Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
2. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
3. This office action is in response to the REM filed 08/05/2026.
4. Claims 1, 8 and 15 are independent claims.
5. The office action is made Final.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category
In the instant case, claims 1-7 are directed to a method, claims 8-14 are directed to a non-transitory medium, and claims 15-20 are directed to a system. Thus, the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories. Nevertheless, the claims fall within the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong One: Does the Claim Recite a Judicial Exception
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite an abstract idea in the following limitations:
adding, by the computing device, an additional event entry to the hierarchical log in the tracking repository based at least in part on the event message, wherein the additional event entry comprises information identifying the event message and an execution time for the event.
These limitations as drafted are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process, it can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper. One can mentally maintain such a text list in the form of a hierarchical log, and add an entry to such a mental list, wherein the event entry comprises information identifying the event message and an execution time for an execution of the one or more process. Accordingly, under the BRI these limitations recite a mental process as a form of evaluation or judgement. but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting the structural elements such as “a computing device, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 1); A non-transitory computer-readable medium and a computer system, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 8); A system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and one or more processors, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 20)”.
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two: Integration into a Practical Application
Claims 1, 8 and 15 recite the following additional elements, which do not provide integration into a practical application:
The additional elements “a computing device, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 1); A non-transitory computer-readable medium and a computer system, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 8); A system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and one or more processors, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 20)”.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, the limitations of "receiving, by a computing device, an event message at an inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system, wherein the inbound adapter is configured to receive event messages, and wherein the event message is generated by a process for which a hierarchical log of event entries is maintained in a document and identifies an event associated with the process; accessing, by the computing device, the document including the hierarchical log of event entries corresponding to respective events associated with to process, wherein the document is stored in a tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system, wherein the tracking repository permits substantially simultaneous access to the document by two or more computing devices".
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of “receiving…accessing is using generic computer hardware to execute the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and amount to extra-solution activity of data collecting, see MPEP 2106.05(g), that does not provide integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 963 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd on other grounds, 561 U.S. 593 (2010) (characterizing data gathering steps as insignificant extra-solution activity); see also CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1371-72 (noting that even if some physical steps are required to obtain information from a database (e.g., entering a query via a keyboard, clicking a mouse), such data-gathering steps cannot alone confer patentability); GIP Techs., Inc. V. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers and gathering statistics amounted to mere data gathering). Accord Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 (citing MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B: Significantly More
As stated in MPEP 2106.05(II) for Step 2B, examiners carry over their identification of the additional element(s) in the claim from Step 2A Prong Two and carry over their conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two on the considerations discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.05(a) - (c), (e) (f) and (h).
Therefore, the additional elements and the conclusions above under MPEP 2106.05(f) are carried over and these elements do not provide significantly more.
The conclusions from Step 2A Prong Two that additional elements were insignificant extra-solution activity should be re-evaluated in Step 2B, because if such re-evaluation finds that the element is unconventional or otherwise more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, this finding may indicate that the additional element is no longer considered to be insignificant.
With respect to ““a computing device, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 1); A non-transitory computer-readable medium and a computer system, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 8); A system comprising: a non-transitory computer-readable medium; and one or more processors, inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system and tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system (Claim 20)””
These limitations are described in Applicant's own specification as generic and conventional elements. See Applicants specification, Para [0100], [0106-0107], [0110] and [0120]. These are basic computer elements applied merely to carry out data processing such as, discussed above which fall under well-understood, routine and conventional functions of generic computers.
With respect to the "receiving, by a computing device, an event message at an inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system, wherein the inbound adapter is configured to receive event messages, and wherein the event message is generated by a process for which a hierarchical log of event entries is maintained in a document and identifies an event associated with the process; accessing, by the computing device, the document including the hierarchical log of event entries corresponding to respective events associated with to process, wherein the document is stored in a tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system, wherein the tracking repository permits substantially simultaneous access to the document by two or more computing devices".
Receiving and accessing data (data gathering, obtaining, or receiving data) is considered insignificant extra-solution activity under 35 U.S.C. 101 when it is merely necessary to initiate a judicial exception (like an abstract idea or law of nature). It is deemed "well-understood, routine, and conventional" activity that does not transform an unpatentable concept into a patent-eligible Thus, this additional element is identified as insignificant extra-solution activity, when re-evaluated this element is well-understood, routine, and conventional as evidenced by the court cases in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), "Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); …”. Thus, this remains insignificant extra-solution activity that does not provide significantly more.
