DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claims 1-10 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/30/2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 101
Applicant's arguments filed 06/09/2025 with respect to the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the clustering feature is more clearly connected to the feature of controlling the scent dispenser to generate the recommended scent and therefore claim incorporates the clustering feature and the feature of generating a recommended scent into a practical application and satisfies the requirement of “significantly more than the judicial exception.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant’s current amendments further define the abstract idea. They are directed to clustering of users based on purposes and effects and then recommending a scent based on what a user’s intended purposes and effects are and what group of people they would be a part of. As currently written, the use of the scent dispenser is generating the recommended scent is merely generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. In this case, the claim is primarily comprised of the determining of a recommended scent and then simply ties in the use of a generic scent dispenser at the end to “generate the recommended scent.” Although the additional element of the claims does limit the use of the abstract idea, the use of the generic scent dispenser merely confines the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (scent dispenser) and thus fails to add an inventive concept to the claims. See MPEP 2106.05. Examiner notes that there has been no technical improvement to the scent dispenser. The additional elements do not provide a benefit that correlates to any of the limitations recognized by the Courts as integrating an abstract idea into a practical application. While Applicant has identified the inventive concept of a customer being able to receive a scent recommendation based on a variety of input data, this concept is directed to the abstract idea of providing a recommendation. The interactions between the computer and scent dispenser are described at a generic level in the claims and merely amount to an application of the abstract idea on a generic computer. The limitations do not correlate to any of the limitations recognized by the Courts as integrating an abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, while the claims may solve a problem of customers looking for an accurate scent recommendation, the problem is not a problem recognized by the Courts as integrating the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that claims 3 and 9 recite the feature of controlling the dispenser to dispense scent for prescribed duration is a concrete control step that is significantly more than a judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. There is nothing in the claims or in Applicant’s Specification that provides for the timing of a scent dispenser to be a technical improvement to that of how scent dispensers typically operate. Again, the claims are not directed to “improving the existing technological process”. Rather known models are used to improve providing a recommendation. The timing of the scent by the dispenser is not a technological improvement.
For at least these reasons, Examiner maintains the previous 35 USC 101 rejection.
35 USC 103
Applicant’s arguments and amendments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 4-7 under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot. In light of current amendments, a new grounds of rejection is made in further view of Shaya et al. (US 2002/0161664).
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- 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the eligibility analysis the claims are directed to statutory categories. MPEP 2106.03. Specifically, the system, as claimed in claims 1- 10, is directed to an apparatus.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites the abstract idea of generating scent presentation information to present a scent recommendation to a user. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
Acquire and store scent provision information related to a plurality of users, the scent provision information including a scent identification information useable to identify scents provided to the plurality of users, scent evaluation information indicating evaluations of each of the scents by each of the plurality of users, the scent evaluation information including fourth evaluation information, and user identification information useable to identify each of the users among the plurality of users;
Receive a user input, performed by each of the plurality of users, of a user purpose and an effect of each of the scents, the use purpose being a purpose for which the user used the scent and the effect being an indication of the effectiveness of the scent for the use purpose;
Generate the fourth evaluation information for each of the scents based on the use purpose and the effect;
Classify users among the plurality of users into a plurality of clusters with other users among the plurality of users in accordance with use purpose and the effect of the fourth evaluation information;
Receive a request to search of a recommended scent for a predetermined user among the plurality of users based on a requested use purpose and a requested effect of the recommended scent;
Determine a predetermined cluster to which the predetermined user belongs among the plurality of clusters;
Generate scent presentation information useable to present the recommended scent to the predetermined user based on the fourth evaluation information of users belonging to the predetermined cluster; and
Generate the recommended scent based on the scent presentation information using one or more fragrances among the plurality of fragrances.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a). The abstract idea identified above is considered to be a certain method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because storing scent provision information, acquiring the scent provision information, receiving user input of a use purpose and effect, classifying the user into a predetermined cluster, receiving a request to search for a recommendation, determine a predetermined cluster, generating scent presentation information useable to present a scent recommended to the user, and outputting the scent presentation information are commercial or legal interactions because they are sales activities or business relations. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Additionally, the abstract idea identified above is considered to be a mental process. Mental processes are “concepts performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)”. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). In this case, generating, based on the use purpose and the effect, fourth evaluation information is a type of observation and evaluation. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations 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). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements such as a scent dispenser, a computer including a processor and storage. Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., generating scent presentation information) being applied on a general-purpose computer. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components...‘ad[d] nothing. ..that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’... [and] [v]iewed as a whole...[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 do not aid in the eligibility of independent claim 1. For example, claims 2-10 merely further define the abstract limitations of claim 1.
