DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Office Action on the merits in response to communications received on 12/23/2025. Claims 1, 6, 11, and 16 have been amended. Therefore, claims 1-20 are pending and have been addressed below. 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
1. 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.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
3. Under Step 1 of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, claim 1 recites a process (i.e., an act or step, or a series of acts or steps) and claim 11 recites a machine (i.e., a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices). Thus, each of the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories.
4. Under Step 2A – Prong One of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Claims 1 and 11 recite:
“establishing…a data connection”, “receiving during the…guided…inspection a download of a guidesheet document, the guidesheet including information indicative of an inspection type and identification of required artifacts for the inspection type;”, “enabling an upload of artifacts…to…during the…guided…inspection;”, “wherein the artifacts comprise at least a media in which GPS coordinates have been obtained and reverse geocoding to a street address of the media along with a watermark of a date and time;”, “detecting, during the…guided…inspection, a loss of the data connection;”, “wherein the detection of the data loss of the data connection is a signal…that the stream has disconnected, a timeout, or an insufficient bandwidth detect”, “transitioning…to a self-guided inspection from the…inspection upon detection of the loss of data connection;”, “informing…what artifacts are required to complete the self-guided inspection;”, “enabling… to continue collection of artifacts…during the loss of the data connection; “and “enabling…to upload artifacts…after the data connection is restored.”
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitations recite an abstract idea of managing how a remote field agent interacts and uploads inspection information to a central inspector when a data connection is lost which encompasses commercial interactions (i.e., sales/marketing activities, business relations) and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e., social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.), that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)
Consistent with the specification [¶ 0002-0007], the limitations recited in the claim describe a set of rules or instructions for a field agent to follow during an inspection when uploaded media and determining when a data connection is lost which is subject matter that involves concepts relating to managing personal behavior or interactions between people. Additionally, the limitations recited in the claim manage necessary inspection-related tasks that are carried out between an employee and a business, i.e., inspection company) which is subject matter that involves concepts relating to performance of commercial interactions. These limitations can reasonably be characterized as subject matter that falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A – Prong Two of the two-part analysis from Alice Corp, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of: “a computer-implemented method comprising:”, “a data processor” and “a data network”, “an inspector platform on a computing device”, “at least one field agent platform on a mobile device”, “automatically”, “reverse geocoding”, “at a JavaScript in a browser, an app code”, “from underlying WebRTC (or analog library)”, “AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML)”, “from WebSocket connection”, “from transmission rate indicator”, “for local storage”, “from local storage”, “a computer implemented system” - see claims 1 and 11, are all recited at a high level of generality in light of the specification. Accordingly, since the specification describes the additional elements in general terms, without describing the particulars, the additional elements may be broadly but reasonably construed as generic computing components being used to perform the judicial exception. These claimed additional elements merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f)
The other additional elements of: “wherein the data connection comprises a streaming video connection”, “live”, and “virtual” is/are an attempt to limit the claimed invention the claimed invention to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05 (h)
Thus, the additional claim elements are not indicative of integration into a practical application, because the claims do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: a computer-implemented method comprising:”, “a data processor” and “a data network”, “an inspector platform on a computing device”, “at least one field agent platform on a mobile device”, “automatically”, “reverse geocoding”, “at a JavaScript in a browser, an app code”, “from underlying WebRTC (or analog library)”, “AJAX (Asynchronous Javascript and XML)”, “from WebSocket connection”, “from transmission rate indicator”, “for local storage”, “from local storage”, “a computer implemented system” - see claims 1 and 11 amount to no more than mere instructions in which to apply the judicial exception and do not provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims are 2-10 and 12-20:
Claims 2 and 12 recite “wherein the mobile device is a mobile phone.” which is an additional element recited in the claim and does not lead towards eligibility. In this case, mere recitation of concrete or tangible components does not automatically integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Claims 3 and 13 recite “wherein the artifacts are documents, images, or videos” which further specifies the type data/information uploaded by the field agent but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claims 4 and 14 recite “wherein the guidesheet document is in a format from a group consisting of: HTML, plain text, XML, a JSON-encoded document, and a format that can be parsed or displayed by the at least one field agent platform.” which further specifies a type format that may be used when carrying out the recited in the judicial exception but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claims 5 and 15 recite “further comprising enabling the inspector platform to locate a desired inspection type and notify the at least one field agent platform of the desired