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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This is a final rejection. Claims 1-20.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendment date 08/25/2026, Amending Claims 1-20.
Response to Amendment
The previously pending rejection under 35 USC 101, will be maintained. The 101 rejection is updated in light of the new claims.
The previously specification objections will be withdrawn.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 102/103- Applicant’s arguments, see pages 26-29, filed 08/25/2026, with respect to the art rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive, the rejection under 35 USC 102/103 has been withdrawn. No art rejection has been put forth in the rejection for the reason found in the “Allowable Subject Matter” section found below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/25/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive, moreover, any new grounds of rejection have been necessitated by applicant’s amendments to the claims,
Response to Arguments under 35 USC 101:
Applicant argues (Pages 22- of the remarks): with regard to Step 2A, Prong One
Applicant submits that no reasonable interpretation of amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19 would characterize these claims, especially when considered as an ordered combination of the recited steps/elements, as containing features that are recited at a high level of generality and are without sufficient detail or implementation structure.
Particularly, these newly claimed details incorporate various feature scorers, time projectors, and mergers for generating multiple matrix outputs based on varied information that when taken in combination allow for improved forecast generation. Thus, these claimed features enable a system for efficient multi-horizon forecasting.
….
Applicant respectfully submits that the above-described improvements made by the recited features integrate the claims into a practical application and the§ 101 rejection should be withdrawn for reasons similar to those set forth by the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) in its decision on request for rehearing in Ex parte Desjardins et al. In that decision the panel held that "claims directed to an improvement in the functioning of a computer, an improvement to other technology or technical field are patent eligible."
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The Applicant's Specification titled " SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR LOW POWER MULTI-HORIZON TIME SERIES FORECASTING WITH INTERPRETABILITY" emphasizes the need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for performing a multi-horizon forecasting that provides relevance scoring of features considered in many applications, such as energy demand forecasting, financial market prediction, or supply chain management. In example aspects, based on received data " (Spec. figure 2).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of performing a multi-horizon forecasting that provides relevance scoring of features considered in many applications, such as energy demand forecasting, financial market prediction, or supply chain management. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite performing a multi-horizon forecasting that provides relevance scoring of features considered in many applications, such as energy demand forecasting, financial market prediction, or supply chain management. which pertain to "agreements in form of contract, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 10 and 19 recites the abstract idea of performing a multi-horizon forecasting that provides relevance scoring of features considered based on different time series data. which is “observation, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” expressly categorized under mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional element, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “additional element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims recites the additional limitation A system, a computing apparatus, a processor, interface, a memory are recited in a high level of generality and recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp. 134 S. Ct, at 2360,110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP 2106.05(f). All of these additional elements are not significantly more because these, again, are merely the software and/or hardware components used to implement the abstract idea on a general purpose computer.
The use of generic computer component does not impose any meaningful limit on the computer implementation of the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (step 2A-prong two: NO).
Further, with regard to mining (i.e., searching over a network), receiving, processing, storing data, and parsing (i.e. extract, transform data), the courts have recognized the following computer functions as well-understood, routing, 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 (i.e. “receiving, processing, transmitting, storing data”, etc.) are well-understood, routine, etc. (MPEP 2106.05(d))
Applicant argues (Pages 24-25 of the remarks): with regard to 2B
The Office Action rejects independent claims 1, 10, and 19 for being an abstract idea because they recite certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions) and mental processes.
But this conclusion does not apply to amended claims 1, 10, and 19. These claims do not recite commercial interactions. Rather, the claims recite computer-based applications for generating a variety of matrix-based information to generate a multi-horizon forecast.
Additionally, no court case or example from the MPEP has been cited to establish that the features recited in amended claims 1, 10, and 19 relate to a commercial interaction. Thus, these arguments do not apply to amended claims 1, 10, and 19.
Additionally, amended claims 1, 10, and 19 do not recite a mental process. Rather, amended claims 1, 10, and 19 recite computer-based applications, including various feature scorers, time projectors, and mergers for generating multiple matrix outputs based on varied information that generate higher interpretability information with fewer parameters. Thus, this computer-dependent process is incapable of being practically performed in the human mind as required by MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)11l(A). Thus, amended independent claims 1, 10, and 19 cannot be classified as an abstract idea.
For these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the§ 101 rejection be withdrawn.
Examiner respectfully disagrees:
The Alice framework, step 2B (Part 2 of Mayo) determine if the claim is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to “significantly more” than the abstract idea itself. These additional elements recite conventional computer components and conventional functions of:
Claims 1, 10, and 19 does not include my limitations amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea, along. Claims 1, 10, and 19 includes various elements that are not directed to the abstract idea. These elements include “system, a computing apparatus, a processor, interface, a memory”
Examiner asserts that system, a computing apparatus, a processor, interface, a memory are a generic computing element performing generic computing functions. (See MPEP 2106.05(f))
Therefore, the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or display components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of know, conventional pieces,” but merely call for performance of the claimed on a set of generic computer components” and display devices.
