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 Office Action is in response to Amendments and Remarks filed on 01/30/2026 for application number 18/837,698 filed on 08/12/2024, in which claims 1-4 were originally presented for examination. Claims 1 & 4 are currently amended, claim 3 has been cancelled, and claim 5 has been added as a new claim. Accordingly, claims 1, 2, 4 & 5 are currently pending.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of: (1) applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 USC §119 (a)-(d), wherein the certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2022-068125, filed on 04/18/2022, and (2) applicant’s claim this application to be a 371 of PCT/JP2023/004261, filed on 02/08/2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS(s)) submitted on 08/12/2024, 11/20/2024
03/13/2025 have been received and considered.
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular paragraphs (or columns and lines) in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP §2163.06. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner is entitled to give the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) to the language of the claims. Furthermore, the Examiner is not limited to Applicant’s definition which is not specifically set forth in the claims. See MPEP §2111.01.
Response to Arguments
Arguments filed on 01/30/2026 have been fully considered and are addressed as follows:
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §101: The rejections of claims, for being directed a judicial exception without significantly more, are maintained, as the amended claims filed on 09/04/2021 have failed to overcome the rejection as recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/20/2025, and outlined below, wherein applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection 35 USC §101 presented below.
Regarding the Claim Objections: The claim(s) objection is/are withdrawn, as the amended claims filed on 01/30/2026 have properly addressed the claim(s) informality objection(s) recited in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/20/2025. However, applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of Claim(s) Objection(s) presented below.
Regarding the claim rejections under 35 USC §102(a)(1): Applicant’s Remarks regarding the rejections of the claims under the prior arts in records are persuasive in view of the currently amended and/or new base claim(s) 1 & 5. Accordingly, the previous prior art rejection(s) under 35 USC §102 has/have been withdrawn. However, applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground of rejection under §103 presented below, which were necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
For at least the foregoing reasons, and the rejections outlined below, the prior art rejections are maintained.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “a degree of congestion in next estimation” in line 3. It should be “the degree of congestion in the next estimation”.
Claim 2 recites “an optimization method using an evaluation function” in lines 2-3. It should be “the optimization method using the evaluation function”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 2 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Examiner notes that claim 2 limitations are now recited in last limitation(s) of the currently amended base claim 1. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §101
35 USC §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, 2, 4 & 5 are rejected under 35 USC §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. See MPEP 2106 (III)
The determination of whether a claim recites patent ineligible subject matter is a two-step inquiry.
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), See MPEP 2106.03, 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: See MPEP 2106.04
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1)
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? See MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(2)
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? See MPEP 2106.05
Claim 1. a congestion degree search system for searching for, for a target of a degree of congestion that is a location or a transportation means, a degree of congestion of the target when people change their behavior in response to information according to a degree of congestion being presented, the system comprising circuitry [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] configured to:
estimate the degree of congestion of the target by simulating people's behavior under conditions in which information according to a degree of congestion set in advance for the target is presented to people who act [mental process/step], wherein the circuitry [applying the abstract idea using generic computing module] acquires, via a network, information for simulating the people’s behavior, the acquired information including origin-destination (OD) data indicating when, from where, to where, and how many people move, the OD data being generated based on locations and movements of real people where time-series location information indicating when, where, and how many people are present is obtained from mobile terminals carried by the real people and sensors that measure traffic volume [pre-solution activity (data gathering)]; and
set a degree of congestion used in estimation by changing the degree of congestion for each estimation, repeatedly estimate the degree of congestion, and search for the degree of congestion of the target so that a difference between the degree of congestion used in the estimation and the estimated degree of congestion decreases [mental process/step], wherein the degree of congestion used in a next estimation is set by using an optimization method using an evaluation function based on the degree of congestion used in the estimation and the estimated degree of congestion [particular technological environment or field of use without telling you how it is accomplished].
101 Analysis - Step 1: Statutory category – Yes
The claim recites a system comprising a circuitry that executes at least one step. The claim falls within one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03
Step 2A Prong one evaluation: Judicial Exception – Yes – Mental processes
In Step 2A, Prong one of the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance (PEG), a claim is to be analyzed to determine whether it recites subject matter that falls within one of the following groups of abstract ideas: a) mathematical concepts, b) mental processes, and/or c) certain methods of organizing human activity.
