`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`www .uspto.gov
`
`APPLICATION NO.
`
`14/627,634
`
`
`
`
` FILING DATE
`
`02/20/2015
`
`FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
`
`ATTORNEY DOCKETNO.
`
`CONFIRMATIONNO.
`
`MARK UNAK
`
`CU-100220
`
`4837
`
`WW.
`
`FER
`
`FLENERIP LAW,LLC
`77 West Washington Street
`Suite 800
`Chicago, IL 60602
`
`penne
`
`Coxe
`SYED, FARHAN M
`
`2165
`
`PAPER NUMBER
`
`NOTIFICATION DATE
`
`DELIVERY MODE
`
`03/22/2017
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`info@ fleneriplaw.com
`fleneriplaw_docketing @cardinal-ip.com
`zflener @ fleneriplaw.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`
`
`Status
`1)X] Responsive to communication(s)filed on 2/20/15.
`LJ A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiledon__
`2a)L] This action is FINAL.
`2b) This action is non-final.
`3)L] Anelection was made bythe applicant in responsetoarestriction requirementset forth during the interview on
`
`___} the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)[] Since this application is in condition for allowance exceptfor formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Ex parte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`5) Claim(s) 1-27 is/are pending in the application.
`5a) Of the above claim(s)
`is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`
`6)L] Claim(s)
`is/are allowed.
`7) Claim(s) 1-21is/are rejected.
`8)L] Claim(s)____is/are objectedto.
`
`9)L] Claim(s)
`are subject to restriction and/or election requirement.
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you may be eligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`
`nito/www. uspte.gov/natenis/init events/poh/index.isp
`
`or send an inquiry to PPHieedback@uspte.aov.
`
`Application Papers
`10)KX] The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)] The drawing(s)filed on 2/20/15 is/are: a)X] accepted or b)[_] objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)[] Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d) or (f).
`Certified copies:
`a)L] All
`b)[-] Some** c)L] None ofthe:
`1..] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.L] Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.L] Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`““ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`
`
`Applicant(s)
`Application No.
` 14/627 ,634 UNAK ET AL.
`
`Examiner
`Art Unit
`AIA (First Inventorto File)
`Office Action Summary
`
`2165FARHAN SYED von.
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORY PERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING DATE OF
`THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensions of time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a).
`after SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHS from the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Anyreply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any
`earned patent term adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed
`
`Attachment(s)
`3) CT] Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`1) X Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date.
`:
`.
`4) Ol Other:
`2) X Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date 20150624.
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20170316
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,634
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`1.
`
`The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined
`
`underthefirst inventor to file provisions of the AIA.
`
`2.
`
`In response to communications filed on 20 February 2015, claims 1-21 are
`
`presently pending in the application, of which, claims 1, 8 and 15 are presented in
`
`independent form. The Examiner acknowledgesthat no claims were amended,
`
`cancelled, or newly.
`
`Priority
`
`3.
`
`The Examiner acknowledgesthe pending application claims the benefit of U.S.
`
`Provisional 61/942,295,
`
`filed 20 February 2014 and U.S. Provisional 61/990,893, filed
`
`09 May 2014, and has been accorded the earliest effective file date.
`
`Information Disclosure Statement
`
`4.
`
`The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 24 June 2015 is in
`
`compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure
`
`statement is being considered by the examiner.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,634
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 3
`
`Drawings
`
`5.
`
`The drawings, filed 20 February 2015, have been reviewed and accepted by the
`
`Examiner.
`
`Specification
`
`6.
`
`Thetitle of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly
`
`indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
`
`7.
`
`The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to
`
`determine the presenceofall possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is
`
`requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become awarein the
`
`specification.
`
`Claim Objections
`
`8.
`
`Claims 17 and 18 are objected to becauseofthe following informalities:
`
`Claim 17 is a computer system claim that appears to depend from a computer
`
`program product claim 14. The Examiner presumesthe Applicant intended for the claim
`
`to depend from computer system claim 16.
`
`Claim 18 is a computer system claim that appears to depend from a computer
`
`method claim 1. The Examiner presumesthe Applicant intended for the claim to depend
`
`from computer system claim 15. Appropriate correction is required.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,634
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 4
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
`
`9.
`
`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 improvementthereof, may obtain a patent
`therefor, subject to the conditions and requirementsofthistitle.
`
`10.
`
`Claims 1-21 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.
`
`Claims 1-7 are directed to a computer-implemented method. The claims do not
`
`include additional elements that are sufficient to amountto significantly more than the
`
`judicial exception becausethe claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both
`
`individually and in combination, do not amountto significantly more than an abstract
`
`idea. The claims are subject to a §101 rejection in accordance with the 2016 Interim
`
`Eligibility Guidance for use by USPTO personnelin determining subject mattereligibility
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of the Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v.