inspection type.” which narrows activities that may be carried out by the inspector but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claims 6 and 16 recite “wherein the at least one field agent platform executes processing logic in a form from a group consisting of: a software application (App) and software within a browser” is/are additional elements recited at a high-level of generality in light of the specification (i.e., ¶ 00023) and amounts to mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a computer, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). Claims 7 and 17 recite “wherein the inspection type is used to fetch a specific guidesheet document corresponding to the inspection type from a backend server.” which narrows how the judicial exception may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claims 8 and 18 recite “further comprising presenting a prompt at the at least one field agent platform advising a field agent to continue an inspection while disconnected from the data network.” which narrows how the judicial exception may be performed but does not make the claim any less abstract. Claims 9-10 and 19-20 recite “further comprising storing a geo-location corresponding to each of the artifacts.” and “further configured to store comments corresponding to each of the artifacts from a field agent.” which further specifies the type of data/information to be stored during the inspection but does not make the claim any less abstract. Therefore, with respect to the dependent claims when viewed separately and in combination with the judicial exception, the recited limitations as whole fail to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gustafson (US 11,386,364 B1) in view of Clark (US 11,709,861 B1) in view of Nelson (US 2020/0410278 A1) in further view of Katis (US 2013/0301482 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Gustafson discloses
a computer-implemented method (Fig. 1, col. 6:43-59, col. 8:7-34, col. 9:8-23: discloses a computer-implemented construction management system 10) comprising:
establishing, by use of a data processor and a data network, a data connection between an inspector platform on a computing device and at least one field agent platform on a mobile device (col. 9:24-40: discloses using the construction management system 10 data and information may be sent and received from the construction management system 10 by the field worker 22 by means of a tablet computer like an Apple iPad or a smart phone like an Apple iPhone. Col. 12:45-52: discloses mobile device 94 communicates with the server of the construction management system 10 via a hard wired connection or a wireless link. ),
receiving a download of a guidesheet document at the at least one field agent platform on the mobile device (col. 10:60-67: discloses the construction management system 10 in which one or more documents or electronic files containing relevant information is collected for purposes of making it available remotely to a field worker upon request.), the guidesheet including information indicative of an inspection type and identification of required artifacts for the inspection type (col. 11:1-67, col. 12:8-14, col. 12:35-44: discloses the field worker 32 can obtain up-to-date drawings, specifications, and other relevant information for a project task that he is to undertake at the project site.);
enabling an upload of artifacts from the at least one field agent platform to the inspector platform via the data network (col. 15:27-64: discloses by pushing button 156 in the GUI 140, the field worker may upload a document or electronic image like a photograph or video to send back to the central office, i.e., construction management system 10. The “send” button 210 transmits the field worker’s message and attached photographs, videos, scanned documents, and other electronic files back to the central office.);
The Gustafson reference does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. The Clark reference is related to an interactive planning system that allows a user to create and manage plans in online, offline, and intermittent connectivity environments (abstract) and teaches:
detecting a loss of the data connection at a JavaScript in a browser or an app code (col. 5, 21-25, col. 9:44-57, col. 10:47-54, col. 23:23-45: discloses the mobile application 130 is a progressive web application comprising a user interface 132, service worker modules 132. Service workers act as proxy servers that sit between the mobile application 130, the browser 124, and the network when available. They enable the creation of effective offline experiences and take appropriate action based on whether the network is available. The service workers determine whether a connection is available to the planner subsystem and planner application. If there is no connection, the mobile application uses data residing in the local database for user interactions.);
automatically transitioning, on the mobile device, the at least one field agent platform to a self-guided inspection from the live virtual inspection upon detection of the loss of the data connection at the Javascript in the browser, the app code or the PWA (col. 5, 21-25, col. 9:44-57, col. 10:47-54, col. 23:23-45, col. 24:15-30: discloses if there is no connection, the mobile application is a progressive web application and uses data residing in the local database for user interactions. The mobile application uses a plan and plan resources previously stored/downloaded from the local database when the user is using the mobile application without connectivity to the planner application.);
enabling the at least one field agent platform to continue collection of artifacts for local storage during the loss of the data connection (col. 24:15-30: discloses allows a user to open a plan that have previously downloaded to the local database 240 and plan resources that are stored in the local database 240 should be used.); and
enabling the at least one field agent platform to upload artifacts from local storage after the data connection is restored. (abstract, col. 24:56-64: discloses the interactive planning system allows the user to create and manage plans in an offline environment and synchronize the plan when online connectivity is restored. For example, if the user is having connectivity issues the mobile application designates the user to be offline and will not perform any automatic synch actions until connection has been restored.)
