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 Reply
Applicant's response of 03/17/26 has been entered. The examiner will address applicant's remarks at the end of this office action. Currently claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12-14 are pending.
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.
Claims 5, 14, are 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.
For claims 5, 14, the claim is found to be reciting new matter, and the function at hand represents a written description problem. The claim recites that the processor is configured to automatically identify, from a stored directory, registered and vetted service providers who can address the conditions identified in the report, and provide the list to the landlord or tenant for repair selection. Paragraph 071 the specification discloses that
[0071] It should be noted that platform 110 can manage the service/repair process. Once a report and score are finalized, the report can be communicated to both the tenant and the landlord. The application 132 in each user's system 130 can then be used to find registered and vetted service providers to come and address any issues raised in the report. Platform 110 can even be configured to act as the payment platform dispersing funds to the service provider, when the work is confirmed and approved, e.g., using application 132.
Nothing is disclosed about the system automatically identifying registered and vetted service providers that can address the conditions identified in the report. The disclosure that an application “can be used” to find registered and vetted service providers is broad language that does not require that the processor be the one that is actually performing the identification step. The specification is not disclosing how the use of the platform to find vetted and registered service providers is occurring and is not disclosing that the identification of the service providers is performed in view of the conditions identified in the report, or that it is even performed by the hardware processor and the modules that are recited. The extent of the disclosure in the specification to the system automatically finding service providers is that the user can use the application to find providers that can help with issues in a report. This language is broad and can be the user manually looking up service providers as opposed to the claimed automatic identification by the processor. The broad language of the specification does not support the more narrow limitation that is being claimed. The specification does not provide support for reciting the automatic identification of the service providers is based on conditions identified in the report and is being done by the processor. If the processor is performing this step, the examiner notes that nothing at all is disclosed about how this is caused to occur. For this reason the specification has not been found to be providing an adequate written description of the invention that is sufficient to convey possession to one of skill in the art for the claimed subject matter
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, 3-5, 7-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claims recite a system and a platform that are defined by a processor; therefore, the claims pass step 1 of the eligibility analysis.
For step 2A, the claim(s) recite(s) an abstract idea of performing a property inspection that includes the calculation/receiving of a score that represents the habitability of the property and providing a report of the same. This represents a certain method of organizing human activities as will be set forth below.
For claim 1, the abstract idea is defined by the claimed elements of:
prompt a user to start an inspection;
receive an input to start the inspection; wherein the input includes information from external sources
prompt the user to capture images of a rental unit, in which each room to be inspected is assigned a title/name set by the user;
receive images of the rental unit;
prompt the user to begin an indoor inspection workflow;
receive the images of the rental unit, including images of a plurality of rooms and features of the rental unit;
prompt the user to answer questions [input answers] associated with each of the images of the plurality of rooms and features; and
receive answers the questions, wherein the answers include numeric values
obtain history and condition data of the rental unit; and
receive an overall habitability score for the rental unit that is based on the answers and/or the history and condition data
wherein the overall habitability score is generated by applying weights and thresholds to one or more variables associated with the rental property across various categories according to category significance;
evaluate a risk associated with the rental unit based on the overall habitability score
using property history and condition scores in connection with at least one of: underwriting or rating insurance policies, property financing, property warranties, or state/municipal code compliance; and
generate a report with information of repairs needed to comply with state and/or municipal codes,
wherein the report is communicated to the user that includes numeric scores, binary pass/fail indicators, and narrative details identifying deficiencies in structural, safety, and health-related categories.
