desired target sloped surfaces and cross-sections for display and further earth-moving operations.
Regarding claim 7, Yokoyama discloses the processor is further configured to correct the estimated target shape of the constructing target in response to an input from a user (see at least ¶ [0060] and [0069-0070] disclosing an operator specifying coordinates for reference points of a cross-sectional shape to generate a corresponding virtual line for the target sloped shape, accounting for coordinate correction and positional error).
Yokoyama does not explicitly disclose updating the trained model by using, as training data, a set of the obtained electronic shape data of the construction target,
and electronic data of the corrected estimated target shape of the constructing target.
However, Kikani suggests updating the trained model using training data (see at least ¶ [0052], [0055-0056], and [0077] disclosing a machine learning model trained to coordinate control surfaces of an earth moving vehicle (EMV) to perform earth moving routines and accomplish work site preparation, digging or excavation objectives, as well as update and refine the model using training data).
Additionally, Hiromatsu suggests using, as training data, a set of the obtained electronic shape data of the construction target, and electronic data of the corrected estimated target shape of the constructing target (see at least ¶ [0048-0056], [0061], and [0066-0068] disclosing data corresponding to a plurality of work patterns is collected during and for a hydraulic excavator, with the results being used as training data for a nearest neighbor algorithm in performing the work pattern).
Kikani demonstrates the use of machine learning models to improve performing earth moving objectives analogous to the operations disclosed in Yokoyama. While it does not explicitly describe using work site data to train the machine learning model, Hiromatsu is relied on to demonstrate that work pattern results can be used as training data for algorithmic control of work implements. Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the machine learning model of Kikani and the work pattern training data of Hiromatsu into the target shape estimation of Yokoyama with a reasonable expectation of success because all inventions are directed toward operating work machinery toward earth-moving operations with an emphasis on collecting and processing data from the work site to facilitate operations. These modifications would allow the system to more accurately model desired target sloped surfaces and cross-sections for display and further earth-moving operations.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yokoyama et al. (US 20070010925 A1) in view of Alig et al. (US 20160289926 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Yokoyama does not disclose the hardware processor is further configured to obtain the electronic shape data of the constructed area constructed by a work machine operated by a person having an experience value higher than a predetermined threshold.
However, Alig suggests the hardware processor is further configured to obtain the electronic shape data of the constructed area constructed by a work machine operated by a person having an experience value higher than a predetermined threshold (see at least ¶ [0039] disclosing a control system for a construction machine that determines the skill level of the operator based on sensed position and motion of the work implement, with predetermined thresholds to differentiate between operator skill levels).
While Alig does not disclose its operator skill level threshold is tied to electronic shape data of the constructed area, it does demonstrate the importance of evaluating the skill level of construction machine operators and accounting for that during operations at a worksite (see at least ¶ [0003]). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to incorporate the operator skill level thresholds of Alig into the target shape estimation of Yokoyama with a reasonable expectation of success because both inventions are directed toward operating work machinery toward earth-moving operations with an emphasis on collecting and processing data from the work site to facilitate operations. This would help ensure that target shape matches the quality associated with an operator of greater skill in operating the construction machinery.
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 JARED C BEAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5255. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30AM - 5:00PM.
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, Navid Z Mehdizadeh can be reached at (571) 272-7691. 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.
/J.C.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3669
/NAVID Z. MEHDIZADEH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3669
Prosecution Insights