DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant's amendments and remarks, filed on 02/02/2026, are acknowledged. Applicant's arguments have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from the previous office actions are hereby withdrawn.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-17, 19, 20, and 21 are under presently under examination.
Claim 18 is cancelled. Claim 21 is newly added.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged. This application is a continuation of U.S. patent application No. 19/178,472, filed on April14, 2025, which is a continuation of U.S. patent application No. 18/353,737, filed on July 17, 2023, which claims benefit of U.S. provisional patent application No. 63/5 13,589, filed on July 14, 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement(s)
The information disclosure statement (IDS) document(s) submitted are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS document(s) has/have been fully considered by the examiner.
Withdrawn Rejection
The rejection of claims 1-17, 19, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement is withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendments.
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 1-17, 19, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office published revised guidance on the application of 35 U.S.C. § 101. USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“Guidance”). Under the Guidance, in determining what concept the claim is “directed to,” we first look to whether the claim recites:
(1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic practice, or mental processes) (Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a)-(c), (e)-(h)) (Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that exception into a practical application, do we then look to whether the claim contains an “‘inventive concept’ sufficient to ‘transform’” the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception. Alice, 573 U.S. at 221 (quoting Mayo, 566 U.S. at 82). In so doing, we thus consider whether the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that are not “well-understood, routine and conventional in the field” (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (January 7, 2019).
(4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.(Guidance Step 2B). See Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 54-56.
Guidance Step 1:
The instant invention (claim 1 being representative) is directed to a system that performs a process. Thus, the claims are directed to one of the statutory categories of invention. MPEP 2106.03.
A. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 1
The Revised Guidance instructs us first to determine whether any judicial exception to patent eligibility is recited in the claim. The Revised Guidance identifies three judicially-excepted groupings identified by the courts as abstract ideas: (1) mathematical concepts, (2) certain methods of organizing human behavior such as fundamental economic practices, and (3) mental processes. Regarding claim(s) 1, the claimed steps that are part of the abstract idea are as follows:
receiving activity data or behavioral data for the non-human animal subject, wherein said activity data or said behavioral data is associated with a first condition or said second condition;
producing an updated genotype-phenotype profile for said non-human animal subject based on said activity data or said behavioral data
Mental Processes
In this case, the italicized steps are all nominally recited without any details specifying how these functions are being performed and generally encompass observing data, performing data analysis and/or calculations, and making decisions based on said analysis. In addition, the specification provides sufficient evidence that the claims are directed to an abstract idea since the specific descriptions provided for accomplishing these tasks include algorithms for performing data analysis [pages 4, 10]. Accordingly, but for the recitation of a computer processor, the above steps clearly fall within the mental process groupings of abstract ideas because they cover concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III [Step 2A, Prong 1: YES].
Natural Correlation
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the above claims also recite a natural correlation. In particular, the instant claims require ranking conditions based on their associated genetic-phenotype profiles for animal subject. Therefore, the claims require determining a naturally occurring relationship between a subject’s genetic data and phenotype (i.e. disease). See MPEP 2106.04(b). It is noted that even if a claim does recite a law of nature or natural phenomenon, it may still be eligible. For example, claims reciting a naturally occurring relationship between a patient’s genotype and the risk of QTc prolongation (a law of nature) were held eligible as not “directed to” that relationship because they also recited a step of treating the patient with an amount of a particular medication that was tailored to the patient’s genotype. Vanda Pharms., 887 F.3d at 1134-36, 126 USPQ2d at 1279-81. This particular treatment step applied the natural relationship in a manner that integrated it into a practical application. The court’s analysis in Vanda is equivalent to a finding of eligibility at Step 2A Prong Two (Pathway B).
