CTNF 19/154,638 CTNF 89209 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 Status of the Application The following is a Non-Final Office Action in response to communication received on 8/7/2025. Claims 1-12 are pending in this office action. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) filed on behalf of this case on 8/7/2025 has been considered by the Examiner. Response to Amendment Applicant’s amendments to claims 1-12 before this first action on the merits acknowledged. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Claims 1-6 are interpreted as a machine claim set as the claims recite a system comprising a processor performing functions. Claims 7-12 are interpreted as a process claim set as the claims recite a method. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the idea of collecting information, aggregating the information to perform a calculation, and using the calculations to determine optimization of maintenance plans related to resources, where the specific resources claimed here are equipment in facilities. Collecting information, aggregating the information to perform a calculation, and using the calculations to determine optimization of maintenance plans related to resources, where the specific resources claimed here are equipment in facilities as broadly recited in the claims include observations, evaluations, judgements, and opinions that can be performed in the human mind and or with use of a physical aid (like pen and paper) and accordingly the claims recite a mental process (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). Further additionally and or alternatively the idea of Collecting information, aggregating the information to perform a calculation, and using the calculations to determine optimization of maintenance plans related to resources, where the specific resources claimed here are equipment in facilities broadly recites mathematical calculations. Therefore the claim recites a mathematical concept. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), cited herein, defines mathematical calculations as follows: A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the "mathematical concepts" grouping. A mathematical calculation is a mathematical operation (such as multiplication) or an act of calculating using mathematical methods to determine a variable or number, e.g., performing an arithmetic operation such as exponentiation. There is no particular word or set of words that indicates a claim recites a mathematical calculation. That is, a claim does not have to recite the word "calculating" in order to be considered a mathematical calculation. For example, a step of "determining" a variable or number using mathematical methods or "performing" a mathematical operation may also be considered mathematical calculations when the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light of the specification encompasses a mathematical calculation. Further finally additionally or alternatively the idea of Collecting information, aggregating the information to perform a calculation, and using the calculations to determine optimization of maintenance plans related to resources, where the specific resources claimed here are equipment in facilities recite fundamental economic principles or practices, which is a certain method of organizing human activities. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), cited herein, defines fundamental economic principles or practices as follows: The courts have used the phrases "fundamental economic practices" or "fundamental economic principles" to describe concepts relating to the economy and commerce. Fundamental economic principles or practices include hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. The term "fundamental" is not used in the sense of necessarily being "old" or "well-known." See, e.g., OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 U.S.P.Q.2d 1090, 1092 (Fed Cir. 2015) (a new method of price optimization was found to be a fundamental economic concept); In re Smith, 815 F.3d 816, 818-19, 118 USPQ2d 1245, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (describing a new set of rules for conducting a wagering game as a "fundamental economic practice"); In re Greenstein, 774 Fed. Appx. 661, 664, 2019 USPQ2d 212400 (Fed Cir. 2019) (non-precedential) (claims to a new method of allocating returns to different investors in an investment fund was a fundamental economic concept). However, being old or well-known may indicate that the practice is fundamental. See, e.g., Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 219-20, 110 USPQ2d 1981-82 (2014) (describing the concept of intermediated settlement, like the risk hedging in Bilski, to be a "‘fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce’" and also as "a building block of the modern economy") (citation omitted); Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 611, 95 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (2010) (claims to the concept of hedging are a "fundamental economic practice long prevalent in our system of commerce and taught in any introductory finance class.") (citation omitted); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1313, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The category of abstract ideas embraces ‘fundamental economic practice[s] long prevalent in our system of commerce,’ … including ‘longstanding commercial practice[s]’"). Mental processes, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities are in the groupings of enumerated abstracts ideas, and hence the claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Specifically as recited in the claims: As per independent claims 1 and 7, the claims recite mental process, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities of collecting information, aggregating the information to perform a calculation, and using the calculations to determine optimization of maintenance plans related to resources, where the specific resources claimed here are equipment in facilities. