DETAILED ACTION
This Final Office Action is in response Applicant communication filed on
1/29/2026. In Applicant’s amendment, claims 1, 19, and 21 were amended.
Claims 1, 5-14, and 19-27 are currently pending and have been rejected as follows.
Response to Amendments
Rejections under 35 USC 101 are maintained. Applicant’s amendments necessitated new grounds of rejection under 35 USC 103.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s 35 USC 101 rebuttal arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive to overcome the rejection.
Applicant argues on p. 8-10 that the claim provides a specific technical improvement to transaction processing systems by dynamically adjusting transaction behavior in response to real-time predictive analyses that incorporate real world data. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 2, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
The alleged integration is in the business decision making of when to block a transaction based on a dynamic weighting algorithm of external events. Prioritizing by “impact hierarchies” is a business rule for selecting and weighting inputs. The alerts and user interface confirmation is the equivalent of merely reciting “apply it”, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f). The claims do not recite an improvement to the function of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. A dynamic rule for deciding whether to process a transaction is still a rule for business decision making. Including specific details for the financial risk analysis does not establish patent eligibility. The claim does not recite any improvement to networked transaction systems. The claims merely use computers as tools to perform the abstract idea. Further, mere automation of manual processes has been indicated by the courts to not show an improvement in computer functionality. See MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I). Further, a report showing dynamically adjusted values is merely presentation of the results from the abstract analysis. This is insignificant post-solution activity. Nothing in the claim or specification indicates an improvement to the GUI. The GUI is merely employed to display the results of the abstract analysis.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s prior art arguments and amendments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argues on p. 10-15 that the cited references do not disclose the amended feature of “the real-time data including an assessment of the current gross worth of the monetary assets of the company.” Examiner respectfully submits Brightman teaches this feature in [0032] “a trading host computer via an electronic and/or optical networking communications system providing realtime access to data of the electronic data source;” [0125] “An objective measure of scale and/or size associated with the financial object may include, for example, any combination or ratios of: revenue … sales, total sales … gross sales … cash, … liquidation value of company” note the real-time data and the combination of gross sales, cash, and liquidation value of a company.
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, 5-14, and 19-27 are clearly drawn to at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter recited in 35 U.S.C. 101 (method, non-transitory computer-readable medium, system). Claims 1, 5-14, and 19-27 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 integrating the abstract idea into a practical application or amounting to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (‘2019 PEG”), Claims 1 and 5-14 are directed toward the statutory category of a process (reciting a “method”). Claims 19-20 are directed toward the statutory category of an article of manufacture (reciting a “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium). Claims 21-27 are directed toward the statutory category of a machine (reciting a “system”).
Regarding Step 2A, prong 1 of the 2019 PEG, Claims 1, 19, and 21 are directed to an abstract idea by reciting receiving transaction data including quantitative measurements of financial value for transactions associated with a product or service for a company within a specific time frame from … that displays the transaction data … wherein a user may indicate not to process a transaction; filtering requests to complete transactions for the product or service based on a threshold deviation by comparing prices between the financial value for the product and service and a modified transaction value at a time within the specific time frame, the modified transaction value being based on geopolitical events from stock market data, or from aggregated, anonymized operational data from a plurality of businesses; wherein the modified transaction value is generated by applying a dynamic weighting algorithm to real-time data, the weighting algorithm prioritizing external geopolitical events and aggregated anonymized operational data from a plurality of businesses based on pre-defined impact hierarchies, the real-time data including an assessment of the current gross worth of the monetary assets of the company; generating an alert … in response to receiving information associated with external factor data not to complete requests for which a difference between financial value for the product and service and the modified transaction value within the specific time frame exceeds the threshold deviation; transmitting the alert … not to process the transaction requests for the product or service, the alert including … (example Claim 1). The claims are considered abstract because these steps recite certain methods of organizing human activity like fundamental economic practices or principles
including hedging, insurance, and mitigating risks. The claims receive and modify transaction data to provide for viewing by an end user which is a fundamental economic practice or principle.