Even when considered in combination and viewing the claims, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept. The claim is not eligible.
The dependent claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 merely incorporate additional elements that narrow the abstract idea without yielding an improvement to any technical field, the computer itself, or limitations beyond merely linking the idea to a particular technological environment.
Claims 2, 9 &16
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“Identifying, by the computing device, a parent entry for the event entry based at least in part on the execution time.” Inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
This is a mental process. One can mentally identify a parent’s entry-based execution time.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claims 3, 10 &17
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“Wherein accessing the document further comprises creating the document”. Inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
This is a mental process. One can mentally create a document.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claims 4, 11 and 18
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
Claim 4 inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites: Wherein the event entry includes a state of the one or more processes (This amount to linking the abstract idea to a field of user, see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as they are mere linking the abstract idea to a particular field of use.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional limitations are: " Wherein the event entry includes a state of the one or more processes " which amount to linking the abstract idea to a field of use, see MPEP 2106.05(h).
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are merely linking the abstract idea.
Claims 5, 12 &19
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“Updating, by the computing device, event entry based on a change in the state of the one or more processes”. Inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
This is a mental process. One can mentally update an event entry based on a change in the state of one or more processes.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Claims 6, 13 and 20 &12
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“Querying, by the computing device, the hierarchical log” Inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
The additional limitation of” Querying, by the computing device, the hierarchical log” (This is amount to extra-solution activity of data collecting, see MPEP 2106.05(g).)
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application as they are mere insignificant extra solution activity in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements of " Querying, by the computing device, the hierarchical log;" amount to data collect or accessing data and is well-understood, routine and conventional and does not amount to significantly more. See MPEP 2106.06(d)(II)(iv) wherein it cites "The courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. V. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93; ".
The additional elements as disclosed above in combination of the abstract idea are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are well, understood, routine and conventional activity as disclosed in combination of generic computer functions that are implemented to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claims 7 &14
Step 2A Prong 1: The claim recites, inter alia:
“Aggregating, by the computing device, the hierarchical log with one or more additional hierarchical logs”. Inherits the abstract idea of claim 1.
This is a mental process. One can mentally aggregate plurality of hierarchical logs.
Step 2A Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Aside from the limitations above, the claim recites:
There are no additional limitations.
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. There are no additional limitations.
Examiner Note
8. The Examiner cites columns and line numbers in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the Applicant(s). 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 their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
9. 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 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10-13, 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Torman et al (US 20150127670 A1) hereinafter as Torman.
12. Regarding claim 1, Torman teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a computing device, an event message at an inbound adapter of a document-based monitoring system, wherein the inbound adapter is configured to receive event messages (Fig 1, [0028], “application server 120 (document-based monitoring system) may include applications used by different tenants of application server 120. As each client of each tenant interacts with the applications, log entries corresponding to the interactions may be generated and saved in log files in log files database 125, which may be a content management system (document-based monitoring system), document repository, database or other storage mechanism for log files.”, Fig 2, “log server (document-based monitoring system)”, [0035], [0041], “in block 210, the log files (an event message) may be received by log server 105 (a computing device)”, [0043], “The XML data file (event messages) may be provided to map reduce logic 410 as a system selection indicating the approved log entries.”, see also Fig 3A, “log entries”, and [0054], “BPO 425 (base platform object, or an abstract database object) allows a user to access, via the API (an inbound adapter), a database table with the pointers to the stored customer-facing log files.”, [0056], “Tenants who pay for the service may have their customer-facing log files stored in customer-facing log files 115 and access the logs through API 435, Fig 5A) , and