B. Guidance Step 2A, Prong 2
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional steps/elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional steps/elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
In this case, the additional steps/elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception are as follows:
a database comprising a genotype-phenotype profile for said non-human animal subject, wherein said genotype-phenotype profile comprises a recommendation for a nutritional product based, at least in part, on: genetic data at one or more genomic loci that is associated with said first condition or a second condition that differs from said first condition; and phenotype data pertaining to one or more phenotypes that is associated with said first condition, said second condition, or a third condition that differs from said first condition or second condition; a computing device comprising at least one processor, a memory, an operating system configured to perform instructions,
generating a report comprising said updated genotype-phenotype profile for a user of said system, wherein said user is a medical insurance provider for non-human animal subjects and wherein said user produces an insurance product for said non-human animal subject based, at least in part, on said updated genotype-phenotype profile
With regards to the genotype-phenotype profile data, this data is stored in a database for subsequent use by the abstract idea. Therefore, this amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity and is not indicative of an integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). With regards to the step of generating a “report for medical insurance provider” (wherein the user produces an insurance product), this limitation is nominally recited and amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. outputting data). Similarly, the ‘insurance product’ is generically recited and broadly reads on an insurance report/file (absent any limiting definition in the specification to the contrary). Accordingly, this feature is considered to be nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and is not indicative of an integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(h).
With regards to the claimed processor, computer readable medium, and memory these limitations are recited at high level of generality and read on a generic computer. Accordingly, these features are merely being used as tools to perform generic computer functions or the abstract idea, and therefore amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application. [Step 2A, Prong 2: NO].
C. Guidance Step 2B:
This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole amount to significantly more than the recited exception i.e., whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, adds an inventive concept to the claim. See MPEP 2106.05.
As discussed above, the non-abstract steps/elements amount to nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity. Moreover, a review of the specification teaches a plurality of routine and conventional computer elements and devices for obtaining and processing genetic/phenotypic data [0120, 0121, 0122, Figure 1]. Therefore, even upon reconsideration, there is nothing unconventional with regards to the above non-abstract elements/steps. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(Part II). Thus, the independent claim(s) as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible. [Step 2B: NO].
D. Dependent Claims
Dependent claims 2-17, 19, 20, and 21 have also been considered under the two-part analysis but do not include additional steps/elements appended to the judicial exception that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception(s) for the following reasons. In particular, claims 2-7, 9-17, 19-21 are directed to limitations that further limit the specificity of the abstract idea or the nature of the data being used by the abstract idea. Accordingly, these claims are also directed to an abstract idea for the reasons set forth above (Step 2A, prong 1 analysis). Regarding claim(s) 8, 21, these claims further comprises a device for displaying a report on a GUI and further limit the instructions to saving said insurance product. Accordingly, these steps are also considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity and/or generically linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and are not indicative of an integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g) and 2106.05(h). Therefore, the instantly rejected claims are not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea (and/or natural correlation) without significantly more.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 02/02/2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant argues that the amended claims now recite a practical application (by “generating a report for medical insurance provider” to create “an insurance product”). In response, the step of “generating” a report for a user as claimed (wherein the user produces an insurance product) is nominally recited and still amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity (i.e. outputting data) and/or applying the judicial exception in a generic way for reasons discussed above (Step 2A, prong 2 analysis). In addition, the ‘insurance product’ is generically recited and there is nothing inventive about such a product (i.e. it reads on an insurance report). Accordingly, the above steps are not indicative of an integration into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g). For a list of considerations when evaluating whether additional elements integrate a judicial exception into a practical application see MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) lists the following example considerations for evaluating whether a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or another technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Applicant argues that the instant claims recite significantly more than the judicial exception, citing BASCOM. In response, as set forth in the Step 2B analysis above, the examiner clearly explained why additionally recited steps/elements amount do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (Step 2B). Regarding Bascom, the limitations considered as a whole provided a design scheme of the computer, network, and Internet components, which included a filtering element, that was not conventional and, which implemented the abstract idea of filtering in a way that improved the performance of the computer. In this case, there is no recitation of similar elements such that, when considered alone or in combination, are unconventional and implement the abstract idea in a way that improves the performance of a computer. Therefore, absent any evidence to the contrary, the examiner maintains that there is nothing unconventional with regards to the above non-abstract steps being claimed and that the claims as a whole are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more and are not patent eligible. For at least these reasons, the rejection is maintained.
Claim rejections - 35 USC § 112, 2nd Paragraph
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17, 19, 20, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Claims that depend directly or indirectly from claim(s) 5 and 6 are also rejected due to said dependency.