As such, the Clark reference is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the applicant was involved as the disclosure teaches or suggests techniques for providing users the capability to create and manage plans in offline and intermittent connectivity environments were known in the state of the art and were previously performed in the industry using Progressive Web Application technologies.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the construction management system of Gustafson include the steps for detecting a loss of the data connection at a Javascript in a browser, an app code or a PWA, enabling the at least one field agent platform to continue collection of artifacts for local storage during the loss of the data connection, and enabling the at least one field agent platform to upload artifacts from local storage after the data connection is restored, as disclosed by Clark to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Clark, the motivation for the combination would have been to improve the user experience by minimizing the individual requests to online database resources as expressly suggested by Clark (col. 5:12-40, col 24:56-64)
The combination of Gustafson and Clark does not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, the Nelson reference is related to allowing one or more mobile devices to perform an inspection and send the inspection information including images to a server (¶ 0026) and teaches:
wherein the data connection comprises a streaming video connection for a live guided virtual inspection on the at least one field agent platform (¶ 0026, 0123: discloses any type of inspection may be performed using the system and methods. While still images are captured using a camera, other types of image capture may be used such as video, live-photos, any other type of image capture.);
wherein the artifacts comprise at least a media in which GPS coordinates have been obtained and reverse geocoding to a street address of the media along with a watermark of a date and time (¶ 0033-0037: discloses a user may take photographs of objects on the property. The images of objects captured along with their timestamps are stored in a server. Some electronic devices and software stored are also capable of determining very exact geographic locations. ¶ 0085: discloses metadata of the images is also created and collected. Metadata may include timestamps, i.e., date, time of image capture, geographic location of device when image is captured, any other data appended to the images etc.);
during the live guided virtual inspection (¶ 0035-0037, 0074, 0085: discloses the user may capture images of various objects or aspects during a property inspection. In an online mode if the device capturing images and receiving inputs is connected to the internet, the server may be updated with the images and inputs as they are received.)
informing the at least one field agent platform what artifacts are required to complete the self-guided inspection (¶ 0022, 0037: discloses providing guided inspections that make the inspections easier and more efficient to complete. For example, the prompts provided to a user may be presented in an order that makes the inspection more efficient based on a floor plan of the property, an amount of time it takes to perform each task, known aspects of the property based on past inspections, etc. In addition, each inspection may be customized based on the property being inspected based on the inputs from the user or other inputs);
Therefore, it would have been obvious one of ordinary before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods Gustafson and Clark to include the steps for wherein the data connection comprises a streaming video connection for a live guided virtual inspection on the at least one field agent platform; wherein the artifacts comprise at least a media in which GPS coordinates have been obtained and reverse geocoding to a street address of the media along with a watermark of a date and time; during the live guided virtual inspection; informing the at least one field agent platform what artifacts are required to completed the self-guided inspection, as disclosed by Nelson to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Nelson, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide improved functionality and guided inspections for field inspectors that makes inspections easier and more efficient to complete. (¶ 0022, Nelson)
The combination of Gustafson, Clark, and Nelson do not explicitly disclose the following limitations. In the same field of endeavor, Katis is related to computer code that is configured to support a conversation among participants over a communication network (abstract) and teaches:
wherein the detection of the loss of the data connection is a signal from an insufficient bandwidth detect from transmission rate indicator (¶ 0039-0046: discloses the Store and Stream module 22 which represents a transmission rate indicator maintains connectivity with all target recipients (e.g., Servers 16 or other Devices 13) on the underlying network 18, manages all message, signal, and media transmissions, and optimizes the delivery speed and bandwidth usage across the network 18 to meet a User's immediate performance requirements, while managing network quality and capacity. The module 22 adapts and optimizes Media delivery commensurate with the quality and capacity of the underlying network 18. When insufficient underlying network resources are available, the quality of the transmitted Media streams can be degraded. As bandwidth becomes available, the quality of the transmitted Media streams may be increased. The Store and Stream module 22 further persistently stores all Media created by or otherwise originating using a Device 13 or received over the network 18 from other Device 13 and/or users. There are several significant advantages of storing this Media on the Device 13 running the Client 12: (i) it enables Users to leave a Message for another party, even when the sender and/or the recipient has either unavailable or poor network connectivity. In the case of insufficient bandwidth, the Message will be transmitted as fast as available bandwidth can be effectively used. In the case of no connectivity, the Message is queued for transmission as soon as network connectivity becomes available, resulting in a time-shifted delivery)
Therefore, it would have been obvious one of ordinary before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system and methods of Gustafson, Clark, and Nelson to add the step for wherein the detection of the loss of the data connection is a signal from an insufficient bandwidth detect from transmission rate indicator, as disclosed by Katis to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed by Katis, the motivation for the combination would have been to provide advantages for storing media on the device running the client when unavailable or poor network connectivity occurs. (¶ 0046)
With respect to claims 2 and 12, the combination of Gustafson, Clark, Nelson, and Katis discloses the method and system
wherein the mobile device is a mobile phone. (col. 12:45-52: Gustafson discloses a field worker 32 like a construction foreman, laborer, or skilled craftsman will use computer device 94 that is preferably a mobile device like a smart phone or tablet computer.)
With respect to claims 3 and 13, the combination of Gustafson, Clark, Nelson, and Katis discloses the method and system
wherein the artifacts are documents, images, or videos. (col. 15:27-64: Gustafson discloses the field worker may upload a document or electronic image like a photograph or video to send back to the central office, i.e., construction management system 10. The field worker’s message and attached photographs, videos, scanned documents, and other electronic files are sent back to the central office.)
With respect to claims 4 and 14, the combination of Gustafson, Clark, Nelson, and Katis discloses the method and system
wherein the guidesheet document is in a format from a group consisting of: HTML, plain text, XML, a JSON-encoded document (col. 10:1-8, col. 11:36-47: Gustafson discloses the software may be designed to be an expression of an organized set of instructions in a coded language.), and a format that can be parsed or displayed by the at least one field agent platform. (col. 10:1-8: discloses the instructions are programmed to facilitate the intake of information and queries from the field workers at a the work site and outflow of processed information to field workers, project team members, etc.)
With respect to claims 5 and 15, the combination of Gustafson, Clark, Nelson, and Katis discloses the method and system being further configured to
enable the inspector platform to locate a desired inspection type (col. 9:24-40: Gustafson discloses the construction project manager 12 has an interface 20 for communicating with or directing work tasks of the field workers 22 who actually construct, install, or produce the work project.) and notify the at least one field agent platform of the desired inspection type. (col. 13:65-67 and col. 14:1-4: Gustafson discloses a private notification for the field workers to be printed on the website may be entered by the central office worker into GUI screen 46)
With respect to claims 6 and 16, the combination of Gustafson, Clark, Nelson, and Katis discloses the method and system
wherein the at least one field agent platform executes processing logic in a form from a group consisting of: a software application (App) and (col. 9:42-67, col. 10:1-23: Clark discloses the mobile application 130) software within a browser (col. 5:12-40, col. 9:42-67, col. 10:3-23: Clark discloses user’s browser 124).
With respect to claims 7 and 17, the combination of Gustafson, Clark, Nelson, and Katis discloses the method and system
wherein the inspection type is used to fetch a specific guidesheet document corresponding to the inspection type from a backend server. (col. 12:1-14: Gustafson discloses electronic files for a particular work task for the construction project or for a particular work task to be conducted within a specific room of a building under construction may be stored together in a portion of database 40. In this manner a field worker 32 at the project site may more easily find the documents and information that he needs that are relevant to the work task that his is to conduct at the project site. Using the construction management system the field worker can choose the type of document or information files that he needs and have them transmitted to his mobile device.)
With respect to claims 8 and 18, the combination of Gustafson, Clark, Nelson, and Katis discloses the method and system being further configured to
present a prompt at the at least one field agent platform advising a field agent to continue an inspection while disconnected from the data network. (col. 24:56-65: Clark discloses the user should be notified and prompted to save their work and refresh their planning data once their connection has been restored.)