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional elements that recite these above abstract idea limitations are being implemented by software running on a computer (“the maintenance planning assistance system comprising a computer including a processor, a storage device coupled to the processor, and an interface coupled to the processor, wherein the maintenance planning assistance system is configured to:”, “wherein the processor is configured to execute:”, and “by the processor”) merely result in apply it. Specifically here the claims invoke computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g. to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further here the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome. i.e. the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. Rather here the claims instead recite a result oriented solution without details as to how the computer performs the modifications or the specific mechanism for accomplishing the result, therefore this is equivalent to the words apply it. Further these additional elements of the limitations being implemented by a computer merely result in generally linking it to the field of computers. As per dependent claims 2 and 8, the claims recite mental process, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities of generating maintenance list of equipment for a facility, calculating various cost and values, solving optimization problems based on the calculated costs and values. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that again this abstract idea is being performed by a processor (“wherein the processor, is, in the first processing configured to:”, “wherein the processor is in the second processing configured to:” and “by the processor”) merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claims 1 and 7 above. As per dependent claims 3 and 9, the claims recite mental process, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities of calculating various costs, and then adding the costs to calculate a value. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that again this abstract idea is being performed by a processor (“wherein the processor is, in the first processing, configured to:” and “by the processor”) merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claims 1 and 7 above. As per claims 4 and 10, the claims recite mental process, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities of holding information for maintenance deadlines, calculating various costs, and using the costs to determine values. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that again this abstract idea is being performed by a processor ( “wherein the processor is, in the second processing, configured to:” and “by the processor”) merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claims 1 and 7 above. As per claims 5 and 11, the claims recite mental process, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of organizing human activities of generate a maintenance candidate time, calculate failure rates and values, determine a maintenance candidate period as an optimization problem, and register a recommended maintenance time being the result of the third optimization problem. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that again this abstract idea is being performed by a processor ( “wherein the processor is configured to” and “by the processor”) merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claims 1 and 7 above. As per claims 6 and 12, the claims recite mental process, mathematical concepts, and certain methods of holding operation information for managing an operation plan for the facility, updating the swapping operation plan for the facility for a newer operation when the plan does not satisfy the second constraint condition, and executing (performing) again the first and second processing. This is part of the abstract idea. The additional element that again this abstract idea is being performed by a processor ( “wherein the processor is configured to” and “by the processor”) merely result in apply it or generally linking it to the field of computers as discussed above in claims 1 and 7 above. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely recite limitations that are not indicative of an inventive concept (“significantly more”) in that the claims merely recite: (1) Adding the words “apply it” ( or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)) and (2) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)), as detailed above with respect to the practical application step. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. Claim(s) 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Michael et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2022/0147952). As per claim 1, Michael et al. teaches A maintenance planning assistance system for generating a maintenance plan for a facility which is used for execution of a service and are formed of a plurality of pieces of equipment, (see abstract and title, Examiner’s note: scalable automated maintenance optimization system for managing replacement of parts in a portfolio of assets (see abstract), further title teaches this may be a system or method). the maintenance planning assistance system comprising a computer including a processor, a storage device coupled to the processor, (see paragraphs 0071-0073, Examiner’s note: software running on a computer to perform operations). and an interface coupled to the processor, (see paragraphs 0075-0076, Examiner’s note: system includes an interface). wherein the maintenance planning assistance system is configured to: couple to a system that operates a plurality of the facilities; and hold equipment state information for managing a recommended maintenance time of each of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the facility, (see paragraphs 0013 and 0080, Examiner’s note: ingestion engine in configuration to receive a plurality of maintenance records pertaining to replacement of one or more parts of the one or more assets in the profiles (see paragraph 0013) and this can be provided from a client based management system (see paragraph 0080)). wherein the recommended maintenance time is a time at which a cost required to maintain the each of the plurality of pieces of equipment is low and a failure rate of the each of the plurality of pieces of equipment is low, and wherein the processor is configured to execute: (see paragraphs 0099 and 0103, Examiner’s note: predictive