wherein the event message is generated by a process [0019], “generate log entries in one or more log files for activities such as logins to applications running on the system, application programming interface (API) events (e.g., when and how the API is used), file or report downloads, and user interface clicks (e.g., clicking on a button of a user interface provided by an application running on the system) (a process).”, [0030], “if a client downloads a file (a process), another log entry may be generated in the same log file or in another log file in log files database 125.”, [0033], “log server 105 receives log files from application server 120 and parses through and pares down the data in log files to generate smaller, customer-facing log files.”, Fig 3C, [0037-0039], “Each of the four log entries in log file 305 may be generated when a client of a tenant logs into an application hosted by the multi-tenant system (a process).”, [0051], “activities of user systems 110a or 110b (a process) may generate multiple log entries associated with events.”) for which a hierarchical log of event entries is maintained in a document (Fig 1, [0028], “log entries corresponding to the interactions may be generated and saved in log files in log files database 125, which may be a content management system, document repository, database or other storage mechanism for log files.”, [0043], “The XML data file (event messages) may be provided to map reduce logic 410 as a system selection indicating the approved log entries.”, [0054], “BPO 425 (base platform object, or an abstract database object) allows a user to access, via the API (an inbound adapter), a database table with the pointers to the stored customer-facing log files.”, [0056], “Tenants who pay for the service may have their customer-facing log files stored in customer-facing log files 115 and access the logs through API 435, Fig 5A, [0025], “a parent-child relationship between the records (a hierarchical log of event entries)”) , and identifies an event associated with the process (Fig 3A, “event with event attribute/metadata (ID, timestamp…)”, [0025], “each record for the tenants has a unique identifier stored in a common table. A record has data fields that are defined by the structure of the object (e.g., fields of certain data types and purposes). A record can also have custom fields defined by a user. A field can be another record or include links thereto, thereby providing a parent-child relationship between the records.”, [0029], “The log entry may include a variety of data such as a tenant ID (i.e., a unique identifier associated with the tenant), event type (i.e., a login), location (i.e., the geographic location from which the client logged into the application), timestamp (i.e., when the login occurred), and internal system information (e.g., a server load associated with the login).”, [0038], “Each log entry generated upon a client logging in includes five data fields: tenant ID, event type, location, timestamp, and server load, as depicted for log entry D in FIG. 3A.”);
accessing, by the computing device, the document including the hierarchical log of event entries corresponding to respective events associated with the process ([0018], “access log file data indicating user login activities to determine where users (i.e., clients of the tenant) are logging into applications from and plot the locations on a map.”, [0024], “user system 110a and user system 110b may be able to access their respective log files by application server 120.”, [0052], “in FIG. 3B, a URI event generates 3 log entries all of the same entry type (e.g., URI): Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) (e.g., for accessing a CSS file), JavaServer Pages (JSP) (e.g., for accessing a JSP file), and JavaScript (JS) (e.g., for accessing a JS file).”, [0056], “Tenants who pay for the service may have their customer-facing log files stored in customer-facing log files 115 and access the logs through API 435. Clients who do not pay may not have any log files in customer-facing log files 115, or may not be able to access any sort of log file in customer-facing log files 115.”), wherein the document is stored in a tracking repository of the document-based monitoring system ([0107], “The tracking and reporting of updates to a record stored in a database system can be facilitated with a multi-tenant database system 16”), wherein the tracking repository permits substantially simultaneous access to the document by two or more computing devices ([0022], “the disclosed methods, apparatus, systems, and computer-readable storage media may be configured or designed for use in a multi-tenant database environment.”, [0107], “a multi-tenant database system 16”, [0060], “a multi-tenant database system (MTS).”, [0099], “The pod 1244 may share a database instance 1290 configured as a multi-tenant environment in which different organizations share access to the same database.”).
adding, by the computing device, an additional event entry to the hierarchical log in the tracking repository based at least in part on the event message, wherein the additional event entry comprises information identifying the event message and an execution time for the event ([0025], “providing a parent-child relationship (hierarchical log) between the records.”, Fig 3A, “event entry with timestamp”, [0039], “Each of the five log entries in log file 310 may also be generated upon a client action by the multi-tenant system”).
13. Regarding claim 3, Torman teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein accessing the document further comprises creating the document ([0018], “a server may parse through the log file generated by the multi-tenant database service and create customer-facing log files for each of the tenants.”, [0025], [0028], “log entries corresponding to the interactions may be generated and saved in log files in log files database 125, which may be a content management system, document repository, database or other storage mechanism for log files.”, [0037], [0053], “create a data object by writing a row in database 430 with a pointer (e.g., a URL) to the appropriate log files stored in customer-facing log files 115.”, [0106], “creating a new invoice”).