With respect to claim 9 and 19, the combination of Gustafson, Clark, Nelson, and Katis discloses the method and system being further configured to
store a geo-location corresponding to each of the artifacts. (col. 4:32-43: Gustafson discloses work crews can take images of the work in progress at the project site and send images in conjunction with location tracking information via the communication network to be stored at the construction manager at the central office.)
With respect to claims 10 and 20, the combination of Gustafson, Clark, Nelson, and Katis discloses the method and system being further configured to
store comments corresponding to each of the artifacts from a field agent. (abstract, col. 15:46-64: Gustafson discloses the field worker may also report information back to the central hub concerning the state of the construction project by means of graphical user interfaces in the software enable him to enter written text information from the project site. The field worker may upload a document or electronic image to send back to the central office. GUI screen 200 allows the field worker to enter an explanatory written message)
Response to Arguments
8. Applicant’s arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 101
Applicant argues “The Applicant also thanks the Examiner for the consideration of the previous amendment and respectfully traverses the rejection under 35 U.S.C. §101, presenting new claim amendments that adhere to the guidance from Deputy Commissioner Kim's August 4, 2025 Memorandum on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims un 35 U.S.C. 101, and reciting non-abstract, non-generic, and technically inventive improvements to live virtual inspections. The claims define eligible subject matter under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims since the claims recite substantial elements such as an inspector platform on a computing device, at least one field agent platform on a mobile device, a data processor and a data network, specific data loss detection means, and specific geocoding of media for fraud prevention. These features are technical in nature, specific to computing systems, and not performable mentally.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the Examiner asserts merely relying upon the guidance from the memorandum and asserted improvements in this manner does make the claimed invention any less abstract or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The Applicant’s reply does not challenge the abstract idea identified in the previous rejection under Prong One. The response merely points to improvements to live virtual inspections which are considerations under Prong Two of the analysis. In the instant case, the Examiner asserts that the specification lacks sufficient disclosure or specificity of how the improvements can be done or more specifically how the computer can be programmed to achieve this improvement. See MPEP 2106.05(a)
The specification [See Figs. 1, 8, ¶ 0001, 0007-0009] and remarks have only described the invention in a general sense and do not disclose how the desired technical improvement is achieved other than simply providing a high level of explanation and relying on the general use of generic devices. As for the additional elements of (i.e., an inspector platform on a computing device, at least one field agent platform on a mobile device, a data processor and a data network), at best these are generic computing devices being used to aid in carrying out the inspection process. See MPEP2106.05(f) The data loss detection and geocoding of media limitations are recited within the abstract idea under Prong One. Although one may argue that the human mind is unable to process and recognize the electronic stream of data that is being received, transmitted, stored, and etc. by the computing device, the Examiner asserts that this is insufficient to overcoming the rejection under 35 USC 101 - see Alice Corp v CLS Bank also required a computer that processed streams of data, but nonetheless were found to be abstract. It is also important to note that there are no fraud prevention limitations recited in the claim. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
Applicant further argues “As in Enfish, McRO, DDR, and the 2024 USPTO Guidance, the claims recite a specific improvement to the functioning of computers and networked systems, not an abstract idea. Thus, the amended claims may merely involve a judicial exception and not recite a judicial exception. Even if determined that the amended claims recite a judicial exception, the amended claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception. The amended claims recite details of a how a solution to a problem is accomplished.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Contrary to the remarks, the cited court decisions and recent guidance cannot be relied upon in this manner to overcome the rejections. The cited court decisions in Enfish, McRO, DDR provided specific technological improvements to computers and networking technology. The present claims do not recite comparable technological improvements. Instead they recite methods for managing a series of tasks that are carried out in between an inspector and a business during an inspection. The fact that a data connection is lost during the inspection and restored after the inspection is complete does not remove the claims from being considered in the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping or provide a technological solution to a technological problem. For these reasons, the rejections under 101 are being maintained.
With Respect to Rejections Under 35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EHRIN PRATT whose telephone number is (571)270-3184. The examiner can normally be reached 8-5 EST Monday-Friday.
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, Lynda Jasmin can be reached at 571-272-6782. 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.
/EHRIN L PRATT/Examiner, Art Unit 3629
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626