`
`CLS BankInt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). The guidance may be found in the Federal
`
`Register (79 FR 74618 (Jul. 14, 2016)) (hereinafter Guidance).
`
`As aninitial matter, the independent claims fall under the four categories of
`
`subject mattereligible for patent protection: process, machines, manufactures, and
`
`compositions of matter. Claims falling under the subject matter categories may be
`
`ineligible for patent protection if they encompass lawsof nature, physical phenomena,
`
`or abstract ideas (judicially recognized exceptions). In Alice, the Supreme Court applied
`
`the two-part frameworkearlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,634
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 5
`
`Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) to examine the issue of the exceptions. The first step
`
`is determining whetherthe claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon,
`
`or an abstract idea. Abstract ideas have beenidentified by the courts as including
`
`fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing humanactivities, an
`
`idea ofitself, and mathematical relationships/formulas (see Guidance at 74622, col. 2,
`
`bottom citing Alice at 2355-56).
`
`Claim 1 recites limitations directed to the abstract idea of ranking or ordering
`
`information - which would fall under the abstract idea type or concept of mathematical
`
`relationships/formulas (see also non-limiting examples of abstract ideas determined by
`
`various courts including organizing information through mathematical correlations and
`
`mathematical procedures for converting one form of numerical representation to another
`
`(Id. at col. 3)).
`
`The second part of the Mayo test asks whetheror not the claim recites additional
`
`elements that amountto significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract
`
`idea). Claim 1 contains no particular limitations regarding the abstract idea other than
`
`receiving a selected product category, associating the selected product category with a
`
`plurality of products available for sale within a catalog, and rendering a mastersetof
`
`attributes for the plurality of products. While the preamble (non-limiting) describes a
`
`computer-implemented environment, adding instructions to merely implement an
`
`abstract idea on a computeris not sufficient to qualify as significantly more (see
`
`Guidanceat p. 74624, col. 3, bullet 1, citing Alice at 2358). Viewed as a whole, these
`
`additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,634
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 6
`
`idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to
`
`significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
`
`With respectto claims 2-7, the claims do not provide significantly more to the
`
`mathematical algorithms encompassedby the independent claims - but are mere
`
`extensions of those algorithms.
`
`Claims 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 becausethe claimed invention is
`
`directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 8, the claim limitation recites
`
`‘computer readable medium.’ However, the usage of the phrase “computer readable
`
`medium”is broad enough to include both “non-transitory” and “transitory” media. The
`
`specification further explicitly does notlimit the utilization of a non-transitory computer
`
`usable storage medium (See specification, paragraph [0024], where non-limiting
`
`transitory and non-transitory examples are given such that any apparatus that can
`
`contain, store, communicate, propagate, or transport the program. electronic, magnetic,
`
`optical, electromagnetic, etc.). Also, extrinsic evidence suggests that computer-readable
`
`storage or tangible medium covers a signal per se. Therefore, when the broadest
`
`reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See /n re Nuijten, 500
`
`F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to
`
`statutory subject matter).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,634
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 7
`
`Claims 9-14 are rejected by virtue of their dependency andfor failing to cure the
`
`deficiencies of the independentclaim 8.
`
`Claims 15=21 are directed to a computer system. The claims do not include
`
`additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial
`
`exception because the claims as a whole, considering all claim elements both
`
`individually and in combination, do not amountto significantly more than an abstract
`
`idea. The claims are subject to a §101 rejection in accordance with the 2016 Interim
`
`Eligibility Guidance for use by USPTO personnelin determining subject mattereligibility
`
`under 35 U.S.C. 101 in view of the Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Lid. v.
`
`CLS BankInt'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347 (2014). The guidance may be found in the Federal
`
`Register (79 FR 74618 (Jul. 14, 2016)) (hereinafter Guidance).
`
`As aninitial matter, the independent claims fall under the four categories of
`
`subject mattereligible for patent protection: process, machines, manufactures, and
`
`compositions of matter. Claims falling under the subject matter categories may be
`
`ineligible for patent protection if they encompass lawsof nature, physical phenomena,
`
`or abstract ideas (judicially recognized exceptions). In Alice, the Supreme Court applied
`
`the two-part frameworkearlier set out in Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus
`
`Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012) to examine the issue of the exceptions. The first step
`
`is determining whetherthe claim is directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon,
`
`or an abstract idea. Abstract ideas have beenidentified by the courts as including
`
`fundamental economic practices, certain methods of organizing humanactivities, an
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,634
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 8
`
`idea ofitself, and mathematical relationships/formulas (see Guidance at 74622, col. 2,
`
`bottom citing Alice at 2355-56).