maintenance management system generates a replacement strategy that aims to increase asset availability for profitable utilization, and increase reliability or reduce disruption, while decreasing the cost of ownership by optimizing maintenance and replacement of parts (see paragraph 0099). Further teaches the optimization process may be based on cost of maintenance and downtime (see paragraph 0103)). first processing of generating, for each facility, a plurality of maintenance equipment lists, each of which is a combination of pieces of equipment of the facility to be maintained at a maintenance time, as a first optimization problem in which a first constraint condition relating to a probability of a defect occurrence in the facility and an evaluation value calculated through use of a facility maintenance cost loss for evaluating an economic loss caused by the maintenance of the each of the plurality of pieces of equipment at a time deviating from the recommended maintenance time are used to search for one of the plurality of maintenance equipment lists; and second processing of generating, for each of the plurality of the facilities, a plurality of maintenance plans, each of which is a combination of a maintenance date and time, allocation of a resource, and one of the plurality of maintenance equipment lists, as a second optimization problem in which a second constraint condition relating to a total of the probabilities of the defect occurrence in the facility and the resource required to maintain the each of the plurality of pieces of equipment and a comprehensive evaluation value calculated through use of the evaluation values are used to search for one of the plurality of maintenance plans (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and 0109-0112 and Figures 15 and 17, Examiner’s note: paragraphs 0103-0106 (corresponding to Figure 15) that provide the results of the maintenance analysis to the user based on optimization of constraints based on different scenarios of variables like cost, downtime, and importance of part (priority) to display actions or results to a user in a prioritized list as well as paragraphs 0109-0112 (corresponding to Figure 17) that further expands on how the results in Figure 15 came about and provides a way for a user to dynamically manipulate and change recommendations based on different tradeoffs between variables based on user preferences like time, cost, and importance read on either one the first and second processing as claimed). Further independent Claim 7 recites substantially the same language as detailed above with respect to claim 1 and is corresponding rejected under the same grounds as detailed above with respect to claim 1. As per claim 2, Michael et al. teaches wherein the processor is, in the first processing, configured to: generate a candidate maintenance equipment list for the facility; calculate, for each of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the facility, as a first minimum cost, a minimum value of a maintenance cost per unit time in a case where the maintenance is executed at the recommended maintenance time; calculate, for each of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the facility, as a first comparison cost, a maintenance cost per unit time in a case where the maintenance is executed in a maintenance period; calculate, for each of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the facility, as an equipment maintenance cost loss, a difference between the first comparison cost and the first minimum cost; calculate a total of the equipment maintenance cost losses of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the facility as the facility maintenance cost loss; calculate the evaluation value through use of a work amount of the maintenance for a piece of equipment to be maintained in the candidate maintenance equipment list and the facility maintenance cost loss; and solve the first optimization problem which uses the first constraint condition and the evaluation value, to thereby generate a new candidate maintenance equipment list, and wherein the processor is, in the second processing, configured to: generate a candidate maintenance plan for each of the plurality of the facilities; calculate, as the comprehensive evaluation value, a total of the evaluation values corresponding to the maintenance equipment list of each of the plurality of candidate maintenance plans; and solve the second optimization problem which uses the second constraint condition and the comprehensive evaluation value, to thereby generate a new candidate maintenance plan group. (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and 0109-0112 and Figures 15 and 17, Examiner’s note: paragraphs 0103-0106 (corresponding to Figure 15) that provide the results of the maintenance analysis to the user based on optimization of constraints based on different scenarios of variables like cost, downtime, and importance of part (priority) to display actions or results to a user in a prioritized list as well as paragraphs 0109-0112 (corresponding to Figure 17) that further expands on how the results in Figure 15 came about and provides a way for a user to dynamically manipulate and change recommendations based on different tradeoffs between variables based on user preferences like time, cost, and importance of a particular part read on either one the first and second processing of calculating variables related to cost and value based on maintenance periods, determining differences in cost between maintenance periods, solving optimization problems related to those variables, and generating corresponding lists based on those calculations and optimizations as claimed. It is further noted that the Examiner does not interpret the “thereby” clauses in the claim to limit claim scope as the claim suggests or makes optional but does not require the claims limitations to be performed, see MPEP 2111.04, however in the efforts of compact prosecution the Examiner has mapped the claims to the elements as discussed above). Claim 8 recites substantially the same language as detailed above with respect to claim 2 and is corresponding rejected under the same grounds as detailed above with respect to claim 2. As per claim 3, Michael et al. teaches