In addition, fig. 1, of the specifications detail any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas.
The computing elements with a computing device is recited at high level of generality (e.g. a generic device performing a generic computer function of processing data). Thus, this step is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception on a generic computer. In addition, using a processor to process data has been well-understood routing, conventional activity in the industry for many years.
Generic computer features, such as system or storage, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These limitations merely describe implementation for the invention using elements of a general-purpose system, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am. Inc., 793 F .3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1791 (Federal Circuit 2015).
Claim Rejections 35 USC §101
35 U.S.C. § 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter, specifically an abstract idea without a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Under the 35 U.S.C. §101 subject matter eligibility two-part analysis, Step 1 addresses whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. See MPEP §2106.03. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 1] whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). See MPEP §2106.04. If the claim is directed toward a judicial exception, it must then be determined in Step 2A [prong 2] whether the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. See MPEP §2106.04(d). Finally, if the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, it must additionally be determined in Step 2B whether the claim recites "significantly more" than the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05.
Examiner note: The Office's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) is currently found in the Ninth Edition, Revision 10.2019 (revised June 2020) of the Manual of Patent Examination Procedure (MPEP), specifically incorporated in MPEP §2106.03 through MPEP §2106.07(c).
Regarding Step 1
Claims 1-9 are directed toward a method (process). Claims 10-18 are directed to a non-transitory (machine) and claims 19-20 are directed to a system (machine). Thus, all claims fall within one of the four statutory categories as required by Step 1.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 1]
Claims 1-20 are directed toward the judicial exception of an abstract idea.
Independent claims 10 and 19 recites essentially the same abstract features as claim 1, thus are abstract for the same reason as claim 1.
Regarding independent claim 1, the bolded limitations emphasized below correspond to the abstract ideas of the claimed invention:
Claim 1. A method for performing a multi-horizon forecast of a time series, the method being implemented by at least one processor, the method comprising:
receiving, by the at least one processor, first information that includes past targets of the time series, past covariates, and static information;
generating, by the at least one processor via a first feature scorer, a first feature score that includes a respective first feature relevance score assigned by the first feature scorer to each of the past targets, the past covariates, and the static information;
generating, by the at least one processor, a past learning matrix based on the first feature score;
generating, by the at least one processor via a time projector, a time projection based on the first feature score;
receiving, by the at least one processor, second information that includes future covariates;
generating, by the at least one processor via a second feature scorer, a second feature score that includes a respective second feature relevance score assigned by the second feature scorer to each of the future covariates;
generating, by the at least one processor, a future learning matrix based on the time projection and the second feature score;
merging, by the at least one processor via a merger, the future learning matrix and the past learning matrix to generate a merged matrix; and
generating, by the at least one processor, a forecast matric by applying a connected layer that learns transformations from the merged matrix; and
outputting, by the at least one processor, the forecast matrix,
wherein the relevance scores provided by the first feature scoring and the second feature scoring provides interpretability for the forecast,
wherein the past targets include a plurality of values set in a historical time period and are used as a baseline for comparison for the outputting of the forecast,
wherein the past covariates include factors that influence the forecast and are not part of the time series, and
wherein the future covariates include external variables expected to influence the forecast.
The Applicant's Specification titled " SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR LOW POWER MULTI-HORIZON TIME SERIES FORECASTING WITH INTERPRETABILITY" emphasizes the need for data analysis, "In summary, the present disclosure relates to methods and systems for performing a multi-horizon forecasting that provides relevance scoring of features considered in many applications, such as energy demand forecasting, financial market prediction, or supply chain management. In example aspects, based on received data " (Spec. figure 2).
Applicant's claims as recited above provide a business solution of performing a multi-horizon forecasting that provides relevance scoring of features considered in many applications, such as energy demand forecasting, financial market prediction, or supply chain management. Applicant's claimed invention pertains to commercial/legal interactions because the limitations recite performing a multi-horizon forecasting that provides relevance scoring of features considered in many applications, such as energy demand forecasting, financial market prediction, or supply chain management. which pertain to "agreements in form of contract, legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors and business relations" expressly categorized under commercial/legal interactions. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Furthermore, As the bolded claim limitations above demonstrate, independent claims 1, 10 and 19 recites the abstract idea of performing a multi-horizon forecasting that provides relevance scoring of features considered based on different time series data. which is “observation, evaluations, judgments, and opinions,” expressly categorized under mental processes. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II).