Furthermore, it is noted that certain dependent claims include additional elements supplemental to those recited in independent claim 1: a terminal apparatus (claim 6). However, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. These additional elements are merely generic elements are likewise described in a generic manner in Applicant’s Specification. Additionally, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Thus, dependent claims 2-10 are also ineligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buznykovatyy et al. (US 2021/0312518) in view of Van Schijndel et al. (US 2010/0309434), and further in view of Shaya et al. (US 2002/0161664).
Regarding Claim 1, Buznykovatyy discloses A scent-presentation-information output system comprising: (see at least paragraph [0001] disclosing system for performing method of creating/managing fragrance-related user profiles, [0013] disclosing system performing method for providing feedback for evaluation of fragrances, [0025] disclosing system for automated fragrance dispenser unit and backend server in data communication to perform analysis and storing user profiles)
A scent dispenser that contains a plurality of fragrances and is configured to generate a scent using one or more fragrances among the plurality of fragrances (See at least paragraph [0025] disclosing automated fragrance dispenser unit and back end server in data communication – where dispenser unit may perform some preliminary or sophisticated data analyses itself or simply forward data to back end server [0031] disclosing user adjusts operation of automated fragrance dispenser unit and unit constantly monitors use patterns and forwards data related to said use patterns to the back end server, [0034] disclosing adjustments to operation parameters of automated fragrance dispenser unit are given as updated/feedback by the dispenser unit to the backend server, [0035])
A computer including a storage, being operably coupled to the scent dispenser and configured to control the scent dispenser to dispense the scent (See at least paragraph [0025] disclosing all computing and data analysis tasks split between the control unit of the automated fragrance dispenser unit and the back end server, [0034]-[0035]), the computer being configured to:
Acquire and store scent provision information related to a plurality of users (see at least paragraph [0025] disclosing user profile/information stored in backend server, [0035] disclosing storage of information), the scent provision information including scent identification information useable to identify scents provided to the plurality of users (See at least paragraph [0007] disclosing providing user with first number of aromatic accords – provided in fragrance cartridges adapted to be used with an automated fragrance dispenser unit, [0027]-[0028] disclosing initial scent kits provided to user, [0005] disclosing using profile information to make scent related predictions and provide to user based on evaluation of the available data, [0016] disclosing grouping users by similarities such as age or geographic areas to see overlap in taste concerning scents which may be reflected in their user profiles and can be employed for generation of future initial fragrance preference profiles and updating current user profiles, [0029] disclosing data analysis techniques such as neural networks or other dedicated and tuned algorithms that take into account additional data such as profiles of other users with similar preferences and/or personalities), scent evaluation information indicating evaluations of each of the scents by each of the plurality of users (See at least paragraph [0013] disclosing user interacts with system to provide input to feedback loop which profile is created and updated, [0033] disclosing user profile stays same for specific user and continuously updated based on cartridges, feedback, etc.), and user identification information useable to identify each of the users among the plurality of users; (See at least paragraph [0005] disclosing creating and managing fragrance related user profiles where preferences of user can be accounted for, [0008] disclosing create a user profile based on the initial profile and evaluation of use patterns in accordance with the operation of the automated fragrance dispenser unit, [0012] user input including preferences and personal data, [0025] disclosing user profile /information stored in backend server, [0016] & [0029], [0033] disclosing user profile stays same for specific user and continuously updated based on cartridges, feedback, etc. (examiner notes that user profile is useable to identify the specific user because it is created by the specific user and continuously retrieved/used by said user and compared to personal data in other user profiles of specific users))
Classify users among the plurality of users into a plurality of clusters with other users among the plurality of users in accordance with the evaluation information; (See at least paragraph [0016] disclosing grouping users my similarities such as age or geographic areas to see overlap in taste concerning scents which may be reflected in their user profiles and can be employed for generation of future initial fragrance preference profiles and updating current user profiles, [0029] disclosing data analysis techniques such as neural networks or other dedicated and tuned algorithms that take into account additional data such as profiles of other users with similar preferences and/or personalities)
Generate scent presentation information useable to present a recommended scent to a predetermined user among the plurality of users; and (See at least paragraph [0005] disclosing using profile information to make scent related predictions and provide to user based on evaluation of the available data, [0016] disclosing grouping users by similarities such as age or geographic areas to see overlap in taste concerning scents which may be reflected in their user profiles and can be employed for generation of future initial fragrance preference profiles and updating current user profiles, [0029] disclosing data analysis techniques such as neural networks or other dedicated and tuned algorithms that take into account additional data such as profiles of other users with similar preferences and/or personalities, [0030] disclosing based on the profile, shipping additional fragrances to customer)
Control the scent dispenser to generate the recommended scent based on the scent presentation information using one or more fragrances among the plurality of fragrances (See at least paragraph [0005] disclosing predictions can be made and provided to a user based on the evaluation of available data, [0030] disclosing based on the profile, shipping additional fragrances to customer, [0032] disclosing output of fragrances changed based on user profile predictions/preferences in real time, [0033]).