Claim 1 recites “producing an updated genotype-phenotype profile…based on said activity data or said behavioral data.” Firstly, this step relies upon activity data and behavioral data. However, it is unclear in what way this profile is being “updated” because it does not rely upon any of the information from the database comprising a genotype-phenotype profile, i.e. there is no relationship between all of the claimed data elements. Secondly, with regards to said producing, such generic functional claim language amounts to descriptions of problems to be solved and covers all means or methods of performing the claimed functions. A review of the specification does not describe, to any appreciable extent, any algorithms, equations, or prose equivalent that correspond to the claimed function. As a result, it is unclear what computational techniques are included or excluded such that one of ordinary skill in the art would know what computational limitations are intended. Clarification is requested via amendment.
Claim 1 recites “wherein said user is a medical insurance provider…and wherein said user produces an insurance product for said non-human animal subject based, at least in part, on said updated genotype-phenotype profile.” In this case, the above “wherein” clause further limits the nature of the user and suggests a process limitation performed by the user. However, it is unclear what structural/functional limitation of the claimed system is intended by the above “wherein” clause because the user is not a structural element of the claimed system. Applicant is additionally reminded that claim scope is not limited by language that suggests but does not limit a claim to a particular structure. See MPEP § 2111.04.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-17, 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friesen et al. (US 2006/0045909 A1) in view of Sillay et al. (US2014/0257047).
Regarding claim 1, Friesen teaches a method for genome-based diet design [Abstract]. Regarding claim(s) 1, Friesen teaches providing a database comprising genetic and phenotypic data associated with non-human animal subjects, wherein said genetic data is associated with at least one loci and various conditions (i.e. breed specific SNPs) [0038, 0044, 0073, 0087, 0115] and said phenotypic data is associated with zoographical data [0077], phenotypes (species, weight or breed), conditions [0037], [0052], [0074]; environmental data (climate) that is associated with a third condition [0062], [0075]; and treatments, nutritional requirements, BDCs, ingredients, etc. [0087, 0115], which broadly reads on genetic-phenotype profiles as claimed.
Friesen teaches receiving and processing said genetic data, phenotypic data, and environmental data to determine qualitative or quantitative measure of each that predict if the animal subject will develop and first, second and third condition (para [0051-0052], [0072-0076]). Friesen does not specifically teach producing an updated profile, as claimed. However, absent any limiting definition to the contrary, Friesen reasonably suggests this feature by ranking the first, second and third condition (para [0031], [0052], [0058]); wherein the nutritional product (food or supplement) improves, ameliorates, or prevents at least the highest ranking condition (para [0070], [0098]-[0100]).
Friesen does not specifically teach generating a report comprising said updated genotype-phenotype profile for a user of said system, wherein said user is a medical insurance provider for non-human animal subjects and wherein said user produces an insurance product for said non-human animal subject based, at least in part, on said updated genotype-phenotype profile, as claimed. However, Friesen makes obvious this feature by teaching their end product is a representation of complex genomic data that, through statistical organization and graphical display, allows users to assimilate and explore the data in a natural intuitive manner [0049] and functionality for displaying and storing information [0111, 0125, 0127]. With regards to the feature directed to a user being a medical insurance provider and producing an insurance product, this feature is interpreted as an intended use recitation and, as such, is not given patentable weight.
Moreover, even if these limitations were given patentable weight, Sillay teaches a system comprising a medical data collection device and a cohort database wherein users can include medical practitioners, insurance carriers, medical researchers and others having access permission [Abstract, Background, Figures 1-3] and functionality for generating reports and master data tables for reporting (i.e. insurance products) [0211]. Therefore, given the breadth of what is claimed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Freisen by including medical insurance providers users, as taught by Sillay, since such features were routine and conventional in the art. The motivation would have been to improve health care by allowing certain drugs to administered to patients with health care, as taught by Sillay.