14. Regarding claim 4, Torman teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches wherein the event entry includes a state of the one or more processes ([0107], “The tracking and reporting of updates to a record stored in a database system”).
15. Regarding claim 5, Torman teaches the invention as claimed in claim 4 above and further teaches updating, by the computing device, event entry based on a change in the state of the one or more processes ([0106-0107], “The tracking and reporting of updates to a record stored in a database system”).
16. Regarding claim 6, Torman teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above and further teaches querying, by the computing device, the hierarchical log ([0023], [0067], [0096-0098]).
17. Regarding claims 8 and 10-13, those claims recite a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction performs the method of claims 1 and 3-6 respectively and are rejected under the same rationale.
18. Regarding claims 15 and 17-20, those claims recite a system that performs the method of claims 1 and 3-6 respectively and rejected under the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
19. 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 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.
20. 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) A patent may not be obtained through the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
21. Claims 2, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Torman et al (US 20150127670 A1) in view of Welc et al (US 20100162247 A1) hereinafter as Welc.
22. Regarding claim 2, Torman teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, Torman did not specifically teach identifying, by the computing device, a parent entry for the event entry based at least in part on the execution time.
However, Welc teaches identifying, by the computing device, a parent entry for the event entry based at least in part on the execution time ([0097], “the entry for the parent transaction is updated with a lowest timestamp value associated with the child threads when the entry is enabled again”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Welc’s system into Torman and by incorporating Welc into Torman because both systems are related to monitoring data would executing nested concurrent threads of a transaction (Welc).
23. Regarding claim 9, this claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction that performs the method of claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
24. Regarding claim 16, this claim recites a system that performs the method of claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
25. Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Torman et al (US 20150127670 A1) in view of Agarwal et al (US 20160378881 A1) hereinafter as Agarwal.
26. Regarding claim 7, Torman teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1 above, Torman did not specifically teach aggregating, by the computing device, the hierarchical log with one or more additional hierarchical logs.
However, Agarwal teaches aggregating, by the computing device, the hierarchical log with one or more additional hierarchical logs ([0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to incorporate the concept of teachings suggested in Agarwal’s system into Torman and by incorporating Agarwal into Torman because both systems are related to monitoring data would aggregating and summarizing sequences of hierarchical records. (Agarwal, [0004]).
27. Regarding claim 14, this claim recites a non-transitory computer readable medium storing instruction performs the method of claim 2 and is rejected under the same rationale.
Respond to Amendments and Arguments
28. Regarding the double patenting rejection.
Applicants request that this rejection be held in abeyance at least until the claims are in condition for allowance, without commenting on the basis for the double patenting rejection.
29. Regarding the 101 rejections.
1. Applicants submit that the amended independent claims include multiple limitations that are not practical for a human mind to perform.
2. The claims integrate any purportedly recited abstract idea into a practical
Application Under the USPTO 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (MPEP §
2106.04).
3. Specification as Evidence of Technological Improvement:
Technical Problems in Existing Systems.
Technical Solution and Technological Improvement.
The Claims Recite the Technological Solution that Achieves the
Improvement.
Examiner presents the following responses to Applicant’s arguments:
Applicant's arguments received regarding the 101 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Referring to the previous Office action. As a means of providing further clarification, Examiner has expanded the analysis for comprehensibility while maintaining the rejection of the claims under 101.
30. Regarding the 102/103 rejections.
In the remarks received 08/05/2026, applicant amended claim 1 to recite new and argued that the combination of Dasdan in view of Torman does not teach the invention recited in the amended claim 1, for several reasons, including but not limited to, The combination of Dasdan and Torman does not teach or suggest all elements of The Applicant's independent claim 1.
Examiner presents the following responses to Applicant’s arguments:
Applicant’s arguments see REM, filed 08/05/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are NOT persuasive. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made by Torman et al (US 20150127670 A1).
CONCLUSION
The Applicant’s amendment necessitated a new ground of rejection. Therefore, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicants are reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 C.F.R. § 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 HICHAM SKHOUN whose telephone number is (571)272-9466. The examiner can normally be reached Normal schedule: Mon-Fri 10am-6:30pm.
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, Amy Ng can be reached at 5712701698. 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.
/HICHAM SKHOUN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2164
Prosecution Insights