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 further reiterate the same abstract ideas with further embellishments, such as
claim 2 (Similarly Claim 11) wherein the generating of the first feature score is independent of the future covariates, and wherein the first information includes a number of parameters below a threshold such that the at least one processor uses a number of resources below a second threshold for the outputting of the forecast matrix.
claim 3 (Similarly Claim 11) first feature classifying the first information through a first feature classification layer; first aggregating at least some of the results of the first feature classifying with a first aggregator; first normalizing at least some of the results of the first aggregating; and first multiplying at least some of the results of the first feature classifying with at least some of the results of the first normalizing.
claims 4 (Similarly Claim 11) wherein the first normalizing of the
at least some of the results of the first aggregating includes outputting each of the respective first feature relevance scores of the past targets, the past covariates, and the static information.
claims 5 (Similarly Claim 11) wherein the generating of the second feature score is independent of the past targets, the past covariates, and the static information.
claims 6 (Similarly Claim 11) second feature classifying the second information through a second feature classification layer; second aggregating at least some of the results of the second feature classifying with a second aggregator; second normalizing at least some of the results of the second aggregating; and second multiplying at least some of the results of the second feature classifying with at least some of the results of the second normalizing.
claim 7 (Similarly Claim 11) wherein the second normalizing of the at least some of the results of the second aggregating includes outputting each of the respective second feature relevance scores of the future covariates.
claim 8 (Similarly Claim 11) wherein the merging comprises applying cross attention to the output of the past learning matrix and the future learning matrix.
claim 9 (Similarly Claim 11) the past targets have a sequence length L and a number of targets C, and the first feature score has an associated predetermined hidden dimension H;
the generated first feature score is a first feature score matric with dimensions of LxH;
the past learning is matrix has dimensions of L x H;
the time projection is a time projection matrix with dimensions of T x H, where T is a predetermined prediction length;
the future learning matrix has dimensions of T x H;
the merged matrix has dimensions of T x H; and
the forecast matric has dimensions of T x C.
claim 20 wherein: the first feature score is independent of the future covariates; and the second feature score is independent of the past targets, the past covariates, and the static information, and
wherein the first information includes a number of parameters below a threshold such that the processor uses a number of resources below a second threshold for the outputting of the forecast matrix.
which are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract ideas as indicated for independent claims 1, 10 and 19.
Regarding Step 2A [prong 2]
Claims 1-20 fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 10 and 19 include the following additional elements which do not amount to a practical application:
Claim 1. A processor
Claim 10. A non-transitory, a processor
Claim 19. A system, a computing apparatus, a processor, interface, a memory
The bolded limitations recited above in independent claims 1, 10 and 19 pertain to additional elements which merely provide an abstract-idea-based-solution implemented with computer hardware and software components, including the additional elements of A system, a computing apparatus, a processor, interface, a memory
which fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because there are (1) no actual improvements to the functioning of a computer, (2) nor to any other technology or technical field, (3) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine, (4) nor do the claims provide a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, (5) nor provide other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106.05 (a-c & e-h), (6) nor do the claims apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, in view of MPEP §2106.04(d)(2). The Specification provides a high level of generality regarding the additional elements claimed without sufficient detail or specific implementation structure so as to limit the abstract idea, for instance, " The methods may also be at least partially embodied in the form of a computer into which computer program code is loaded or executed, such that, the computer becomes a special purpose computer for practicing the methods. When implemented on a general-purpose processor, the computer program code segments configure the processor to create specific logic circuits. The methods may alternatively be at least partially embodied in application specific integrated circuits for performing the methods. (Spec. fig. 1). Nothing in the Specification describes the specific operations recited in claim 1 (Similarly claims 10, and 19) as particularly invoking any inventive programming, or requiring any specialized computer hardware or other inventive computer components, i.e., a particular machine, or that the claimed invention is somehow implemented using any specialized element other than all-purpose computer components to perform recited computer functions. The claimed invention is merely directed to utilizing computer technology as a tool for solving a business problem of data analytics. Nowhere in the Specification does the Applicant emphasize additional hardware and/or software elements which provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field, other than using these elements as a computational tool to automate and perform the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(a & e).
The relevant question under Step 2A [prong 2] is not whether the claimed invention itself is a practical application, instead, the question is whether the claimed invention includes additional elements beyond the judicial exception that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application by imposing a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. This is not the case with Applicant's claimed invention which merely pertains to steps for performing a multi-horizon forecasting that provides relevance scoring of features considered in many applications, such as energy demand forecasting, financial market prediction, or supply chain management and the additional computer elements a tool to perform the abstract idea, and merely linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04 and §21062106.05(f-h). Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering, analysis and data output to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.04 and §2106.05(g). Thus, the additional elements recited above fail to provide an actual improvement in computer functionality, or to a technology or technical field. See MPEP §2106.04(d)(1) and §2106§2106.05 (a & e).