wherein the processor is, in the first processing, configured to: calculate, as a second minimum cost, a minimum value of a cost of work per unit time in a case where all pieces of equipment to be maintained in the candidate maintenance equipment list are maintained at the recommended maintenance time; calculate, as a second comparison cost, a cost of work per unit time in a case where all the pieces of equipment to be maintained in the candidate maintenance equipment list are maintained at the maintenance time; calculate a difference between the second comparison cost and the second minimum cost as a facility maintenance cost correction value for evaluating a reduction effect for the maintenance cost in a case where a plurality of pieces of the equipment are simultaneously maintained; and add the facility maintenance cost loss and the facility maintenance cost correction value to each other, to thereby calculate the evaluation value. (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and 0109-0112 and Figures 15 and 17, Examiner’s note: paragraphs 0103-0106 (corresponding to Figure 15) that provide the results of the maintenance analysis to the user based on optimization of constraints based on different scenarios of variables like cost, downtime, and importance of part (priority) to display actions or results to a user in a prioritized list as well as paragraphs 0109-0112 (corresponding to Figure 17) that further expands on how the results in Figure 15 came about and provides a way for a user to dynamically manipulate and change recommendations based on different tradeoffs between variables based on user preferences like time, cost, and importance read on the first processing of calculating variables related to cost based different maintenance times, and calculating a difference between the two costs to provide an optimized result as claimed. Further the adding could be user preferences of comparing different strategies to each other to make a determination of which changes to make, leave the same, or accept in the system (see paragraph 0109-0112 and Figure 17) or alternatively could be the displayed prioritized list that takes into consideration time, cost, and importance of parts to provide an optimized (preferred) result (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and Figure 15). It is further noted that the Examiner does not interpret the “thereby” clauses in the claim to limit claim scope as the claim suggests or makes optional but does not require the claims limitations to be performed, see MPEP 2111.04, however in the efforts of compact prosecution the Examiner has mapped the claims to the elements as discussed above). Claim 9 recites substantially the same language as detailed above with respect to claim 3 and is corresponding rejected under the same grounds as detailed above with respect to claim 3. As per claim 4, Michael et al. teaches wherein the maintenance planning assistance system is configured to hold information for managing a maintenance deadline of the facility, and wherein the processor is, in the second processing, configured to: calculate, as a third minimum cost, the maintenance cost per unit time in a case where all pieces of equipment to be maintained in the maintenance equipment list of the facility are maintained at the maintenance deadline; calculate, as a third comparison cost, the maintenance cost per unit time in a case where all the pieces of equipment to be maintained in the maintenance equipment list of the facility are maintained in the maintenance period; calculate a difference between the third comparison cost and the third minimum cost as a second facility maintenance cost loss for evaluating an economic loss in a case where the maintenance is executed at an interval shorter than the maintenance deadline; and calculate, as the comprehensive evaluation value, a total of the evaluation values and the second facility maintenance cost losses corresponding to the maintenance equipment list of each of the plurality of candidate maintenance plans. (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and 0109-0112 and Figures 15 and 17, Examiner’s note: paragraphs 0103-0106 (corresponding to Figure 15) that provide the results of the maintenance analysis to the user based on optimization of constraints based on different scenarios of variables like cost, downtime, and importance of part (priority) to display actions or results to a user in a prioritized list as well as paragraphs 0109-0112 (corresponding to Figure 17) that further expands on how the results in Figure 15 came about and provides a way for a user to dynamically manipulate and change recommendations based on different tradeoffs between variables based on user preferences like time, cost, and importance read on the second processing of calculating variables related to cost and value at different maintenance deadlines, solving operations problems related to those variables, and generating corresponding lists as claimed. Specifically here the system provides the user cost information if the maintenance interval is modified or moved. Further specifically the last two calculating steps could be user preferences of comparing different strategies to each other to make a determination of which changes to make, leave the same, or accept in the system (see paragraph 0109-0112 and Figure 17) or alternatively could be the displayed prioritized list that takes into consideration time, cost, and importance of parts (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and Figure 15). Claim 10 recites substantially the same language as detailed above with respect to claim 4 and is corresponding rejected under the same grounds as detailed above with respect to claim 4. As per claim 5, Michael et al. teaches wherein the processor is configured to: select the facility; generate a maintenance candidate time; calculate, as a facility failure rate, for each of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the selected facility, a total value of failure rates in a case where the maintenance is executed at the maintenance candidate time; calculate, as a second evaluation value, for each of the plurality of pieces of equipment of the selected facility, a total of maintenance costs per unit time in a case