The Office submits that the foregoing bolded limitation(s) constitutes judicial exceptions in terms of “mental processes” because under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations can be “performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper”. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)
The claim recites the limitation to estimate the degree of congestion of the target by simulating people's behavior under conditions in which information according to a degree of congestion set in advance for the target is presented to people who act; set a degree of congestion used in estimation by changing the degree of congestion for each estimation, repeatedly estimate the degree of congestion, and search for the degree of congestion of the target so that a difference between the degree of congestion used in the estimation and the estimated degree of congestion decreases.
These limitation, as drafted, are simple processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of “circuitry”. That is, other than reciting “circuitry” nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “circuitry” language, the claim encompasses a person looking at data collected and forming a simple estimation and/or judgement. The mere nominal recitation of by a circuitry does not take the claim limitations out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A Prong two evaluation: Practical Application - No
In Step 2A, Prong two of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated whether, as a whole, it integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application. As noted in MPEP 2106.04(d), 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, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements such as: 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 Office submits that the foregoing underlined limitation(s) recite additional elements that do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
The claim recites additional elements of circuitry, acquires, via a network, information for simulating the people’s behavior, the acquired information including origin-destination (OD) data indicating when, from where, to where, and how many people move, the OD data being generated based on locations and movements of real people where time-series location information indicating when, where, and how many people are present is obtained from mobile terminals carried by the real people and sensors that measure traffic volume, wherein the degree of congestion used in a next estimation is set by using an optimization method using an evaluation function based on the degree of congestion used in the estimation and the estimated degree of congestion. The “circuitry” merely describes how to generally and merely automates the estimate, set and search steps, therefore acting as a generic computer to perform the abstract idea and/ or “apply” the otherwise mental judgements using a generic or general-purpose processor, i.e. a computer. The system circuitry is recited at a high level of generality and is merely automates the estimate, set and search steps. The acquiring step(s), i.e., acquires, via a network, information, is/are recited at a high level of generality, i.e., as a general means of gathering people behavior information for use in the estimating, setting, and searching steps, and amount to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The “using an optimization method using an evaluation function” step(s) and/or element(s) also recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use without telling you how it is accomplished. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B evaluation: Inventive concept - No
In Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, a claim is to be evaluated as to whether the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the recited exception, i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra- solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B.
Here, the circuitry element(s) was/were considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus they are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The Specification (in at least PG Pub ¶¶62-72) recites that the circuitry is a conventional computer, and does not provide any indication that the circuitry is anything other than a conventional computer. MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data and/or information over a network, i.e., acquires, via a network, information, a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The background recites that the claimed neural network is using a conventional deep neural network, and the Specification does not provide any indication that using an optimization method using an evaluation function is anything other than a genetic algorithms applicable to a wide variety of problems, See ¶102. The “optimization method using an evaluation function” element also recited at a high level of generality, and amounts to mere linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use without telling you how it is accomplished.
Accordingly, a conclusion that the circuitry element(s), and acquiring information via a network, information and using optimization method/ an evaluation function is/are well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer. Thus, the claim is ineligible.
Independent new method claim(s) 5 recite(s) similar limitations performed by the system of claim 1. Therefore, claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above. Dependent claims 2 & 4 do not recite any further limitations that cause the claim(s) to be patent eligible. Rather, the limitations of dependent claims are directed toward additional aspects of the judicial exception and/or well-understood, routine and conventional additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application and amounts to mere input and/or output data manipulation. Therefore, dependent claims 2 & 4 are not patent eligible under the same rationale as provided for in the rejection of claim 1. Thus, claims 1, 2, 4 & 5 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 USC §102 and §103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis 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 USC §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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 4 & 5 are rejected under 35 USC §103 as being unpatentable over Patent Publication No. WO-2015049801-A1 by Shuhei et al. (hereinafter “Shuhei”) in view of Patent Publication No. JP-2010152767-A by Shirakawa Masakazu et al. (hereinafter “Masakazu”), which are both found in the IDS submitted on 08/12/2024
The rejections below are based on the machine translation of the Shuhei’s & Masakazu‘s references a copy of each is attached to the Non-Final Office Action as also indicated in the previously mailed 892 form, both mailed on 11/20/2025.
