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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on September 19, 2025.
Status of Claims
Claims 4, 7, 8, 9 and 15 have been amended.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
Claim 11 recites “wherein the one or more digital marketing devices are configured to transmit the location determinative information to the remote server.” Examiner has not found support for these limitations in the specification. The instant specification [00023] teaches the pass may retrieve information stored on a remote server, not transmit information to the server. The remaining claims do not cure the deficiencies above. Correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected 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. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
See MPEP 2161.01 Computer Programming, Computer Implemented Inventions, and 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, First Paragraph recites in part “…original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. See MPEP §§ 2163.02 and 2181, subsection IV. “
Claim 11 recites “wherein the one or more digital marketing devices are configured to transmit the location determinative information to the remote server.” The algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function of claim 11 is not described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 112 (a).
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 1-15 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “desired” in claims 1, 10 and 15 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “desired” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. See MPEP 2173.05 (b) IV Relative Terminology. The word “desired” requires the exercise of subjective judgment without restriction which renders the claim indefinite. Applicant can overcome this rejection by removing the word “desired” or replacing “desired communication” with “displaying a message on the one or more digital marketing devices…”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fernandez (2013/0226704) in view of Skowronek (2010/0010964).
Claim 1
Fernandez discloses a system that includes: a set of sensors, each sensor in the set adapted to transmit a wireless beacon signal, the beacon signal including a sensor ID associated with the sensor; at least one mobile device adapted to receive the wireless beacon signal from the sensor and provide a location of the
mobile device; within a retail environment:
one or more sensors placed in one or more predetermined locations within a target store (Fernandez [0045]). See at least “Each establishment 110 may be a retail establishment (e.g., a store, restaurant, etc.), a building (e.g., a museum, library, etc.), or some defined area (e.g., a parking lot, a sports field, etc.). Each establishment may have one or more sensors 115 placed so as to define one or more zones associated with the establishment.”
Fernandez does not explicitly teach that the sensor transmits the desired information. Skowronek teaches sensors transmitting location information to a device.
wherein each of the one or more sensors transmits desired information that can be received by one or more portable electronic devices carried by one or more end users, the desired information for each of the one or more sensors being based at least in part on the predetermined location of each of the one or more sensors (Skowronek [0004][0040][0059]); See at least [0059] “As the consumer walks through the store, the mobile device 102 (FIG. 1) receives signals about one or more products from one or more NFC sensor/transmitters 216 (FIG. 2). The signals identify the products in proximity to the one or more NFC sensor/transmitters 216 (FIG. 2)… The consumer may be provided the location of the product (e.g., middle of the aisle, third shelf up).” Where the desired information is the product information that is continually transmitted while shopping. EXAMINER NOTE: The examiner notes that “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure” (MPEP 2111.04). In this particular case, “can” makes the statement optional, thus the limitation “the one or more sensors transmits desired information that can be received by one or more portable electronic devices” does not have patentable weight.
one or more digital marketing devices loaded onto the one or more portable electronic devices, stored on a mobile wallet, and directly accessed accessible by the one or more end users via the mobile wallet; (Skowronek [0021]) See at least “In embodiments the mobile wallet information includes a coupons database 212 and/or a preferences database 220. Coupons database 212 can include one or more items of information associated with one or more electronic coupons [pass]. Where the digital marketing device is described in the reference as an electronic coupons loaded on the device.
wherein the desired information includes location determinative information relating to the one or more predetermined locations that can be utilized by the one or more digital marketing devices to activate a desired change to the one or more digital marketing devices on the one or more portable electronic devices (Skowronek [0013][0022][0059][0049]). See at least [0059] “As the consumer walks through the store, the mobile device 102 (FIG. 1) receives signals about one or more products from one or more NFC sensor/transmitters 216 (FIG. 2). The signals identify the products in proximity [location determinative information] to the one or more NFC sensor/transmitters 216 (FIG. 2). The products are compared to shopping list. If a product appears on the shopping list, the mobile device 102 (FIG. 1) provides a warning or alert to the consumer that a product on the shopping list is in proximity [location determinative information]. See [0022] for a desired change to the one or more digital marketing devices “the user interface 210 may present coupon information 218, for example, the discount available with the coupon, the product, the location of the product in the product display, etc. device 202 (FIG. 2).” Where the specification [00015] teaches that the changing of the content of the pass is (e.g., text displayed to the end user in association with the pass, program application or the like).” EXAMINER NOTE: The examiner notes that “Claim scope is not limited by claim language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed, or by claim language that does not limit a claim to a particular structure” (MPEP 2111.04). In this particular case, “can” makes the statement optional, thus the limitation “the one or more predetermined locations that can be utilized by the one or more digital marketing devices” does not have patentable weight.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of sensors in a retail environment communicating with a user device, as taught by Fernandez, that the sensors transmit location information to the device, as taught by Skowronek, to provide more accurate location information to a user device to ensure that the user purchases the item that matches the coupon (Skowronek [0002]) and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, then one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 2
Modified Fernandez and Skowronek disclose the limitations above. Modified Fernandez further teaches:
wherein the one or more sensors are Bluetooth LE beacons (Fernandez [0065]). See at least “The transmitter 340 may be adapted to transmit various types of beacon signals (e.g., WiFi, Bluetooth (classic, low energy (LE) ( e.g., "Bluetooth Smart Ready", "Bluetooth Smart", etc.), Bluetooth v4.0, etc.), etc.)”