For claim 5 the abstract idea is defined by the elements of:
19Attorney Docket No. 127413-OOO1UTO1 receive a plurality of images related to different rooms or aspects of a rental unit;
receive answers related to each of a plurality of variables for each of the plurality of the image, wherein the plurality of variables are specifically related to a corresponding image of the plurality of images;
store the images and the answers in a database;
process the answers by applying weighting and thresholding to the variables
generate a habitability score for each of the plurality of variables;
generate an overall habitability score for the rental unit, based on the habitability score for each of the plurality of variables; and
wherein the overall habitability score is generated by combining weighted variables across categories including structural, safety, and habitability features, according to category significance;
evaluate a risk associated with the rental unit based on whether the overall habitability score and whether the rental unit complies with state and/or municipal codes; wherein evaluating the risk includes using the overall score together with property history and condition scores in determining potential code violations, warranty risks, or financing risks
generate a report detailing the answers and scores for each of the plurality of variables as well as the overall habitability score
communicate the report to one or more users, and
wherein the report is presented and
automatically identify, from a stored directory, registered and vetted service providers who can address the conditions identified in the report, and provide the list to the landlord or tenant for repair selection,
manages the service/repair process and dispersing funds to the service provider when the work is confirmed and approved
The above limitations are reciting a process that is used to perform a property inspection along with the generation of a property inspection report that allows for the risk associated with the property to be managed and remedied by service providers. This is reciting human activity as far as home inspectors and other users are known to perform home inspections that contains information about a property in the form of a property inspection report. The claimed elements represent a certain method of organizing human activities type of abstract idea. The claim can also be viewed as essentially being an instruction and/or is a set of rules that an inspector is to follow when inspecting a rental property so that the condition of the property can be quantified with a score. This is the act of managing personal behavior. Before computers, human beings would use pen and paper to document home inspections so there is a human analog to what is claimed. A person can receive images and answers as claimed and can mentally or with pen and paper can manually generate a habitability score and can generate a report using pen and paper. The claimed abstract idea can also be viewed as a risk mitigation method that is minimizing the risk to a renter or to an insurance company, as was stated in the specification in paragraph 015 (“Property history and condition scores can be used to evaluate the risk associated with a particular property, including use in underwriting and rating insurance policies, property financing, property warranties or state/municipal code compliance). This defines an abstract idea per the PEG of the MPEP 2106.04(a), (a certain method of organizing human activities). One could also argue that this is a commercial practice that is a fundamental economic practice, all falling within the category of being a certain method of organizing human activities. For these reasons, the claim elements identified by the examiner are found to be reciting a certain method of organizing human activities.
For claim 1, the additional elements of the claim amount to the use of a hardware processor, software modules, a user interface that is displayed via an application running on a user system, a drop down menu (implies computer implementation) a platform server, and the step/function of sending of the images to the platform server.
Claim 5 recites the additional elements of the processor and software modules that are configured to perform the steps that define the abstract idea, and the recited graphical interface. The claimed “user system” is broadly reciting a computer, and is taken as a link to generic computer implementation.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A) because the additional elements of the claim, when considered individually and in combination with the claim as a whole, amounts to the use of a hardware processor, software modules, a user interface, a platform server, and the act of sending the images and answers to a platform server. The claimed drop down menu is a menu presented by a computer that provides choices available to a user. This is an instruction for one to use a computer to implement the abstract idea. The processor, software modules, drop down menu, the platform server, etc. are being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea and does not provide for integration, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The user/graphical interface is broadly claimed and is something that is inherent to all computers in the sense that computers are required to have some sort of user interface that allows for data entry and data display. The processor, platform server, and software modules and use of an interface are a link to generic computing technology being used to perform the steps that define the abstract idea. The mere sending of the images and answers to a platform as is recited in claim 1 is an additional element that is directed to a data transmission. At the 2nd prong the examiner finds that the claimed transmission to a platform is an insignificant extra solution activity that does not render the claim eligible, see MPEP 2106.05(g). This is an inherent data output step that is required for a user to be able to view the results of the rental inspection, etc.. This is a post solution activity that does not represent a meaningful limit on the claim scope. In combination, the claim is simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using a generically recited computing device that has an interface to perform the steps that define the abstract idea and sending the images to a server as a data transmission. This does not amount to more than a mere instruction to implement the abstract idea on a computer connected to a network and is akin to reciting “apply it” in combination with an insignificant extra solution activity. This is indicative of the fact that the claim has not integrated the abstract idea into a practical application and therefore the claim is found to be directed to the abstract idea identified by the examiner.
