DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1-17 were previously pending. Claims 1, 11-13, and 15-17 were amended in the reply filed September 8, 2025. Claims 1-17 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection of claim 15 made under § 112(a) and it is withdrawn. The amended language of claims 11-13 and 16 suffers from the same deficiency of the previous versions (lack of any meaningful algorithm in the disclosure to support the claim scope).
Applicant's amendments overcome the rejection made under § 112(b) and they are withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the newly added limitations and the rejections made under §§ 102(a)(1) & 103 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The remaining arguments are unpersuasive because they only consist of a general allegation of patentability.
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the rejections made under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons already of record (see Final Rejection mailed 2/21/2024, ¶¶ 8-10).
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 11-13 and 16 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.
Claim 11 recites "the attribute of the first or second product comprises a representation of one or more categories based on a digital metric of one or more health, disease, organs, tissues, organisms, animals, chemical processes, chemicals, physical processes, and combinations thereof."
Claim 12 recites "the attribute of the first or second product comprises a representation of one or more categories based on a digital metric of one or more of food, grocery, nutrition, carbohydrate, fat, meat, appetite, hunger, digestion, metabolism, and combinations thereof."
Claim 13 recites "the attribute of the first or second product comprises a representation of one or more categories based on a digital metric of one or more energy, fuel, utility, heat, cold, temperature, air, carbon dioxide, water, earth, carbon, material, color, and combinations thereof."
Claim 16 recites "the user is identified using one or more of a cart, an id, card, registration, chip, token, link, hash, cipher, deed, contract, account, receipt, and combinations thereof."
There is no detailed discussion in the Specification of how these are accomplished. "When examining computer-implemented functional claims, examiners should determine whether the specification discloses the computer and the algorithm (e.g., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) that perform the claimed function in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor possessed the claimed subject matter at the time of filing…. It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)." MPEP 2161.01(I).
The subject matter of the claims (recited above) does not conform to the disclosure in such a manner that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed system as being that which Applicant adequately described as the invention or what Applicant actually had possession of at the time of the invention. A review of the disclosure does not reveal the particular manner in which these elements are used to make the recited determinations/identifications. For example, there is no sufficient description of how: the product attribute is determined based on, e.g., tissues (claim 11); the product attribute is determined based on, e.g., hunger (claim 12); the product attribute is determined based on, e.g., carbon (claim 13); and the user is identified using, e.g., a cipher (claim 16). With respect to claims 11-13 specifically, there is also no description of how these determined attributes are used to arrive at numerical values (as required by independent claim 1). Applicant’s failure to disclose any meaningful structure/algorithm as to how these elements are used to adjust values supports a finding that Applicant did not fully possess of these features at the time of filing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter (abstract idea without significantly more). Claims are eligible for patent protection under § 101 if they are in one of the four statutory categories and not directed to a judicial exception to patentability. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Claims 1-17, each considered as a whole and as an ordered combination, are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 1:
The claims contain an abstract idea reflected in the recited representative functions of the independent claims—including these elements of claim 1:
displaying a mode of information to a customer to assess a first numerical value, wherein displaying uses a mode of information to visually represent the first numerical value, such that the mode of information is one or more of a gradient, scale, litmus, advisory, alert, caution, sign, symbol, signal, color, wavelength, frequency, and combinations thereof, wherein the numerical value is based on an attribute of a first product, wherein the attribute of the first product is one or more of a price, zip code, SKU, brand name, serial number, barcode, numeric identifier, alphanumeric identifier, and combinations thereof;
receiving interaction from a user from the mode of information to adjust the first numerical value for a product using one or more of a metric, selection, range, setting, input, and combinations thereof;
causing a change of the first numerical value based on a personal digital address, a financial status of the user, an attribute of a second product, and the input from the user, wherein the personal digital address corresponds with at least one of a personal affect, attribute, or belief, and wherein the attribute of the second product is one or more of a price, zip code, SKU, brand name, serial number, barcode, numeric identifier, or alphanumeric identifier, and combinations thereof; and
determining a second numerical value based on the changed first numerical value from the input of the user, wherein the second numerical value is linked to a form of one or more currency, money, points, incentive, reward, credit, debit, crypto, token, monetary value, payment, donation, advertisement, financial attribute, portions thereof, and combinations thereof. Independent claim 17 recites the same abstract idea albeit slightly differently worded.
This qualifies as a method of organizing human activities because it recites collecting and analyzing information for pricing or valuing products (i.e., in the terminology of the 2019 Revised Guidance, fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial interactions (including marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations). Additionally, the claims recite mathematical relationships/calculations (i.e., using attributes or other various factors to calculate a second value from an adjusted first value).