where the maintenance is executed at the maintenance candidate time; determine a maintenance candidate period as a third optimization problem in which a constraint condition relating to the facility failure rate and the second evaluation value are used to search for the maintenance candidate period for the plurality of pieces of equipment of the selected facility; and register, as the recommended maintenance time, in the equipment state information, the maintenance candidate period being an execution result of the third optimization problem. (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and 0109-0112 and Figures 15 and 17, Examiner’s note: paragraphs 0103-0106 (corresponding to Figure 15) that provide the results of the maintenance analysis to the user based on optimization of constraints based on different scenarios of variables like cost, downtime, and importance of part (priority) to display actions or results to a user in a prioritized list as well as paragraphs 0109-0112 (corresponding to Figure 17) that further expands on how the results in Figure 15 came about and provides a way for a user to dynamically manipulate and change recommendations based on different tradeoffs between variables based on user preferences like time, cost, and importance read on the calculating costs and values related to failures at maintenance times, determining an optimization related to those values and costs, and generating a corresponding maintenance plan, as claimed. Further specifically, the last two steps of determine and register could be user preferences of comparing different strategies to each other to make a determination of which changes to make, leave the same, or accept in the system (see paragraph 0109-0112 and Figure 17) or alternatively could be the displayed prioritized list that takes into consideration time, cost, and importance of parts (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and Figure 15). Claim 11 recites substantially the same language as detailed above with respect to claim 5 and is corresponding rejected under the same grounds as detailed above with respect to claim 5. As per claim 6, Michael et al. teaches The maintenance planning assistance system according to wherein the maintenance planning assistance system is configured to hold operation information for managing an operation plan for the facility, and wherein the processor is configured to: execute update of the operation information of swapping the operation plan for the facility having an older operation start date and time and the operation plan for the facility having a newer operation start date and time with each other in a case where the maintenance plan which does not satisfy the second constraint condition exists; (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and 0109-0112 and Figures 15 and 17, Examiner’s note: Michael et al. teaches this in multiple ways as Michael et al. teaches user preferences of comparing different strategies based on tradeoffs to each other to make a determination of which changes to make, leave the same, or accept in the system (see paragraph 0109-0112 and Figure 17) or alternatively could be the displayed prioritized list that takes into consideration time, cost, and importance of parts for a user to make changes (see paragraphs 0103-0106 and Figure 15). and execute again the first processing and the second processing. (see paragraph 0016, 0110 and 0112, Examiner’s note: teaches a user may rerun the strategy (see paragraph 0110) and accept those corresponding changes (see paragraph 0112). Further teaches using the user interface is used to update the determined part replacement strategy to correspond to a minimum of the updated cost function(see paragraph 0016)). Claim 12 recites substantially the same language as detailed above with respect to claim 6 and is corresponding rejected under the same grounds as detailed above with respect to claim 6. Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Sillivant Reliability Centered Maintenance Cost Modeling: Lost Opportunity Cost 2015 teaches determining maintenance plans based on taking into consideration time, time to repair, lost opportunity (costs) (see pages 2-3) Galkinm Optimizing Maintenance Plans of Multi-Component Devices 2020 teaches determining maintenance plans of multi component devices based on failure rates and costs (see pages 1-2) Hanada et al. (United States Patent Application Publication Number: US 2023/0024909) teaches updating a facility maintenance plan based on cost, time, and operational data (see abstract and Figure 4) Murali et al. (United States patent Application Publication Number: US 2024/0103959) teaches selecting maintenance plans based on costs, predicted maintenance of assets in a failed stated, and scheduled maintenance for the assets (see abstract) 10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIERSTEN SUMMERS whose telephone number is (571)272-6542. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7am-3:30pm. 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, Nathan Uber can be reached on 5712703923. 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. /KIERSTEN V SUMMERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 2 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 3 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 4 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 5 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 6 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 7 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 8 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 9 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 10 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 11 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 12 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 13 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 14 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 15 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 16 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 17 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 18 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 19 Art Unit: 3626 Application/Control Number: 19/154,638 Page 20 Art Unit: 3626
Prosecution Insights