Buznykovatyy does not expressly provide for the computer including a processor; and the scent evaluation information including fourth evaluation information, receive a user input, performed by each of the plurality of users, of a user purpose and an effect of each of the scents, the use purpose being a purpose for which the user used the scent and the effect being an indication of the effectiveness of the scent; generate the fourth evaluation information for each of the scents based on the use purpose and the effect; and use fourth evaluation information.
However, Van Schijndel discloses the computer including a processor; and the scent evaluation information including fourth evaluation information, receive a user input, performed by each of the plurality of users, of a user purpose and an effect of each of the scents, the use purpose being a purpose for which the user used the scent and the effect being an indication of the effectiveness of the scent; generate the fourth evaluation information for each of the scents based on the use purpose and the effect; and use fourth evaluation information (See at least paragraph [0007] disclosing receive biofeedback data and user preference data to control the output from the fluid reservoir (e.g., scent dispenser) accordingly, [0008] disclosing effect determined based on current body conditions from biofeedback data and personal preference about the amount, type, and duration of scent to be delivered based on user’s profile, [0009] disclosing purpose dependent on current and desired mood of the customer, [0014] disclosing go to a desired emotional state using biofeedback data while taking into account user preferences, [0016] disclosing multiple different scents can be used at different times depending upon the control components reading of the biofeedback and user profile data, [0021] disclosing received inputs from sensor and user preferences, [0026] disclosing effect may be determined to not be enough and as a result system can increase concentration or switch to more powerful odors – still using user preference data such that correct state is reached, [0027] disclosing user preferences include personal information about desired emotional state from the user and/or personal tastes and can be modified in real-time, [0029] disclosing user can provide feedback on how effective scents are for user later on in profile, [0033] disclosing computer including processor, [0036] disclosing sensor monitoring of data, [0037] disclosing system adapts to the user by means of user preferences/biofeedback).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Buznykovatyy with the purpose and effect data, as taught by Van Schijndel, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including increased effectiveness of the scent delivery to rapidly influence the mood of a user. See Van Schijndel paragraph [0009] & [0012].
Neither Buznykovatyy nor Van Schijndel expressly provide for classify users among the plurality of users into a plurality of clusters with other users among the plurality of users in accordance with use purpose and the effect of the evaluation information; receive a request to search for a recommended scent for a predetermined user among the plurality of users based on a requested use purpose and a requested effect of the recommended scent; determine a predetermined cluster to which the predetermined user belongs among the plurality of clusters; and generate recommendation to the predetermined user based on the fourth evaluation information of users belonging to the predetermined cluster.
However, Shaya discloses classify users among the plurality of users into a plurality of clusters with other users among the plurality of users in accordance with use purpose and the effect of the evaluation information; receive a request to search for a recommended scent for a predetermined user among the plurality of users based on a requested use purpose and a requested effect of the recommended scent; determine a predetermined cluster to which the predetermined user belongs among the plurality of clusters; and generate recommendation to the predetermined user based on the fourth evaluation information of users belonging to the predetermined cluster (See at least paragraph [0040] disclosing characterizing consumers and products to predict product use effects and recommended products form predefined population of available products but taking subjective/objective product information received from consumers or input into system and characterize consumers to allow finding commonalities among consumers in terms of similar requirements or responses to help determine product a consumer will prefer and/or perform well for the problem or concern identified by the consumer, [0045] disclosing collect data on mean effects of products within predefined clustering sub-populations of consumers called group or segments which can be characterized by their similarity of needs or response to products and product recommendation can be formed on bases of consumer’s characterization similarity to segment characterizations and segments average responses to products, [0089] disclosing use product response or feedback to a) group consumers with similar substrate conditions, b) group consumers whose substrate responds better to the same set of products; c) group consumers whose substrate responds by a similar magnitude to the same set of products; d) measure the effects of products on substrate properties; e) compare the effects on a single consumer's substrate to the average effects seen in a population of consumers; and/or i) show consumers any changes that have occurred with use of a particular product or products over time, [0092] disclosing rating of fragrance).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Buznykovatyy with recommendations based user purpose and requested effect within a cluster of users, as taught by Shaya, since such a modification would have only united elements of the prior art, with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results including improved accuracy of consumers by exploiting information from other customers that is similar to a given customer in some form or another. See Shaya paragraph [0003], [0024]-[0025].