It shares similarities with other abstract ideas held to be non-statutory by the courts (see Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2015)—determining a price using organizational and product group hierarchies, similar because at another level of abstraction the claims could be characterized as determining a price using a unique price and price adjustments; OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2015)—price optimization; Smart Sys. Innovations v. Chicago Transit Authority, 873 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2017)—formation of financial transactions in a particular field and data collection related to such transactions).
These cases all also describe significantly similar aspects of the claimed invention, albeit at another level of abstraction. See Apple, Inc. v. Ameranth, Inc., 842 F.3d 1229, 1240-41 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea can generally be described at different levels of abstraction. As the Board has done, the claimed abstract idea could be described as generating menus on a computer, or generating a second menu from a first menu and sending the second menu to another location. It could be described in other ways, including, as indicated in the specification, taking orders from restaurant customers on a computer.").
MPEP 2106 Step 2A – Prong 2:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there are no meaningful limitations that transform the exception into a patent eligible application. The elements merely serve to provide a general link to a technological environment (e.g., computers and the Internet) in which to carry out the judicial exception (computing device, graphical user interface, processing devices, "digitized" or "digital" data—all recited at a high level of generality). Although they have and execute instructions to perform the abstract idea itself (e.g., modules, program code, etc. to automate the abstract idea), this also does not serve to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it merely amounts to instructions to "apply it." Aside from such instructions to implement the abstract idea, they are solely used for generic computer operations (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data), employing the computer as a tool. See FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., Inc., 839 F.3d 1089, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[T]he use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.") (citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245,1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)) (emphasis added).
The claims only manipulate abstract data elements into another form. They do not set forth improvements to another technological field or the functioning of the computer itself and instead use computer elements as tools to improve the functioning of the abstract idea identified above. Looking at the additional limitations and abstract idea as an ordered combination and as a whole adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Rather than any meaningful limits, their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation of the abstract idea identified in Prong One. None of the additional elements recited "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment,' that is, implementation via computers." Alice Corp., slip op. at 16 (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
At the levels of abstraction described above, the claims do not readily lend themselves to a finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. Therefore, the analysis proceeds to step 2B. See BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The Enfish claims, understood in light of their specific limitations, were unambiguously directed to an improvement in computer capabilities. Here, in contrast, the claims and their specific limitations do not readily lend themselves to a step-one finding that they are directed to a nonabstract idea. We therefore defer our consideration of the specific claim limitations’ narrowing effect for step two.") (citations omitted).
MPEP 2106 Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons as presented in Step 2A Prong 2 (i.e., they amount to nothing more than a general link to a particular technological environment and instructions to apply it there). Moreover, the additional elements recited are known and conventional computing elements (computing device, graphical user interface, processing devices, "digitized" or "digital" data—see published Specification ¶¶ 0086, 92, 113, 134 describing these at a high level of generality and in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements).
The Federal Circuit has recognized that "an invocation of already-available computers that are not themselves plausibly asserted to be an advance, for use in carrying out improved mathematical calculations, amounts to a recitation of what is 'well-understood, routine, [and] conventional.'" SAP Am., Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 1023 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (alteration in original) (citing Mayo v. Prometheus, 566 U.S. 66, 73 (2012)). Apart from the instructions to implement the abstract idea, they only serve to perform well-understood functions (e.g., receiving, storing, retrieving, transmitting data—see Specification above as well as Alice Corp.; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) covering the well-known nature of these computer functions).
"The use and arrangement of conventional and generic computer components recited in the claims—such as a database, user terminal, and server— do not transform the claim, as a whole, into 'significantly more' than a claim to the abstract idea itself. We have repeatedly held that such invocations of computers and networks that are not even arguably inventive are insufficient to pass the test of an inventive concept in the application of an abstract idea." Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (citations and quotation marks omitted). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Dependent Claims Step 2A:
The limitations of the dependent claims but for those addressed below merely set forth further refinements of the abstract idea without changing the analysis already presented (i.e., they merely further limit he abstract idea without adding any new additional elements beyond it). Additionally, for the same reasons as above, the limitations fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea as the independent claims (computing device, graphical user interface, processing devices, "digitized" or "digital" data). Claims 3, 6, and 9-13 add generic computing device, digital device, systems, and smartphone, but these merely serve to further limit the general link to a particular technological environment. Moreover, they are recited in the alternative with abstract elements.