Regarding Step 2A, prong 2 of the 2019 PEG, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims (the judicial exception and the additional elements such as a centralized server via a network interface; providing a graphical user interface (GUI); an end user processing device; a graphical user interface control element; receiving an input response from the user within the GUI control element not to process the transaction request when the user activates the graphical user interface control element) are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 5-6, 12-13, and 22 recite additional elements further narrowing the type of end user device and interface. However, the additional elements of dependent claims 5-6 and 12-13 are not an improvement to a computer or a technology, the claims do not apply the judicial exception with a particular machine, the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing nor do the claims apply the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment such that the claims as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §§ 2106.05(a-c, e)).
Dependent claims 5-14, 20, and 21-27 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Regarding Step 2B of the 2019 PEG, the additional elements have been considered above in Step 2A Prong 2. The claim limitations do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they are directed to limitations referenced in MPEP 2106.05I.A. that are not enough to qualify as significantly more when recited in a claim with an abstract idea because the limitations recite mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea ‐ see MPEP 2106.05(f).
Applicant's claims mimic conventional, routine, and generic computing by their similarity to other concepts already deemed routine, generic, and conventional [Berkheimer Memorandum, Page 4, item 2] by the following [MPEP § 2106.05(d) Part (II)]. The claims recite steps like: “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data,” Symantec, “Performing repetitive calculations,” Flook, and “storing and retrieving information in memory,” Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. (citations omitted), by performing the steps of “receiving” transaction data, “filtering” requests, “generating” an alert, “transmitting” the alert, and “receiving” an input response (example Claim 1).
By the above, the claimed computing “call[s] for performance of the claimed information collection, analysis, and display functions ‘on a set of generic computer components' and display devices” [Elec. Power Group, 830 F.3d at 1355] operating in a “normal, expected manner” [DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d at 1245, 1258 (Fed. Cir. 2014)].
Conclusively, Applicant's invention is patent-ineligible. When viewed both individually and as a whole, Claims 1, 5-14, and 19-27 are directed toward an abstract idea without integration into a practical application and lacking an inventive concept.
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, 5-6, 12-14, and 19-27 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over the teachings of
Yalamanchi et al., US Patent No. 8639581 B1, hereinafter Yalamanchi, in further view of
Korzinin, US Publication No. 20070022036A1, hereinafter Korzinin, in view of
Minor, US Publication No. 20150332256 A1, hereinafter Minor, in further view of
Brightman et al., US Publication No. 20160358264 A1, hereinafter Brightman. As per,
Claims 1, 19, 21
Yalamanchi teaches
A method of providing predictive alerts over a network to a remote subscriber computer, the method comprising: /
A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions stored therein, which when executed by one or more processors, cause the processors to perform operations comprising: /
A system, comprising: an end user processing device, (Yalamanchi 5:5-30; fig. 1)
receiving transaction data including quantitative measurements of financial value for transactions associated with a product or service for a company within a specific time frame from a centralized server via a network interface; (Yalamanchi 5:33-45 “a merchant adds items to the catalog of an electronic marketplace 130 that is considered foreign to the merchant. To this end, the merchant management application 118 may generate a series of user interfaces to add the items to the electronic marketplace 130. The merchant management application 118 may provide numerous interfaces for the management of the online presence of the merchant in one or more of the electronic marketplaces. Such user interfaces may be embodied in network pages 124 that are sent over the network 109 for rendering in a client 106 operated by a merchant user. The discussion that follows is focused on the pricing aspect of managing the online presence of the merchant;” 2:62-67 “the merchant may be notified if the current exchange rate is adversely impacting the desired return. In another embodiment, an item may be automatically re-priced in the foreign marketplace to account for an exchange rate fluctuation. Parameters that control notification and re-pricing may be configured by the merchant;” 4:63-67, 5:1 “the exchange rates 127 served up by the exchange rate data provider 163 may indicate the rate of exchange between a first currency and a second currency and vice versa. The exchange rates 127 may be updated in real-time, or hourly, daily, weekly, or according to some other time period.”)