As per claim 1, Shuhei discloses a congestion degree search system for searching for, for a target of a degree of congestion that is a location or a transportation means, a degree of congestion of the target when people change their behavior in response to information according to a degree of congestion being presented (Shuhei, in at least Fig(s). 2, 16, 18 & 20 [reproduced here for convenience] and ¶¶68-75 & 84-88, discloses congestion rate calculation processing for predicting the congestion rate at the time of an accident, e.g., such as a transportation disruption has occurred in a certain section of transportation based on behavior pattern data at the time of the accident (217), wherein the congestion rate is calculated by gradually increasing the number of persons who carry out distribution by one at a time and a simulation to observe the flow of passengers depending on the number of persons who carry out distribution is performed), the system comprising circuitry configured to:
PNG
media_image1.png
567
796
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Shuhei’s Fig. 20
estimate the degree of congestion of the target by simulating people's behavior under conditions in which information according to a degree of congestion set in advance for the target is presented to people who act (Shuhei, in at least Fig. 16 and ¶¶68-75, discloses predicting the congestion rate at the time of an accident/ transportation disruption based on behavior pattern data at the time of the accident (217). Shuhei further discloses calculating the congestion rate at the time of an accident and displaying it on the screen, such that users can take a detour and use a less congested line [i.e., presented to people who act]), wherein the circuitry acquires, via a network, information for simulating the people’s behavior, the acquired information including origin-destination (OD) data indicating when, from where, to where, and how many people move, the OD data being generated based on locations and movements of real people where time-series location information indicating when, where, and how many people are present is obtained from mobile terminals carried by the real people and sensors that measure traffic volume (Shuhei, in at least Fig. 20 [reproduced here for convenience], and ¶¶22-23, 68-75 & 84-88, discloses the calculation server (230), realizes various functions by reading various programs, e.g., simulation program (255), wherein the generated information such as detour route information, congestion rates, and simulation results is distributed to the operator (272) via an interface (I/F (C)) (258) and a network (270). Shuhei further discloses FIG. 20 that shows an example of a screen on which a system manager, such as a railway operator, can view the results of a simulation of transportation facilities and passenger flows); and
set a degree of congestion used in estimation by changing the degree of congestion for each estimation, repeatedly estimate the degree of congestion, and search for the degree of congestion of the target so that a difference between the degree of congestion used in the estimation and the estimated degree of congestion decreases (Shuhei, in at least Fig. 16 and ¶¶68-75 & 84, discloses the congestion rate estimation program (235) calculates the percentage of records in the passenger data (218) affected by the accident, combines the movement log data and movement information of the behavior pattern data to create new movement log data. Shuhei further discloses the display screen generating program (256) that sets conditions such as a target for reducing congestion rate, and deliver the information to registered users who meet the condition, wherein the display screen generation program (256) executes the congestion rate calculation process at the time of an accident by gradually increasing the number of recipients, such as the congestion rate when there is one recipient, i.e., the number of people who may use this system to detour the route, the congestion rate when there are two recipients, and so on, to determine the congestion rate for each case, and when the total congestion rate reaches a predetermined target congestion rate, e.g., a value that reduces the congestion rate by 15%, the information distribution data (219) is distributed to the registered users calculated up to that point, e.g., 1,000 out of 3,000 people),
wherein the degree of congestion used in a next estimation is set (Shuhei, in at least Fig(s). 16 & 18 and ¶¶68-75 & 84, discloses a system that receives delivery of transportation obstacle information [i.e., congestion] for a transportation facility (i.e., target] and aims at a target congestion rate [i.e., degree of congestion] when a passenger uses a detour route, the system comprising a function of calculating [i.e., estimation] the congestion rate of the transportation facility by delivering the transportation obstacle information to the passenger, and a function of setting a target congestion rate [i.e., the congestion degree used for estimation], gradually increasing the number of deliveries to calculate the congestion rate [i.e., estimation of the repeated congestion degree], and reaching the target congestion rate. Shuhei further discloses using the Dijkstra algorithm for the railroad and bus route network. Shuhei also discloses the display screen generating program (256) that sets conditions such as a target for reducing congestion rate, and deliver the information to registered users who meet the condition, wherein the display screen generation program (256) executes the congestion rate calculation process at the time of an accident by gradually increasing the number of recipients, such as the congestion rate when there is one recipient (i.e., the number of people who may use this system to detour the route), the congestion rate when there are two recipients, and so on, to determine the congestion rate for each case, and when the total congestion rate reaches a predetermined target congestion rate, e.g., a value that reduces the congestion rate by 15%, the information distribution data (219) is distributed to the registered users calculated up to that point, e.g., 1,000 out of 3,000 people).