Regarding Claim 2, Buznykovatyy, Van Schijndel, and Shaya teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Buznykovatyy discloses wherein the scent evaluation information includes first evaluation information (See at least paragraph [0005] describing object of invention to take into account time-dependent changes of taste and preferences of users to be used in making predications, [0017] disclosing evaluation of use patterns identify use cycles such as daily, weekly and/or yearly use cycles – evaluate patterns that take into account user prefers different scents based on season or time of day which can be used to make precise predictions, [0019], [0033] disclosing predictions include start and stop times of operation), and the computer is further configured to: acquire a provision duration for which each of the scents is provided; and (See at least paragraph [0017] disclosing evaluation of use patterns identify use cycles such as daily, weekly and/or yearly use cycles)
generate the first evaluation information based on the provision duration. (See at least paragraph [0005] describing object of invention to take into account time-dependent changes of taste and preferences of users to be used in making predications, [0017] disclosing evaluation of use patterns identify use cycles such as daily, weekly and/or yearly use cycles – evaluate patterns that take into account user prefers different scents based on season or time of day which can be used to make precise predictions, [0019], [0033] disclosing predictions include start and stop times of operation).
Regarding Claim 4, Buznykovatyy, Van Schijndel, and Shaya teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Buznykovatyy discloses wherein the computer is configured to acquire the scent provision information based on information transmitted from the scent dispenser (See at least paragraph [0025] disclosing automated fragrance dispenser unit and back end server in data communication – where dispenser unit may perform some preliminary or sophisticated data analyses itself or simply forward data to back end server [0031] disclosing user adjusts operation of automated fragrance dispenser unit and unit constantly monitors use patterns and forwards data related to said use patterns to the back end server, [0034] disclosing adjustments to operation parameters of automated fragrance dispenser unit are given as updated/feedback by the dispenser unit to the backend server, [0035]).
Regarding Claim 5, Buznykovatyy, Van Schijndel, and Shaya teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 4. Additionally, Buznykovatyy discloses wherein the scent dispenser is configured to receive input information for generating the scent provision information (See at least paragraph [0010] disclosing automated fragrance dispenser unit not only serves as the hardware actually providing the fragrance to the user but also as the interface between the user and the underlying algorithms for tracking and predicting his/her preferences, [0031] disclosing user adjusts operation of automated fragrance dispenser unit and unit constantly monitors use patterns and forwards data related to said use patterns to the back end server, [0034] disclosing adjustments to operation parameters of automated fragrance dispenser unit are given as updated/feedback by the dispenser unit to the backend server, [0035]).
Regarding Claim 6, Buznykovatyy, Van Schijndel, and Shaya teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 5. Additionally, Buznykovatyy discloses wherein the scent dispenser receives input of the information for generating the scent provision information via a terminal apparatus associated with the user (See at least paragraph [0031] disclosing feedback loop where automated fragrance dispenser and connected smartphone application constantly monitor use patterns controlled by user and forwards data related to said use pattens to the back end server, [0034], [0035] disclosing dispenser interacts with user preferably via Bluetooth to mobile phone and has sufficient computing power to record user’s use patterns).
Regarding Claim 7, Buznykovatyy, Van Schijndel, and Shaya teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Buznykovatyy discloses wherein the computer is further configured to identify each of the plurality of users based on the user identification information. (See at least paragraph [0005] disclosing creating and managing fragrance related user profiles where preferences of user can be accounted for, [0008] disclosing create a user profile based on the initial profile and evaluation of use patterns in accordance with the operation of the automated fragrance dispenser unit, [0012] user input including preferences and personal data, [0013] disclosing user interacts with system to provide input to feedback loop which profile is created and updated, [0025] disclosing user profile/information stored in backend server, [0033] disclosing user profile stays same for specific user and continuously updated based on cartridges, feedback, etc.)
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
Claims 3 and 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of subject matter free of prior art:
The Examiner hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence neither anticipates nor renders obvious the particular combination of elements as claimed. That is, the Examiner emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for combining or otherwise modifying the available prior art to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of the evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
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 BRITTANY E BARGEON whose telephone number is (571)272-2861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am to 6:00pm.
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, Kelly Campen can be reached at (571) 272-6740. 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.
/B.E.B/Examiner, Art Unit 3688
/KELLY S. CAMPEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3688