providing a graphical user interface (GUI) that displays the transaction data on an end user processing device, […]; (Yalamanchi fig. 2 and associated text)
filtering requests to complete transactions for the product or service based on a threshold deviation by comparing prices between the financial value for the product and service and a modified transaction value at a time within the specific time frame, (Yalamanchi 5:47-54 “The merchant provides a desired return that is specified in the local currency of the merchant. However, the electronic marketplace 130 may use a foreign currency that differs from the local currency. The merchant management application 118 obtains the exchange rate 127 from the exchange rate data provider 163 and converts the desired return of the merchant to the foreign currency;” 6:33-37 “It is noted that the merchant may specify numerous parameters other than merely a desired return. A minimum return, maximum return, maximum currency exchange rate fluctuation, maximum price, minimum price, and/or other parameters and thresholds may be specified;” 4:63-67, 5:1 “the exchange rates 127 served up by the exchange rate data provider 163 may indicate the rate of exchange between a first currency and a second currency and vice versa. The exchange rates 127 may be updated in real-time, or hourly, daily, weekly, or according to some other time period.”)
[…];
[…];
generating an alert by the centralized server in response to receiving information associated with external factor data, not to complete requests for which a difference between financial value for the product and service and the modified transaction value within the specific time frame exceeds the threshold deviation; (Yalamanchi 3:3-12 “Depending on whether the deviation is significant (e.g., whether the deviation meets or exceeds a threshold), the pricing monitor service 121 may be configured to implement one or more actions to correct the deviation. For example, the pricing monitor service 121 may notify the merchant, temporarily remove the offering of the item from the foreign electronic marketplace … and/or implement another action;” 4:63-67, 5:1 “the exchange rates 127 served up by the exchange rate data provider 163 may indicate the rate of exchange between a first currency and a second currency and vice versa. The exchange rates 127 may be updated in real-time, or hourly, daily, weekly, or according to some other time period.” See also fig. 1. Note the exchange rates received from the exchange rate provider 163 housed on computing device 104 and operated by a different entity from computing device 103 as the external factor data.)
transmitting the alert to the end user processing device not to process the transaction requests for the product or service, […]; and (Yalamanchi fig. 3 and associated text describing the merchant management application executed in a computing device; 9:43-50 “In box 415, the pricing monitor service 121 determines whether a minimum return has been set and, if so, whether the current return is below the minimum return. If the current return is below the minimum return, the pricing monitor service 121 continues to box 418 and implements an action to correct the pricing such as … notifying the merchant, temporarily disabling the listing, and/or another action.”)
[…].
Yalamanchi does not explicitly teach, Korzinin however in the analogous art of market information teaches
the modified transaction value being based on geopolitical events from stock market data, or from aggregated, anonymized operational data from a plurality of businesses; (Korzinin [0034] “significant variations may occur at particular trading intervals due to various extraneous factors. For example, the distribution of trades on any given day may depend upon such factors as … geopolitical events or announcements, market shortages or surpluses” note the geopolitical events)
wherein the modified transaction value is generated by applying a dynamic weighting algorithm to real-time data, the weighting algorithm prioritizing external geopolitical events and aggregated anonymized operational data from a plurality of businesses based on pre-defined impact hierarchies, […]; (Korzinin fig. 6 noting data stream 10 and data modulation algorithms 20; [0034]; [0036] “Data stream 10 could constitute a real-time stream of volume information;” [0038] “one algorithm 14 could determine which of the trading days stored in data source 12 for a selected time period exhibit a high volatility … other algorithms 14 could identify short trading days or other days or trading intervals” noting the configurability of the algorithms; [0045] “Algorithm(s) 20 are configured to receive volume information (either current or historical) from data stream 10 and convert it into modulated volume information 22. The conversion step could be performed in real-time;” [0030] noting the volume activity data corresponding to aggregated anonymized operational data from a plurality of businesses; [0043] “the table of FIG. 7 lists coefficients predetermined for each time interval based on averaged data” noting the predetermined coefficients corresponding to the pre-defined impact hierarchies)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yalamanchi’s pricing monitor to include the modified transaction value based on geopolitical information and business information in view of Korzinin in an effort to accurately reflect actionable information (see Korzinin ¶ [0034]-[0035] & MPEP 2143G).
Yalamanchi / Korzinin do not explicitly teach, Minor however in the analogous art of price management teaches
[…], the GUI including a graphical user interface control element wherein a user may indicate not to process a transaction; (Minor [0078] “The user is then queried and can then accept or reject the transaction.”)