For step 2B, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the processor and software modules, graphical interface, etc., are being merely used as a tool to execute the abstract idea and does not provide for more than a general link to computer implementation for the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The user interface is broadly claimed and is something that is inherent to all computers in the sense that computers are required to have some sort of user interface that allows for data entry and data display. The processor and software modules and use of an interface are a link to generic computing technology being used to perform the steps that define the abstract idea, as was set forth for the 2nd prong. The same is noted for the drop down menu, this is reciting a computer menu as opposed to one on paper. This is an instruction for one to use a computer and an interface to effectuate the abstract idea. The rationale set forth for the 2nd prong of the eligibility test above is also applicable to step 2B in this regard so no further comments are necessary.
Regarding the transmitting of the images and answers to a platform that is recited in claim 1, when this is reconsidered at step 2B, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), and the cases cited therein, including Intellectual Ventures I, LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016), TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610 (Fed. Cir. 2016),and OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015), indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). The claimed step of merely sending the images to the platform server does not provide for integration at the 2nd prong and when that limitation is reassessed at step 2B for its well understood nature it is noted that the courts have already addressed the fact that mere transmission of data in a generic manner is well understood, routine, and conventional. This satisfies Berkheimer evidence for step 2B.
For claim 3, reciting that the answers are binary answers where a user is prompted to provide yes/no responses to the claimed inspection items, is a further embellishment of the same abstract idea that was set forth for claim 1. The answers are part of the abstract idea. Nothing additional is claimed for consideration other than more about the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 4, the receiving of a report that details the answers, a score related to the answers, a habitability score and the narrative details, and displaying the report to the user is considered to be part of the abstract idea. Absent the recitation to using software modules and using the interface to display the report, the report itself and display of the report can be done with pen and paper as was done prior to the invention of computers. The additional element of using the software modules and the interface is nothing more than a link to computer implementation and does not provide for integration into a practical application or significantly more at step 2B. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 7, thresholding and weighting the answers is considered to be part of the abstract idea and is part of the scoring methodology that is itself part of the abstract idea. The use of different significance to categories as claimed is further defining the abstract idea in the same manner by further specifying how the scoring works. A weighted summation with thresholding is being claimed and serves to define more about the abstract idea. No additional element is claimed for consideration other than a further defining of the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are/are not considered to be eligible.
For claim 8, the claimed determination that the rental unit complies with the requirements based on a set of terms (agreed to by landlords and tenants is non-functional descriptive material that does not define anything to the terms or agreement itself) is considered to be a further recitation to the same abstract idea of claim 1. This step/function can be performed by people. Determining compliance as it relates to rental units and housing agreements in general is something that is also considered to be satisfying a legal obligation and can itself be considered an additional abstract idea to the claims. No additional elements are claimed for consideration.
For claims 9, 10, the providing of educational information to the user is considered to be part of the abstract idea of claim 1, including providing local habitability codes and/or contact information. People can provide information to others verbally and via paper so what is claimed is something that is still considered to be part of the abstract idea. The processor is merely being used as a tool to provide the information and for the same reasons set forth for claim 1, does not provide for integration at the 2nd prong or significantly more at step 2B.
For claims 12, 13, the claimed automatic providing of a list of service providers drawn from a provider directory to a landlord, and the content of the report are both considered to be more elements that define the abstract idea of the claims. Providing a report and providing a list of service providers (that can be part of the report itself) that is based on at least one condition is something that can be done by people. The processor is only being used as a tool to execute the abstract idea and does not provide for integration at the 2nd prong or significantly more at step 2B.
For claim 14, as is noted for independent claim 5, the claimed identifying of registered and vetted service providers, and providing a list of the service providers as claimed, are elements that are further defining the abstract idea of claim 1. The same is noted for the fund dispersing upon confirmation and approval. These elements are part of the abstract idea. The software modules and hardware processor, the platform, the interface that are claimed have been treated in the same manner as set forth for claim 1, to which applicant is referred. The claim does not recite any additional elements that provide for integration at the 2nd prong or that provide significantly more at step 2B. Therefore the claims are/are not considered to be eligible.