Shuhei does not explicitly recites/ discloses next estimation being set by using an optimization method using an evaluation function (Masakazu, in at least Abstract & ¶¶1-5 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, teaches using an optimization method using an evaluation function (Masakazu, in at least Abstract & ¶¶1-5, teaches predictive control system using a dynamic model, wherein various functional forms have been devised as evaluation functions for calculating this optimal solution).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shuhei in view of Masakazu with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – predictive control systems - and the combination would provide for the manipulated variable(s) determination so that predicted values of the variable(s) to be controlled comes close to respective target value(s) (see at least Masakazu’s Abstract & ¶¶1-5).
As per claim 2, Shuhei as modified by Masakazu teaches the congestion degree search system according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
While Shuhei discloses wherein the circuitry sets a degree of congestion used in next estimation (Shuhei, in at least Fig(s). 16 & 18 and ¶¶68-75 & 84, discloses a system that receives delivery of transportation obstacle information [i.e., congestion] for a transportation facility (i.e., target] and aims at a target congestion rate [i.e., degree of congestion] when a passenger uses a detour route, the system comprising a function of calculating [i.e., estimation] the congestion rate of the transportation facility by delivering the transportation obstacle information to the passenger, and a function of setting a target congestion rate [i.e., the congestion degree used for estimation], gradually increasing the number of deliveries to calculate the congestion rate [i.e., estimation of the repeated congestion degree], and reaching the target congestion rate. Shuhei further discloses using the Dijkstra algorithm for the railroad and bus route network. Shuhei also discloses the display screen generating program (256) that sets conditions such as a target for reducing congestion rate, and deliver the information to registered users who meet the condition, wherein the display screen generation program (256) executes the congestion rate calculation process at the time of an accident by gradually increasing the number of recipients, such as the congestion rate when there is one recipient (i.e., the number of people who may use this system to detour the route), the congestion rate when there are two recipients, and so on, to determine the congestion rate for each case, and when the total congestion rate reaches a predetermined target congestion rate, e.g., a value that reduces the congestion rate by 15%, the information distribution data (219) is distributed to the registered users calculated up to that point, e.g., 1,000 out of 3,000 people), it does not explicitly recites/ discloses by using an optimization method using an evaluation function.
Masakazu, in at least Abstract & ¶¶1-5 that is was old and well known at the time of filing in the art of vehicle control systems, teaches using an optimization method using an evaluation function (Masakazu, in at least Abstract & ¶¶1-5, teaches predictive control system using a dynamic model, wherein various functional forms have been devised as evaluation functions for calculating this optimal solution).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Shuhei in view of Masakazu with a reasonable expectation of success, as both inventions are directed to the same field of endeavor – predictive control systems - and the combination would provide for the manipulated variable(s) determination so that predicted values of the variable(s) to be controlled comes close to respective target value(s) (see at least Masakazu’s Abstract & ¶¶1-5).
As per claim 3, Cancelled
As per claim 4, Shuhei as modified by Masakazu teaches the congestion degree search system according to claim 1, accordingly, the rejection of claim 1 above is incorporated.
Shuhei further discloses wherein the circuitry simulates behavior of each person under the conditions in which information according to the degree of congestion set in advance for the target is presented to people who act (Shuhei, in at least Fig. 20 and ¶¶22-23, 68-75 & 84-88, discloses the calculation server (230), realizes various functions by reading various programs, e.g., simulation program (255), wherein the generated information such as detour route information, congestion rates, and simulation results is distributed to the operator (272) via an interface (I/F (C)) (258) and a network (270). Shuhei further discloses FIG. 20 that shows an example of a screen on which a system manager, such as a railway operator, can view the results of a simulation of transportation facilities and passenger flows, wherein there is a screen for inputting the utilization rate of the detour route (1905) in order to see the passenger flow when the utilization rate of the detour route is changed. Shuhei also discloses the display screen generation program (256) displays the simulation results by making the detour route on the screen bolder or by changing the color as the number of users picked up increases).
As per claim 5, the claim is directed towards a method that recites similar limitations performed by the system of claim 1. The cited portions of Shuhei & Masakazu used in the rejection of claim 1 teach the same steps to perform the method of claim 5. Therefore, claim 5 is rejected under the same rationales used in the rejections of claim 1 as outlined above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. See previously mailed PTO-892 form.
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 extension fee 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 Tarek Elarabi whose telephone number is (313)446-4911. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday thru Thursday; 6:00 AM - 4:00 PM EST.
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, Peter Nolan can be reached on (571)270-7016. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or (571)272-1000.
/Tarek Elarabi/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3661