[…] the alert including a graphical user interface control element; (Minor [0078] “The user is then queried and can then accept or reject the transaction.”)
receiving an input response from the user within the GUI control element not to process the transaction request when the user activates the graphical user interface control element. (Minor [0078] “The user is then queried and can then accept or reject the transaction.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yalamanchi’s pricing monitor and Korzinin’s geopolitical data to include rejecting the transaction through interface input in view of Minor in an effort to provide an efficient manner of managing multiple currency transactions (see Minor ¶ [0009] & MPEP 2143G).
Yalamanchi / Korzinin / Minor do not explicitly teach, Brightman however in the analogous art of transaction data teaches
[…], the real-time data including an assessment of the current gross worth of the monetary assets of the company; (Brightman [0032] “a trading host computer via an electronic and/or optical networking communications system providing realtime access to data of the electronic data source;” [0125] “An objective measure of scale and/or size associated with the financial object may include, for example, any combination or ratios of: revenue … sales, total sales … gross sales … cash, … liquidation value of company” note the real-time data and the combination of gross sales, cash, and liquidation value of a company)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yalamanchi’s pricing monitor, Korzinin’s geopolitical data, and Minor’s transaction interface to include additional transaction modification data such as company value in view of Brightman in an effort to avoid undesirable financial objects (see Brightman ¶ [0174] & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 5
Yalamanchi teaches
wherein the end user processing device -31-is a physical revenue recording device. (Yalamanchi col. 5, ln. 6-12 “The client 106 is representative of a plurality of client devices that may be coupled to the network 109. The client 106 may correspond to a merchant or a customer. The client 106 may comprise, for example, a processor-based system such as a computer system. Such a computer system may be embodied in the form of a desktop computer, a laptop computer”)
Claim 6
Yalamanchi teaches
wherein the end user processing device is an online payment system. (Yalamanchi col. 5, ln. 6-12 “The client 106 is representative of a plurality of client devices that may be coupled to the network 109. The client 106 may correspond to a merchant or a customer. The client 106 may comprise, for example, a processor-based system such as a computer system. Such a computer system may be embodied in the form of a … a laptop computer”)
Claim 7
Yalamanchi / Korzinin / Minor do not explicitly teach, however Brightman in the analogous art of transaction data teaches
wherein the modified transaction data includes at least one assessment of the current gross worth of the monetary assets of a company. (Brightman [0125] “An objective measure of scale and/or size associated with the financial object may include, for example, any combination or ratios of: revenue … sales, total sales … gross sales … cash, … liquidation value of company”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Yalamanchi’s pricing monitor, Korzinin’s geopolitical data, and Minor’s transaction interface to include additional transaction modification data such as company value in view of Brightman in an effort to avoid undesirable financial objects (see Brightman ¶ [0174] & MPEP 2143G).
Claim 8
Yalamanchi / Korzinin / Minor do not explicitly teach, however Brightman in the analogous art of transaction data teaches
wherein the modified transaction data includes at least one assessment of the current gross worth of the inventory of a company. (Brightman [0125] “An objective measure of scale and/or size associated with the financial object may include, for example, any combination or ratios of: … tangible assets, intangible assets, fixed assets, property”)
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Yalamanchi / Korzinin / Minor with/and the teachings of Brightman are presented in the examining of claim 7 and incorporated herein.
Claim 9
Yalamanchi / Korzinin / Minor do not explicitly teach, however Brightman in the analogous art of transaction data teaches
wherein the modified transaction data includes at least one assessment of the current net worth of the monetary assets of a company. (Brightman [0125] “An objective measure of scale and/or size associated with the financial object may include, for example, any combination or ratios of: … net worth”)
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Yalamanchi / Korzinin / Minor with/and the teachings of Brightman are presented in the examining of claim 7 and incorporated herein.
Claim 10
Yalamanchi / Korzinin / Minor do not explicitly teach, however Brightman in the analogous art of transaction data teaches
wherein the modified transaction data includes at least one assessment of the fees owed related to the monetary assets of a company. (Brightman [0125] “An objective measure of scale and/or size associated with the financial object may include, for example, any combination or ratios of: … long term liabilities, short term liabilities”)
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Yalamanchi / Korzinin / Minor with/and the teachings of Brightman are presented in the examining of claim 7 and incorporated herein.