Regarding dependent claims 2-4, 8-17, 19-21, all aspects of these claims are taught or suggested by the combination of Friesen and Sillay. Regarding claims 2-4, 10, Friesen teaches generating information associated with therapeutic interventions including nutritional products and foods, as set forth above and in [0099, 0104-0107, Table 16], as well as medications (para [0033]). Regarding claim(s) 8, Friesen teaches graphical displays for displaying information associated with various food formulations [0049, 0111, 0125, 0127]. Regarding claim(s) 9, Friesen teaches quantitative ranking that accounts for severity of phenotypic characteristics and/or condition (para [0031], [0052], [0058]), where the highest ranking condition is associated with a deficiency in a vitamin, mineral or antioxidant (para [0064]-[0069], [0090]). Regarding claim(s) 11, 12, Friesen teaches machine learning algorithms for analyzing said data including clustering algorithms, k-means clustering, support vector machines, and computed trees [0046, 0049]. Regarding claim(s) 13-17, Friesen teaches body and hereditary conditions associated with animal breeds as well as wellness attributes comprising states of disease or physiological disorder, states of parasitic infestation, hair and skin condition, and allergies [0004, 0031, 0036]. Regarding claim(s) 19, 20, Friesen teaches obtaining information relating to consumption [0024]. Regarding claim(s) 21, Sillay teaches a master report used by insurance providers, as set forth above.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friesen et al. (US 2006/0045909 A1) in view of Sillay et al. as applied to claims 1-4, 8-17, 19-21, above, in further in view of Kates et al. (US2006/0201433; Pub. Date: Sep. 14, 2006).
Friesen and Sillay make obvious a system for generating reports, as set forth above.
Friesen and Sillay do not specifically teach a system that incorporates a tracking device, collar, and GPS as in claims 5-7. However, Friesen teaches using zoographical attribute data associated with the environment in which the animal lives, including climate, season, geographical location data [0075], which reasonably suggests tracking data. Moreover, Kates teaches a system that includes an animal collar comprising at least one of, an acoustic input device, an acoustic output device, a vibrator device, an odor output device an infrared receiver, an infrared transmitter, an RFID tag reader, a GPS receiver, an inertial motion unit (e.g., accelerometers or gyroscopes) [0012].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the teachings of Friesen and Sillay by including functionality for obtaining tracking data via a GPS collar, with a reasonable expectation of success, since such devices were routine and conventional in the art, as taught by Kates, and since Friesen already provides functionality for using geographical location data. The motivation would have been to improve animal health by providing accounting for geographical changes.
Nonstatutory Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. See In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970);and, In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent is shown to be commonly owned with this application. See 37 CFR 1.130(b).
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Claims 1-17, 19, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10-27, 29-32 of US application 18,353,737 (now allowed as US Patent 12,322,515). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each for the following reasons:
In the present case, reference claim 1 of the ‘515 patent recites all the limitations of those required by instant claim 1 plus additional limitations (e.g. applying a machine learning model). An obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claims because the examined claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claims. See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Therefore, above instant claim(s) is/are anticipated by the narrower reference claims of the issued patent.
Claims 1-17, 19, 20, and 21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 and 21 of US application 19,178,472 in view of Friesen et al. in view of Sillay et al. (as applied in the rejection under 35 USC 103 above). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each for the following reasons:
In the present case, reference claim 1 of the ‘472 application recites all the limitations of those required by instant claim 1 except for generating report comprising recommendations to address a condition associated with a non-human animal subject. However, Friesen teaches or suggests such limitations (for reasons set forth ab0ve). Therefore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would conclude that the invention defined in instant claim 1 would have been an obvious variation of claim 1 of application ‘472 in view of Friesen, who teaches or suggests generating reports/information associated with address a condition with a reasonable expectation of success. The motivation would have been to provide improved animal health via nutritional supplementation. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant generally argues that the double patenting rejections should be withdrawn as they are patentable distinct from the cited reference patents alone, or in combination, with Friesen. In response, this argument is not persuasive in view of the modified rejections set forth above, because applicant has not argued the merits of these rejections, and because no terminal disclaimer(s) in compliance with 37 C.F.R. 1.321 (c) have been filed to overcome these rejections, as required by 37 C.F.R. 1.130(b).
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PABLO S WHALEY whose telephone number is (571)272-4425. The examiner can normally be reached between 1pm-9pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Anita Coope can be reached at 571-270-3614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PABLO S WHALEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619