Therefore, for the above reasons, claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12-14, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Response to arguments
For the 112 rejections, the arguments are persuasive to overcome the rejections of the claims with the exception of the rejection of claims 5, 14 under 112b. Claims 5 and 14 recite that the processor can automatically identify, registered and vetted service providers that can address the issues in the report and provide a list to the user for selection. The applicant argues on page 8 of the reply that the specification discloses that the platform includes a database on providers/vendors that can address issues raised in a report. The applicant argues that one of skill in the art would understand that the use can and would use their user system to access the database to get information on vetted providers to come address the issues. This argument is not persuasive and seems to bolster the position of the examiner as far as the specification does not teach that the system automatically performs this step. The specification discloses “The application 132 in each user's system 130 can then be used to find registered and vetted service providers to come and address any issues raised in the report.”. What this means is not clear. This is a vague disclosure that might mean that the user is the one manually looking up service providers to help with an issue, as opposed to the system/application automatically identifying providers that can address the issues contained in the report and sending the user a list to select from. The argument that one of skill in the art would understand that a user can use the application to find a provider is not showing where support can be found for the claimed limitation for the claimed processor with the modules is able to automatically identify, from a stored directory, registered and vetted service providers who can address the conditions identified in the report, and provide the list to the landlord or tenant for repair selection. The system/application was not disclosed as automatically performing the identification step such that providers are being identified that can address the conditions of the report. The specification does not teach what is claimed and the new matter rejection is being maintained. The broad statement in the specification does not support the narrow limitation of the claims.
The traversal of the 35 USC 101 rejection is not persuasive and the rejection is being maintained. The arguments are responded to as follows:
On pages 9-10 the applicant states their disagreement with the 101 rejection and alleges that the rejection is based on a high level extraction that is not using BRI. This is a general allegation that is not persuasive.
On page 10 the applicant argues that the claims are not directed to property inspection with generation of an inspection report that allows risks to be evaluated because “the claims are directed to systems and methods for evaluating the risk that a certain property does not meet habitability requirements that involves "receiv[ing] from the platform an overall habitability score for the rental unit that is based at least on both the answers (provided by users using the user interface and methodology of FIGS. 5A and B and FIG. 3), as wells "as the history and condition data, wherein the overall habitability score generated by applying weights and thresholds to one or more variables associated with the rental property, across various categories according to category significance (emphasis added)." When interpreted more accurately, a reasonable interpretation of the claims starts to reveal that they are not so clearly abstract.”
What has been argued is largely the abstract idea and is a circular argument that argues the invention is not directed to evaluating property risk because the invention is evaluating the risk that a certain property does not meet habitability requirements. The evaluation of the risk that a certain property does not meet habitability requirements, that includes a habitability score based on answers and history and condition data, with the use of weights and thresholds is what in part defies the abstract idea that is being recited in the claims. Everything that has been argued is arguing the abstract idea except for the references to the interface. As to the use of the interface, the claim does not recite the content of figures 5A, B, and figure 3 as the applicant seems to argue. This aspect of the argument is more of a general allegation than an argument citing specific claim language. The use of the interface is an instruction for one to use a computer to perform the abstract idea and does not render the claims non-abstract. The applicant again argues that the rejection is a predetermined extraction. The abstract idea set forth in the claims is not a predetermined extraction because it is based on the claims themselves and the limitations recited therein. The argument is little more than a statement of disagreement with the examiner that is arguing the abstract idea uses an interface so it cannot be abstract. This is not persuasive. The interface is not part of the abstract idea but also does not provide for integration or significantly more for the reasons set forth in the rejection of record.
On page 10-11 the applicant argues that there is no prohibition on the patenting of business methods or on patenting software. The examiner agrees with this assertion overall with the exception that software alone is not statutory subject matter as it does not fall into any one of the allowable categories of invention. The examiner notes that claims are to be evaluated for eligibility using the guidance set forth in MPEP 2106 and there is no blanket prohibition on business methods not being patentable.
On page 11 the applicant argues that once the proper claim interpretation is arrived at, which is that the claims are reciting “systems and methods for evaluating the risk that a certain property does not meet habitability requirements that involves "receiv[ing] from the platform an overall habitability score for the rental unit that is based at least on both the answers (provided by users using the user interface and methodology of FIGS. 5A and B and FIG. 3), as wells "as the history and condition data, wherein the overall habitability score generated by applying weights and thresholds to one or more variables associated with the rental property, across various categories according to category significance (emphasis added).", only then can a proper Prong One analysis be undertaken.” What this is trying to argue is not clear. The claims have been interpreted for what they recite, using the specification as guidance regarding the terminology in the claims. A proper step 2A analysis has been undertaken and has correctly concluded that the claims are reciting a judicial exception within the claim scope. The claims describe and/or characterize the abstract idea noted by the examiner, which is defined by the claim elements identified by the examiner. The claimed elements are defining a certain method of organizing human activities as set forth in the rejection of record. The argument is not persuasive.