`
`Claim 15 recites limitations directed to the abstract idea of ranking or ordering
`
`information - which would fall under the abstract idea type or concept of mathematical
`
`relationships/formulas (see also non-limiting examples of abstract ideas determined by
`
`various courts including organizing information through mathematical correlations and
`
`mathematical procedures for converting one form of numerical representation to another
`
`(Id. at col. 3)).
`
`The second part of the Mayo test asks whetheror not the claim recites additional
`
`elements that amountto significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e. abstract
`
`idea). Claim 15 contains no particular limitations regarding the abstract idea other than
`
`receiving a selected product category, associating the selected product category with a
`
`plurality of products available for sale within a catalog, and rendering a masterset of
`
`attributes for the plurality of products. While the preamble (non-limiting) describes a
`
`computer-implemented environment, adding instructions to merely implement an
`
`abstract idea on a computeris not sufficient to qualify as significantly more (see
`
`Guidanceat p. 74624, col. 3, bullet 1, citing Alice at 2358). Viewed as a whole, these
`
`additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract
`
`idea into a patenteligible application of the abstract idea such that the claim amounts to
`
`significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim is rejected under 35
`
`U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,634
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 9
`
`With respectto claims 16-21, the claims do not providesignificantly more to the
`
`mathematical algorithms encompassedby the independent claims - but are mere
`
`extensions of those algorithms.
`
`Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
`
`11.
`
`In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35
`
`U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103)is incorrect, any
`
`correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of
`
`rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be
`
`the same under either status.
`
`12.—The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that
`
`form the basis for the rejections underthis section madein this Office action:
`
`A person shall be entitled to a patent unless —
`
`(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use,
`on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effectivefiling date of the claimed
`invention.
`
`(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an
`application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the
`patent or application, as the case may be, namesanother inventor and waseffectively filed
`before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
`
`13.
`
`Claims 1-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being unpatentable by
`
`Pobbathi, Nageswara,et al (U.S. 2014/0172652, filed 19 December 2012, published
`
`19 June 2014, and knownhereinafter as Pobbathi).
`
`As per claim 1, Pobbathi teaches a computer-implemented method, executed on
`
`a computer, the computer-implemented method comprising:
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,634
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 10
`
`receiving a selected product category from a user (e.g. Pobbathi, see paragraph
`
`[0033], discloses a user responds to requests, where the information retrieval system receives results
`
`identifying products. See further paragraphs [0069-0070], which discloses a search engine receives a
`
`search query and product and category associations.)}
`
`associating the selected product category with a plurality of products
`
`available for sale within an online catalog (e.g. Pobbathi, see paragraph [0038], discloses a
`
`productclassifier is configured to categorize products into a set of categories using information about the
`
`product.); and
`
`rendering a master set of attributes for the plurality of products (e.g. Pobbathi,
`
`see paragraphs [0053-0054], discloses text metadatafields (e.g. sets of attributes) that are associated
`
`with a product and rendered to a document.), wherein the master set of attributes includes
`
`a plurality of discrete attributes that are grouped in accordance with attribute type
`
`(e.g. Pobbathi, see paragraphs [0044-0046], discloses a plurality of discrete attributes such as ‘clothes’,
`
`‘shoes,’ ‘heels,’ etc. with the set of categories associated to a product categorization scheme.).
`
`As per claim 8, Pobbathi teaches a computer program product residing on a
`
`computer readable medium having a plurality of instructions stored thereon which, when
`
`executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations comprising:
`
`receiving a selected product category from a user (e.g. Pobbathi, see paragraph
`
`[0033], discloses a user responds to requests, where the information retrieval system receives results
`
`identifying products. See further paragraphs [0069-0070], which discloses a search engine receives a
`
`search query and product and category associations.)}
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,634
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 11
`
`associating the selected product category with a plurality of products
`
`available for sale within an online catalog (e.g. Pobbathi, see paragraph [0038], discloses a
`
`productclassifier is configured to categorize products into a set of categories using information about the
`
`product.); and
`
`rendering a master set of attributes for the plurality of products (e.g. Pobbathi,
`
`see paragraphs [0053-0054], discloses text metadatafields (e.g. sets of attributes) that are associated
`
`with a product and rendered to a document.), wherein the master set of attributes includes
`
`a plurality of discrete attributes that are grouped in accordance with attribute type
`
`(e.g. Pobbathi, see paragraphs [0044-0046], discloses a plurality of discrete attributes such as ‘clothes’,
`
`‘shoes,’ ‘heels,’ etc. with the set of categories associated to a product categorization scheme. ).