Dependent Claims Step 2B:
The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions to implement the abstract idea. Although they add the elements identified in 2A above (generic computing device, digital device, systems, and smartphone), these do not amount to significantly more for the same reasons they fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Moreover, the Specification also indicates this is the routine use of known elements for the same reasons presented with respect to the elements in the independent claims above (see ¶¶ 0086, 92, 113, 134). Accordingly, they are not directed to significantly more than the exception itself, and are not eligible subject matter under § 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-9 and 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dessert, et al., U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2014/0239066 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20230131) in view of Aydin, et al., Personalized Dynamic Pricing of Limited Inventories, Operations Research, Vol. 57, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 2009, pgs. 1523-1531 (Reference U of the attached PTO-892).
As per claim 1, Dessert teaches a method of determining a numerical value comprising:
providing, at a computing device, a graphical user interface (Figs. 2D-2F),
displaying, using the graphical user interface, a mode of information to a customer to assess a first numerical value, wherein displaying uses a mode of information to visually represent the first numerical value, such that the mode of information is one or more of a gradient, scale, litmus, advisory, alert, caution, sign, symbol, signal, color, wavelength, frequency, and combinations thereof, wherein the numerical value is based on an attribute of a first product, wherein the attribute of the first product is one or more of a price, zip code, SKU, brand name, serial number, barcode, numeric identifier, alphanumeric identifier, and combinations thereof (Figs. 2D-2E; ¶ 0182);
receiving interaction from a user from the mode of information to adjust the first numerical value for a product using one or more of a metric, selection, range, setting, input, and combinations thereof (¶¶ 0194, 198);
causing a change of the first numerical value based on a financial status of the user, an attribute of a second product, and the input from the user, and wherein the attribute of the second product is one or more of a price, zip code, SKU, brand name, serial number, barcode, numeric identifier, or alphanumeric identifier, and combinations thereof (¶¶ 0165, 183, 185-89, 194-96); and
determining a second numerical value based on the changed first numerical value from the input of the user, wherein the second numerical value is linked to a digitized form of one or more currency, money, points, incentive, reward, credit, debit, crypto, token, monetary value, payment, donation, advertisement, financial attribute, portions thereof, and combinations thereof (Figs. 2F, 11B).
Dessert does not explicitly teach causing a change of the first numerical value based on a personal digital address, wherein the personal digital address corresponds with at least one of a personal affect, attribute, or belief; which is taught by Aydin (pg. 1527, col. 1—"the retailer can present different users with different prices after observing, for example, the IP address of the user"). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Aydin—namely, to adapt pricing algorithms to modern customer attributes in online commerce. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of pricing in commercial sales. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
As per claim 2, Dessert in view of Aydin teaches claim 1 as above. Dessert further teaches the change of the first numerical value is further determined by adjusting the second numerical value with one or more of a number, zip code, demand, supply, price, cost, tariff, coupon, discount, performance, metric, and combinations thereof (Figs. 2F, 11B).
As per claim 3, Dessert in view of Aydin teaches claim 1 as above. Dessert further teaches the monetary value is transmitted in a digitized form to one or more of a computing device, processor, program, digital device, payment system, point of sale system, exchange, account, and combinations thereof (Figs. 2F, 11B).
As per claim 4, Dessert in view of Aydin teaches claim 1 as above. Dessert further teaches determining a derivative by adjusting the first or second numerical value with one or more of a fraction, combinatorial, decimal, weight, score, rank, coefficient, log, exponential, and combinations and portions thereof (¶ 0195).
As per claim 5, Dessert in view of Aydin teaches claim 1 as above. Dessert further teaches the user provides one or more products for a plurality of users (¶¶ 0051, 56).
As per claim 6, Dessert in view of Aydin teaches claim 1 as above. Dessert further teaches the user is one or more customer, individual, collective, coop, group, entity, robot, program, algorithm, software, script, digital device, smartphone, and combinations thereof (¶¶ 0054, 192).
As per claim 7, Dessert in view of Aydin teaches claim 1 as above. Dessert further teaches the user is one or more seller, manufacturer, merchant, wholesaler, producer, retailer, supplier, and combinations thereof (¶¶ 0054, 192).
As per claim 8, Dessert in view of Aydin teaches claim 1 as above. Dessert further teaches the user comprises a digitized entity representing an auction, barter, derivative, exchange, future, hedge, loan, purchase, refinance, increment, stock, bond, trade, grant, distribution, approval, conditional, request, substitution, transfer, liability, debt, collection, sale, portions thereof, and combinations thereof (¶ 0219).
As per claim 9, Dessert in view of Aydin teaches claim 3 as above. Dessert further teaches the processor is at least one exchange, marketplace, crypto, clearinghouse, transaction system, payment system, point of sale system, and combinations thereof (¶ 0219).