Claim 11
Yalamanchi / Korzinin / Minor do not explicitly teach, however Brightman in the analogous art of transaction data teaches
wherein the modified transaction data includes at least one assessment of the refunds owed related to the monetary assets of a company. (Brightman [0125] “An objective measure of scale and/or size associated with the financial object may include, for example, any combination or ratios of: … future value of expected cash flow.”)
The rationales to modify/combine the teachings of Yalamanchi / Korzinin / Minor with/and the teachings of Brightman are presented in the examining of claim 7 and incorporated herein.
Claims 12, 22
Yalamanchi teaches
wherein the graphical user interface is displayed in a web browser. (Yalamanchi fig. 2 noting the web browser)
Claim 13
Yalamanchi teaches
wherein the end user processing device is a mobile computing device. (Yalamanchi col. 5, ln. 6-12 “The client 106 is representative of a plurality of client devices that may be coupled to the network 109. The client 106 may correspond to a merchant or a customer. The client 106 may comprise, for example, a processor-based system such as a computer system. Such a computer system may be embodied in the form of a … a laptop computer”)
Claim 14
Yalamanchi teaches
wherein the method further comprising generating an alert message based on the modified transaction data placing the end user processing device into a state of alarm. (Yalamanchi 3:3-12 “Depending on whether the deviation is significant (e.g., whether the deviation meets or exceeds a threshold), the pricing monitor service 121 may be configured to implement one or more actions to correct the deviation. For example, the pricing monitor service 121 may notify the merchant, temporarily remove the offering of the item from the foreign electronic marketplace … and/or implement another action.”)
Claim 20
Yalamanchi teaches
further comprising generating an alert message based on the transaction value modifying data placing the end user processing device into a state of alarm, wherein the alert message is an SMS message, is an email, is an automated telephonic message, or is machine readable and communicated via an electronic data interface. (Yalamanchi col. 6, ln. 4-9 “The pricing monitor service 121 may be configured to notify merchants through an online “sales coach” within network pages 124 served up by the merchant management application 118 or by email, text message, telephone call, and/or other forms of communication”)
Claim 23
Yalamanchi / Minor do not explicitly teach, Korzinin however in the analogous art of market information teaches
wherein the external factor data includes data being selected from the group consisting of economic data, weather data, and political data. (Korzinin [0034] “significant variations may occur at particular trading intervals due to various extraneous factors. For example, the distribution of trades on any given day may depend upon such factors as … geopolitical events or announcements, market shortages or surpluses” note the geopolitical events)
The motivation / rationale to combine Yalamanchi / Minor with Korzinin persists.
Claim 24
Yalamanchi teaches
wherein an alert message generated is an SMS message. (Yalamanchi col. 6, ln. 4-9 “The pricing monitor service 121 may be configured to notify merchants through … text message”)
Claim 25
Yalamanchi teaches
wherein an alert message generated is an email. (Yalamanchi col. 6, ln. 4-9 “The pricing monitor service 121 may be configured to notify merchants … by email”)
Claim 26
Yalamanchi teaches
wherein an alert message generated is an automated telephonic message. (Yalamanchi col. 6, ln. 4-9 “The pricing monitor service 121 may be configured to notify merchants … by … telephone call”)
Claim 27
Yalamanchi teaches
wherein an alert message generated is machine readable and communicated via an electronic data interface. (Yalamanchi col. 6, ln. 4-9 “The pricing monitor service 121 may be configured to notify merchants through an online “sales coach” within network pages 124 served up by the merchant management application 118 or by email, text message, telephone call, and/or other forms of communication”)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. WO 0163498 A2; US 20070027787 A1; Pau, Mobile operators as banks or vice-versa? and: regulators interest in the best efficiency for payments, 2013.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED EL-BATHY whose telephone number is (571)270-5847. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM-4:30PM.
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, PATRICIA MUNSON can be reached on (571) 270-5396. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MOHAMED N EL-BATHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3624