Instead, the recited additional elements above, merely limit the invention to a technological environment in which the abstract concept identified above is implemented utilizing the computational tools provided by the additional elements to automate and perform the abstract idea, which is insufficient to provide a practical application since the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04. Automating the recited claimed features as a combination of computer instructions implemented by computer hardware and/or software elements as recited above does not qualify an otherwise unpatentable abstract idea as patent eligible. Alternatively, the Office has long considered data gathering and data processing as well as data output recruitment information on a social network to be insignificant extra-solution activity, and these additional elements used to gather and output recruitment information on a social network are insignificant extra-solution limitations that do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.05(g). The current invention is directed to performing a multi-horizon forecasting that provides relevance scoring of features considered in many applications, such as energy demand forecasting, financial market prediction, or supply chain management. When considered in combination, the claims do not amount to improvements of the functioning of a computer, or to any technology or technical field. Applicant's limitations as recited above do nothing more than supplement the abstract idea using additional hardware/software computer components as a tool to perform the abstract idea and generally link the use of the abstract idea to a technological environment, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application since they do not impose any meaningful limits.
Dependent claims 2-9, 11-18, and 20 merely incorporate the additional elements recited above, along with further embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10 and 19 respectively, for example, but these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1, 10 and 19 furthermore, merely using/applying in a computer environment such as merely using the computer as a tool to apply instructions of the abstract idea do nothing more than provide insignificant extra-solution activity since they amount to data gathering, analysis and outputting. Furthermore, they do not pertain to a technological problem being solved in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and/or the limitations fail to achieve an actual improvement in computer functionality or improvement in specific technology other than using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
Therefore, the additional elements recited in the claimed invention individually, and in combination fail to integrate the recited judicial exception into any practical application.
Regarding Step 2B
Claims 1-20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s) as described above with respect to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional element of claims 1, 10 and 19 include A system, a computing apparatus, a processor, interface, a memory. The displaying interface and storing data merely amount to a general purpose computer used to apply the abstract idea(s) (MPEP 2106.05(f)) and/or performs insignificant extra-solution activity, e.g. data retrieval and storage, as described above (MPEP 2106.05(g)) which are further merely well-understood, routine, and conventional activit(ies) as evidenced by MPEP 2106.06(05)(d)(II) (describing conventional activities that include transmitting and receiving data over a network, electronic recordkeeping, storing and retrieving information from memory, electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, and a web browser’s back and forward button functionality). Therefore, similarly the combination and arrangement of the above identified additional elements when analyzed under Step 2B also fails to necessitate a conclusion that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea directed to performing a multi-horizon forecasting that provides relevance scoring of features considered in many applications, such as energy demand forecasting, financial market prediction, or supply chain management.
Claims 1-20 is accordingly rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea(s)) without significantly more.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 are allowable over the prior art, however, these claims remain rejected under 35 USC 101.
Closest prior art to the invention include Wicaksono et al. US 2024/0412131: Contact center workload forecasts covering varying timeseries granularities and operating horizons, Cheong et al. US 12,481,998: Deep learning based method and system for detecting abnormal cryptocurrency transaction between computing devices in a blockchain network and Baryannis, George, Samir Dani, and Grigoris Antoniou. "Predicting supply chain risks using machine learning: The trade-off between performance and interpretability." Future Generation Computer Systems 101 (2019): 993-1004.. None of the prior art of record, taken individually or in combination, teach, inter alia, teaches the claimed invention as detailed in claims 1, 10, and 19, receiving, by the at least one processor, second information that includes future covariates; generating, by the at least one processor via a second feature scorer, a second feature score that includes a respective second feature relevance score assigned by the second feature scorer to each of the future covariates; generating, by the at least one processor, a future learning matrix based on the time projection and the second feature score; …
generating, by the at least one processor, a forecast matric by applying a connected layer that learns transformations from the merged matrix; and
…
wherein the past targets include a plurality of values set in a historical time period and are used as a baseline for comparison for the outputting of the forecast, wherein the past covariates include factors that influence the forecast and are not part of the time series, and wherein the future covariates include external variables expected to influence the forecast.”. The reason to no applying the 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 1-20 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant’s claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Baryannis, George, Samir Dani, and Grigoris Antoniou. "Predicting supply chain risks using machine learning: The trade-off between performance and interpretability." Future Generation Computer Systems 101 (2019): 993-1004.
Kunwar et al. US 2025/0104139: Machine learning based (ML-Based) computing method and system for forecasting financial transactions.
Magdelinic US 11,354,747: Real-time predictive analytics engine.
Amzal US 2022/0058499: Multidimensional hierarchy level recommendation for forecasting models.
Grichnik et al. US 2015/0100378: Supply chain management method and system.
Arik WO 2024/072924: Scalable feature selection via sparse learnable masks.
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 HAMZEH OBAID whose telephone number is (313)446-4941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am-5 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, Patricia Munson can be reached on (571) 270-5396. 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.
/HAMZEH OBAID/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624
Prosecution Insights