Claim 3
Modified Fernandez and Skowronek disclose the limitations above. Modified Fernandez further teaches:
wherein the one or more portable electronic devices comprise one or more smartphones (Fernandez [0061]). See at least “The communication interface 310 may be adapted to allow a client device (e.g., a PC, a smart phone, etc.) to communicate with the sensor 300.”
Claim 4
Modified Fernandez and Skowronek disclose the limitations above. Modified Fernandez further teaches:
wherein the location determinative information comprises at least one of the one or more predetermined location where the one or more sensors are placed (Fernandez [0045]). See at least “Each establishment may have one or more sensors 115 placed so as to define one or more zones associated with the establishment.”
Claim 5
Modified Fernandez and Skowronek disclose the limitations above. Modified Skowronek further teaches:
wherein the one or more digital marketing devices comprises an informative message displayed to the one or more end users based on the location determinative information (Skowronek [0022]). See [0022] “the user interface 210 may present coupon information 218, for example, the discount available with the coupon, the product, the location of the product in the product display, etc. device 202 (FIG. 2).” Where coupon information is the one or more digital marketing devices that comprises an informative message.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of sensors in a retail environment communicating with a user device, as taught by Fernandez, that the sensors transmit location information to the device, as taught by Skowronek, to provide more accurate location information to a user device to ensure that the user purchases the item that matches the coupon (Skowronek [0002]), and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, then one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6
Modified Fernandez and Skowronek disclose the limitations above. Modified Skowronek further teaches:
wherein the one or more digital marketing devices are configured to display particularized information to the one or more end users based on the location of the one or more end users as determined by the location determinative information (Skowronek [0013][0022][0059][0049]). See at least [0059] “As the consumer walks through the store, the mobile device 102 (FIG. 1) receives signals about one or more products from one or more NFC sensor/transmitters 216 (FIG. 2). The signals identify the products in proximity [location determinative information] to the one or more NFC sensor/transmitters 216 (FIG. 2). The products are compared to shopping list. If a product appears on the shopping list, the mobile device 102 (FIG. 1) provides a warning or alert to the consumer that a product on the shopping list is in proximity [location determinative information]. See [0022] for a desired change to the one or more digital marketing devices “the user interface 210 may present coupon information 218, for example, the discount available with the coupon, the product, the location of the product in the product display, etc. device 202 (FIG. 2).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of sensors in a retail environment communicating with a user device, as taught by Fernandez, that the sensors transmit location information to the device, as taught by Skowronek, to provide more accurate location information to a user device to ensure that the user purchases the item that matches the coupon (Skowronek [0002]) and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, then one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 7
Modified Fernandez and Skowronek disclose the limitations above. Modified Skowronek further teaches:
wherein the one or more digital marketing devices are configured to display sales information for one or more products being sold proximate at least one of the one or more predetermined locations (Skowronek [0022]). See at least the mobile wallet application 206 may alert the user that an electronic coupon is available for a product located in a near-by product display.” Where the coupon is the one or more digital marketing devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of sensors in a retail environment communicating with a user device, as taught by Fernandez, that the sensors transmit location information to the device, as taught by Skowronek, to provide more accurate location information to a user device to ensure that the user purchases the item that matches the coupon (Skowronek [0002]) and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 8
Modified Fernandez and Skowronek disclose the limitations above. Modified Skowronek further teaches:
wherein the one or more digital marketing devices are configured to display travel directions from a location of at least one of the one or more end users to at least one of the one or more predetermined locations (Skowronek [0059]). See at least “The consumer may be provided the location of the product (e.g., middle of the aisle, third shelf up). The consumer may then locate the product in the aisle.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of sensors in a retail environment communicating with a user device, as taught by Fernandez, that the sensors transmit location information to the device, as taught by Skowronek, to provide more accurate location information to a user device to ensure that the user purchases the item that matches the coupon (Skowronek [0002]) and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 9
Modified Fernandez and Skowronek disclose the limitations above. Modified Skowronek further teaches:
wherein the one or more sensors comprise at least two sensors and wherein the directions displayed to the one or more end users update as the one or more end users move in relation to the one or more sensors (Skowronek [0059]). See at least, “As the consumer walks through the store, the mobile device 102 (FIG. 1) receives signals about one or more products from one or more NFC sensor/transmitters 216 (FIG. 2)….The consumer may be provided the location of the product (e.g., middle of the aisle, third shelf up). The consumer may then locate the product in the aisle.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of sensors in a retail environment communicating with a user device, as taught by Fernandez, that the sensors transmit location information to the device, as taught by Skowronek, to provide more accurate location information to a user device to ensure that the user purchases the item that matches the coupon (Skowronek [0002]) and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 10
Modified Fernandez and Skowronek disclose the limitations above. Modified Fernandez further teaches:
further comprising a remote server storing the desired information (Fernandez [0058]). See at least “Proximity events may, in addition to, or in place of, interacting with a consumer or other user, cause data to be generated and stored in a way that is transparent to the user. Such data may be sent to the server and stored remotely.”
Claim 12
Modified Fernandez and Skowronek disclose the limitations above. Modified Fernandez further teaches:
wherein the remote server is configured to send information to a first group of end users based on the location determinative information received from the one or more digital marketing devices (Fernandez [0037]). Where the reference teaches receiving location information about a user and communicating that information to a server. The server then sends sets of information to the application on the device. It would be obvious to modify the reference to teach that this information would be sent to a group of users based on the location information because it allows the system to focus on sending interesting content to location-based users instead of focusing on retrieve information from each user.
Claim 13
Modified Fernandez and Skowronek disclose the limitations above. Modified Fernandez further teaches:
wherein the one or more end users are a subset of the first group of end users (Fernandez [0118]). Fernandez does not explicitly teach that end users are a subset of the first group of end users. Fernandez does teach that the server can send promotional links [message] to users which indicates that the system can accommodate messaging more than one user and that multiple user device information is utilized in paragraph [0150].
Claim 14
Modified Fernandez and Skowronek disclose the limitations above. Modified Fernandez further teaches:
wherein the information sent to the first group of end users comprises historical data about the location of the one or more end users (Fernandez [0007]). See “Alternatively, in some embodiments the location of the sensor ( and thus the user device) may be determined using a database accessible to the server application. Such a database may include stored location information associated with each sensor in the database. Such stored location information may be provided by, for instance, a user ( e.g., a retailer placing a sensor in a store may upload to the database a location of the store and an ID of the sensor), user devices that have previously perceived the sensor and provided a location, etc..
Claim 15
Modified Fernandez and Skowronek disclose the limitations above. Modified Skowronek further teaches:
wherein the desired change to the one or more digital marketing devices includes a message being displayed on the one or more portable electronic devices carried by the one or more end users related to one or more products for sale in the target store near the one or more predetermined locations (Skowronek [0022]). See at least the mobile wallet application 206 may alert the user that an electronic coupon is available for a product located in a near-by product display.” Where the coupon is the one or more digital marketing devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of sensors in a retail environment communicating with a user device, as taught by Fernandez, that the sensors transmit location information to the device, as taught by Skowronek, to provide more accurate location information to a user device to ensure that the user purchases the item that matches the coupon (Skowronek [0002]) and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, then in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Prior Art
Regarding Claims 11, prior art has not been applied, however claims are not allowable as rejections under 35 USC 112 are outstanding. This does not serve as an indication of allowability, however further reflects the lack of clarity of the claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: “desirable”
Examiner maintains that the term “desirable” is overly broad and does not narrow the claims. While Applicant gives great detail about how desirable is supported in the specification, and the Examiner acknowledges amendments made to overcome the rejection, it does not negate the fact that “desirable” is a subjective term. Furthermore, Applicant’s own examples further prove that “desirable” information can refer to the location of the user, time of day, day of week, or other season, or input from the user or the location of the end user's assigned seat, bathrooms, concession areas, memorabilia stands or other desirable locations. But maintaining the use of “desirable” when referring to information or location, Applicant is not making it clear on the record which information is being communicated and thusly the claims are overly broad.