`
`As per claim 15, Pobbathi teaches a computing system including a processor
`
`and memory configured to perform operations comprising:
`
`receiving a selected product category from a user (e.g. Pobbathi, see paragraph
`
`[0033], discloses a user responds to requests, where the information retrieval system receives results
`
`identifying products. See further paragraphs [0069-0070], which discloses a search engine receives a
`
`search query and product and category associations.)}
`
`associating the selected product category with a plurality of products
`
`available for sale within an online catalog (e.g. Pobbathi, see paragraph [0038], discloses a
`
`productclassifier is configured to categorize products into a set of categories using information about the
`
`product.); and
`
`rendering a master set of attributes for the plurality of products (e.g. Pobbathi,
`
`see paragraphs [0053-0054], discloses text metadatafields (e.g. sets of attributes) that are associated
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,634
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 12
`
`with a product and rendered to a document.), wherein the master set of attributes includes
`
`a plurality of discrete attributes that are grouped in accordance with attribute type
`
`(e.g. Pobbathi, see paragraphs [0044-0046], discloses a plurality of discrete attributes such as ‘clothes’,
`
`‘shoes,’ ‘heels,’ etc. with the set of categories associated to a product categorization scheme.).
`
`As per claims 2, 9, and 16, Pobbathi teaches the computer-implemented method
`
`of claim 1, the computer program productof claim 8, and the computer system of claim
`
`15, respectively, further comprising:
`
`associating a matching quantity with each of the plurality of discrete attributes,
`
`wherein each matching quantity defines the quantity of products, chosen from the
`
`plurality of products, that includes the associated discrete attribute (e.g. Pobbathi, see
`
`paragraph [0060-0062], which discloses receiving one or more classifiers (e.g. attributes) for filtering
`
`and/or matching classification.).
`
`As per claims 3, 10, and 17, Pobbathi teaches the computer-implemented
`
`method of claim 2, the computer program product of claim 9, and the computer system
`
`of claim 16, respectively, further comprising:
`
`adjusting the matching quantity for each of the plurality of discrete attributes
`
`based, at least in part, upon one or moreattribute selections made by the user(e.g.
`
`Pobbathi, see paragraph [0060-0063], which discloses matching of candidate is scored/ranked, which
`
`may be adjusted for one or more category, where classifiers may utilize such constraints to produce a
`
`match.).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,634
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 13
`
`As per claims 4, 11, and 18, Pobbathi teaches the computer-implemented
`
`method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 8, and the computer system
`
`of claim 15, respectively, further comprising:
`
`receiving a first attribute selection from the user, wherein the first attribute
`
`selection is chosen from the plurality of discrete attributes included within the master set
`
`of attributes (e.g. Pobbathi, see paragraph [0060-0062], which discloses receiving one or more
`
`classifiers (¢.g. attributes) for filtering and/or matching classification.).
`
`As per claims 5, 12, and 19, Pobbathi teaches the computer-implemented
`
`method of claim 4, the computer program product of claim 11, and the computer system
`
`of claim 18, respectively, further comprising:
`
`filtering the master set of attributes based, at least in part, upon the first attribute
`
`selection, thus definingafirst filtered set of attributes; and rendering the firstfiltered set
`
`of attributes (e.g. Pobbathi, see paragraph [0061], which disclosesclassification may include filtering or
`
`matching classification of a candidate relative to an entity (e.g. product).).
`
`Asper claims 6, 13, and 20, Pobbathi teaches the computer-implemented
`
`method of claim 1, the computer program product of claim 8, and the computer system
`
`of claim 15, respectively, further comprising:
`
`receiving a secondattribute selection from the user, wherein the secondattribute
`
`selection is chosen from the plurality of discrete attributes included within the first
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,634
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 14
`
`filtered set of attributes (e.g. Pobbathi, see paragraph [0060-0062], which discloses receiving one or
`
`more classifiers (e.g. attributes)for filtering and/or matching classification.).
`
`As per claims 7, 14, and 21, Pobbathi teaches the computer-implemented
`
`method of claim 6, the computer program product of claim 13, and the computer system
`
`of claim 20, respectively, further comprising:
`
`filtering the first filtered set of attributes based, at least in part, upon the second
`
`attribute selection, thus defining a secondfiltered set of attributes; and rendering the
`
`secondfiltered set of attributes (e.g. Pobbathi, see paragraph [0061], which disclosesclassification
`
`mayinclude filtering or matching classification of a candidate relative to an entity (e.g. product).).
`
`Conclusion
`
`14.
`
`‘The prior art made of record and notrelied upon is considered pertinent to
`
`applicant’s disclosure. See attached PTO-892 that includes additional prior art of record
`
`describing the general state of the art in which the invention is directed to.
`
`ContactInformation
`
`Anyinquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to Farhan M. Syed whosetelephone numberis 571-272-
`
`7191. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30AM-5:00 PM.
`
`If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
`
`supervisor, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on 571-270-1760. The fax phone
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 14/627,634
`Art Unit: 2165
`
`Page 15
`
`numberfor the organization wherethis application or proceeding is assignedis 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 accessto the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic
`
`Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197(toll-free).
`
`/Farhan M Syed/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
`March 19, 2017
`
`