On pages 11-12, the applicant attempts to make a distinction between a claim that sets forth an abstract idea as compared to one that describes an abstract idea. The applicant argues that for the pending claims they cannot be said to recite an abstract idea because they do not set forth an abstract idea. In support of this argument the applicant points to Alice and argues that the pending claims must be found to “describe” an abstract idea. Other than generally alleging that the claims are directed to a platform to execute the abstract idea, the applicant is arguing that the claims have been distilled into a broad extraction which leaps to the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea without much analysis or explanation at all. This is not persuasive. A review of the 35 USC 101 rejection finds that it is clearly articulating the grounds for rejection and has pages of explanation. The rejection addresses all claimed elements and provides explanations for each step of the analysis. It cannot be fairly stated that the examiner has not provided an explanation or analysis of the claimed subject matter in the rejection. The argument is not persuasive.
For the 2nd prong, the applicant argues on pages 12-13 that the examiner analysis is brief and simply concludes that the additional elements do not provide for integration into a practical application. This is not persuasive. The analysis set forth in the rejection is not brief. The explanation of the rejection and why it is being set forth establishes a prime facie case that the claims are directed to the abstract idea at the conclusion of the 2nd prong analysis. The applicant argues that the use of a novel and non-obvious habitability score does provide for integration. This is not persuasive. The use of the habitability score is defining the abstract idea. Also, novelty or non-obviousness does not equate to eligibility. See SAP AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee v. INVESTPIC, LLC:
We affirm. We may assume that the techniques claimed are “[g]roundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Ass’n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89–90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (same for obviousness) (Symantec). The claims here are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter. Their subject is nothing but a series of mathematical calculations based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those calculations (in the plot of a probability distribution function). No matter how much of an advance in the finance field the claims recite, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausibly alleged innovation in the nonabstract application realm. An advance of that nature is ineligible for patenting.
Arguing that the novel and non-obvious use of a habitability score provides for integration into a practical application is not persuasive. The additional elements of the claim do not amount to more than instruction for one to use computers to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f). The argument that the use of the score, which is part of the abstract idea, provides for integration is not persuasive. The abstract idea cannot integrate itself into a practical application. It must be integrated into a practical application by way of the additional elements, not a step of the abstract idea itself. The argument is not persuasive.
For step 2B, the applicant argues that the analysis from the examiner is brief and the applicant alleges that the additional elements are supposed to be reevaluated if an element was considered to be an insignificant extra solution activity. The applicant then alleges that the use of the habitability score in the claims is a limitation that is other than well understood, routine, and conventional and renders the claim eligible. This is not persuasive. The use of the habitability score recited in the claims is what serves to define the abstract idea. With respect to the claimed abstract idea, the examiner does not have to prove that the use of the habitability score was well understood, routine, and conventional in a given field at step 2B to find that the claims are not eligible. To do so would be injecting a prior art analysis into the eligibility inquiry. The generation of the score and its use in the claims is what defines the abstract idea. Abstract ideas do not have to be proven to be well understood, routine and conventional at step 2B to show that a claim is not eligible. Even novel or non-obvious abstract ideas that are innovative and useful are still abstract ideas. The argument is not persuasive.
Additionally, with respect to the rejection of record, and with respect to the data transmission element of the claim, the examiner has provided evidence at step 2B that the use of a computer to send data is something that is well understood, routine, and conventional in the computing field. The argument that an insignificant extra solution activity at the 2nd prong was not reevaluated at step 2B is not persuasive because the examiner has reevaluated the limitation at step 2B.
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 DENNIS WILLIAM RUHL whose telephone number is (571)272-6808. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at 5712703445. 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.
/DENNIS W RUHL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626