Applicant Argues: In addition to the antecedent rejection addressed above, the March 19 Office Action asserts a similar rejection under§ 112 asserting that the phrase "wherein the one or more digital marketing devices are configured to transmit the location determinative information to the remote server" fails to comply with the written description requirement because the phrase purportedly fails to describe an algorithm for performing this element.
Examiner maintains the previous rejection. Applicant has failed to point to the paragraph in the specification that addresses this. The claim requires that the digital marketing device that is loaded on the portable device is responsible for sending location information NOT that the portable electronic device is sending location determinative information. If Applicant intends for the portable device to send location information, amendments should reflect that distinction. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant Argues: The March 19 Office Action also rejects each claim under§ 112(b) as being purportedly indefinite. This rejection largely stems from a misunderstanding of "desired" and "desirable" used in the specification and claims. "Desired" is not used in the specification in a relative sense to for example refer to a desirable selection with a range.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s own examples further prove that “desirable” information can refer to the location of the user, time of day, day of week, or other season, or input from the user or the location of the end user's assigned seat, bathrooms, concession areas, memorabilia stands or other desirable locations. Applicant is encouraged to narrow the claim to what information or location or change is the “desired change” rather than the instant overly broad recitation that lends itself to broad interpretation. Applicant’s maintaining the use of “desirable” when referring to information or location, is not making it clear on the record which information is being communicated and thusly the claims remain overly broad.
Applicant Argues: Claims 4, 7, and 15 have been amended to remove the errant "desired" within "one or more predetermined desired locations." The correct phrase "one or more predetermined locations" finds proper antecedence in Claim 1.
Examiner acknowledges the amendments.
Applicant Argues: While Skowronek appears to teach sensors that send information about products in its vicinity, that is different from sending location determinative information as claim in Claim 1.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the previous citation for support. See [0059] “As the consumer walks through the store, the mobile device 102 (FIG. 1) receives signals about one or more products from one or more NFC sensor/transmitters 216 (FIG. 2). The signals identify the products in proximity to the one or more NFC sensor/transmitters 216 (FIG. 2). The consumer may be provided the location of the product (e.g., middle of the aisle, third shelf up).” Examiner maintains that the disclosure of the active movement of the customer in the store, inherently indicates that the location is being determined in order to send signals appropriate products that are nearby the user. If the location was not actively being determined, as soon as the customer entered the store there would several notifications stemming from all of the products relative to the user and it would be no need for the user to walk near any particular product to get the notification. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant Argues: Skowronek acts as a sort of detector alerting the user that a sensor in the area has been detected and that the sensor relates to a particular product. The information actually transmitted by the Skowronek sensors, however, is not location determinative.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the previous rejection. First, the change that is activated is defined in the specification [00015] is a text displayed to the end user in association with the pass, program application or the like. This is not an actual activated change in the digital marketing device and is more of a change to the message displayed to the user. See the citation: Skowronek [0013][0022][0059][0049]. See [0059] “As the consumer walks through the store, the mobile device 102 (FIG. 1) receives signals about one or more products from one or more NFC sensor/transmitters 216 (FIG. 2). The signals identify the products in proximity [location determinative information] to the one or more NFC sensor/transmitters 216 (FIG. 2). The products are compared to shopping list. If a product appears on the shopping list, the mobile device 102 (FIG. 1) provides a warning or alert to the consumer that a product on the shopping list is in proximity [location determinative information]. See [0022] for a desired change to the one or more digital marketing devices “the user interface 210 may present coupon information 218, for example, the discount available with the coupon, the product, the location of the product in the product display, etc. device 202 (FIG. 2).” Where the specification [00015] teaches that the changing of the content of the pass is (e.g., text displayed to the end user in association with the pass, program application or the like).”
Applicant Argues: Applicant maintains that the March 19 Office Action fails to support a motivation for combining the teachings of the asserted references.
Examiner respectfully disagrees as motivation has been directly pulled from the cited references and since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, then one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Furthermore, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Fernandez states clearly in the abstract “A system adapted to identify and react to proximity events is described.” Skowronek states that while the customer is shopping or walking through the store, the sensors provide information to the user, which is considered to be the proximity event of Fernandez.
Applicant Argues: Fernandez does not teach sensors that transmit information that is "based at least in part on the predetermined location of each of the one or more sensors" as required by Claim 1.
Fernandez is relied on to teach that sensors are placed in predetermined locations within a store. Skowronek is relied on for the quoted claimed features above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626