As per claim 12, Dessert in view of Aydin teaches claim 1 as above. Dessert further teaches the attribute of the first or second product comprises a representation of one or more categories based on a digital metric of one or more of food, grocery, nutrition, carbohydrate, fat, meat, appetite, hunger, digestion, metabolism, and combinations thereof (Figs. 10B-10D—food).
As per claim 13, Dessert in view of Aydin teaches claim 1 as above. Dessert further teaches the attribute of the first or second product comprises a representation of one or more categories based on a digital metric of one or more energy, fuel, utility, heat, cold, temperature, air, carbon dioxide, water, earth, carbon, material, color, and combinations thereof (Fig. 11A—color).
As per claim 14, Dessert in view of Aydin teaches claim 1 as above. Dessert further teaches the first product, the second product, or the first and the second product is a service (¶ 0005).
As per claim 15, Dessert in view of Aydin teaches claim 1 as above. Dessert further teaches the user comprises one or more of an owner, purchaser (¶ 0062), assignee, custody of, in care of, recipient, donor, portions thereof, and combinations thereof of the product or service.
As per claim 16, Dessert in view of Aydin teaches claim 14 as above. Dessert further teaches the user is identified using one or more of a cart, an id, card, registration, chip, token, link, hash, cipher, deed, contract, account, receipt, and combinations thereof (¶ 0072).
As per claim 17, Dessert teaches a machine-implemented method of determining a numerical value, comprising:
determining, at one or more processing devices, a mode of information to assess a first numerical value about a customer, wherein the mode of information is used to represent the first numerical value, such that the mode of information is a digitized representation of a gradient, scale, litmus, advisory, alert, caution, sign, symbol, signal, color, wavelength, frequency, and combinations thereof, wherein the first numerical value is based on an attribute of a first product, wherein the attribute of the first product is one or more of a price, zip code, SKU, brand name, serial number, barcode, numeric identifier, alphanumeric identifier, and combinations thereof (Figs. 2D-2E; ¶¶ 0182, 198);
receiving input from a user to adjust the numerical value for a product using one or more of a metric, selection, range, setting, input, and combinations thereof (¶¶ 0194, 198);
causing a change of the first numerical value based on a financial status of the user, an attribute of a second product, and the input from the user, wherein the attribute of the second product is one or more of a price, zip code, SKU, brand name, serial number, barcode, numeric identifier, or alphanumeric identifier, and combinations thereof (¶¶ 0165, 183, 185-89, 194-96); and
determining a second numerical value based in the changed first numerical value from the input of the user, wherein the second numerical value is retrievable based on a digitized form of one or more currency, money, points, incentive, reward, credit, debit, crypto, token, monetary value, payment, donation, advertisement, financial attribute, portions thereof, and combinations thereof (Figs. 2F, 11B).
Dessert does not explicitly teach causing a change of the first numerical value based on a personal digital address, wherein the personal digital address corresponds with at least one of a personal affect, attribute, or belief; which is taught by Aydin (pg. 1527, col. 1—"the retailer can present different users with different prices after observing, for example, the IP address of the user"); which would have been obvious to incorporate for the same reasons as in claim 1 above.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dessert in view of Aydin, et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Cloud, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2009/0144108 (Reference A of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20250302).
As per claim 10, Dessert in view of Aydin teaches claim 1 as above. Dessert further teaches the personal attribute of the user includes demographic information of the user (¶ 0189). Dessert does not explicitly teach the financial status of the user comprises an income level of the user; which is taught by Cloud (¶ 0047). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element for the same reason it is useful in Cloud—namely, to increase sales by appealing to lower-income customers. Moreover, this is merely a combination of old elements in the art of processing commercial transactions. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dessert in view of Aydin, et al. as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Grossman, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2012/0209792 (Reference B of the PTO-892 part of paper no. 20230131).
As per claim 11, Dessert in view of Aydin teaches claim 1 as above. Dessert does not explicitly teach the attribute of the first or second product comprises a representation of one or more categories based on a digital metric of one or more health, disease, organs, tissues, organisms, animals, chemical processes, chemicals, physical processes, and combinations thereof. However, this is taught by Grossman (¶¶ 0026, 35). It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate this element because it is merely a combination of old elements in the art of pricing in commercial sales. In the combination, no element would serve a purpose other than it already did independently, and one skilled in the art would have recognized that the combination could have been implemented through routine engineering producing predictable results.
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 DANIEL VETTER whose telephone number is (571)270-1366. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628