DETAILED ACTION
Notice to Applicant
1. The following is a FINAL Office action upon examination of application number 17/807,204 filed on 06/16/2022. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20-23 are pending in this application and have been examined on the merits discussed below.
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
3. In the response filed September 17, 2025, Applicant amended claims 1, 8, and 15, and canceled claims 4, 11, and 17. New claims 22-23 were presented for examination.
4. Applicant's amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15 are hereby acknowledged. The amendments are not sufficient to overcome the previously issued claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101; accordingly, this rejection has been maintained.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed September 17, 2025, have been fully considered.
6. Applicant submits “It is respectfully submitted that the claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, and 21 are amended herein to be more clearly directed to patent-eligible subject matter.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/17/2025, page 7]
Applicant has not presented specific arguments against the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection raised in the previous Office action. Accordingly, the amendments are believed to be fully addressed via the updated rejection set forth in the instant Office action.
7. Applicant submits “The amended claim language emphasizes the technical aspects of the invention including the predicting of a deficit in available power and the automatic actions taken to preserve power when a deficit is predicted. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, and 21, as amended, are allowable under the standards of 35 USC 101.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/17/2025, page 8]
Applicant has not presented specific arguments against the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection raised in the previous Office action. Accordingly, the amendments are believed to be fully addressed via the updated rejection set forth in the instant Office action.
Even assuming arguendo that the statement “The amended claim language emphasizes the technical aspects of the invention including the predicting of a deficit in available power and the automatic actions taken to preserve power when a deficit is predicted. Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, and 21, as amended, are allowable under the standards of 35 USC 101” intended to argue that the claims are eligible by integrating the judicial exception into a practical application, this argument is found unpersuasive. Under Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry, any additional elements are evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, with consideration of the following exemplary considerations that may be indicative of a practical application: an additional element that reflects an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, applying the exception with a particular machine, applying the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, effecting a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and applying or using the judicial exception some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
In this instance, the additional elements recited in exemplary claim 1 include: a networked computers system, a registered device, device, various applications used on the user device, a first application, and a calibrator module. These elements have been considered individually and in combination, however these computing elements amount to using a generic computer programmed with computer-executable instructions/software to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, which is not sufficient to amount to a practical application, as noted in MPEP 2106. See also MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these additional elements fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
The Examiner emphasizes that nowhere in Applicant’s Specification is there any discussion or suggestion that the problem or solution is a technical one, nor is there even a hint of any contemplated improvement to technology. It is not clear how the claimed limitations provide an actual improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims. The Applicant’s claims do not adequately explain how the additional elements of the claim integrate to add any meaningful limits on the abstract idea. At the most, the claimed invention seems to provide improvement beneficial to the end users. The focus of the claims of the instant application is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools. Even reviewing the Applicant’s Specification (which describes the hardware and software), it is not made clear how the hardware and software result in an improvement to the technology or hardware itself, etc. The claimed invention does not provide an improvement to another technology/technical field or the functioning of the computer itself. Applicant's invention is directed towards providing business solutions to business problems rather than providing technical solutions to technical problems; thus, the claimed invention does not provide an improvement to another technology/technical field or the functioning of the computer itself. The Examiner further points out there is no actual improvement to another technology or technical field, no improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, and no meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment evident in the claims.
Lastly, it is noted that Applicant’s claims are devoid of any discernible change, transformation, or improvement to a computer (software or hardware) or any existing technology. Applicant has not shown that any specific technological improvement is achieved within the scope of the claims. It bears emphasis that no networked computers system, device, application, or technological elements are modified or improved upon in any discernible manner. For the reasons above, this argument is found unpersuasive.
8. Applicant submits “Claim 1, as amended, recites “collecting, in a networked computers system, contextual data from user registration information and from usage of a registered device, the contextual data related to user-specific device usage, the contextual data including calendar events scheduled by the user and sensitivity of usage” and “predicting a deficit in available power for the registered device due to a change in calendar events for the specified period of time.” Support for claim amendments is found at least at 18, 38, 39, 42, 43, 60, 61, and 64 of the Specification. The above-quoted claim language is not taught or suggested by the Applied Art (whether considered individually or in any combination). Claims 8 and 15, as amended, recite similar claim language.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/17/2025, page 8]
In response to Applicant’s arguments, it is noted that Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15 are deemed sufficient to overcome the §103 rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
9. Applicant submits “Anderson does not disclose “predicting a deficit in available power for the registered device due to a change in calendar events for the specified period of time.” This is a further reason that claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 18, 20, and 21, as amended, are patentable over the Applied Art.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/17/2025, page 9]
In response to Applicant’s arguments, it is noted that Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15 are deemed sufficient to overcome the §103 rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
10. Applicant submits “Newly-added claim 22 is directed to a method that recites “the contextual data further includes: power consumption patterns of the user and pre-defined usage periods.” This is not taught or suggested by any of the prior art applied in the Office Action.” Applicant further submits “Newly-added claim 23 is directed to a method that recites “generating the power usage model is performed for a sensitive context during the specified period of time,” “the pre-paired personal host device acts as a backup to the registered device due to the sensitive context,” and “filling the power of the pre-paired personal host device to ensure maximum availability of power during the specified period of time.” This is not taught or suggested by any of the prior art applied in the Office Action.” [Applicant’s Remarks, 07/17/2025, page 9-10]
In response to Applicant’s arguments, as noted above, Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 8, and 15 are deemed sufficient to overcome the §103 rejection of claim 1.
11. Applicant’s remaining arguments either logically depend from the above-rejected arguments, in which case they too are unpersuasive for the reasons set forth above, or they are directed to features which have been newly added via amendment. Therefore, this is now the Examiner's first opportunity to consider these limitations and as such any arguments regarding these limitations would be inappropriate since they have not yet been examined. A full rejection of these limitations will be presented later in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
12. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
13. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
14. Claims 1, 8, and 15 were each amended to recite the limitation “collecting, in a networked computers system, contextual data from user registration information and from usage of a registered device, the contextual data related to user-specific device usage, the contextual data including calendar events scheduled by the user and sensitivity of usage; storing the contextual data for historical analysis of various applications used on the user device.” There is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “the user device” in the claims, which renders claims 1, 8, and 15 indefinite. The phrase “a user device” was deleted from the claims. Claims 2-3, 9, and 16 also recite the phrase “the user device”, which lacks antecedent basis. Appropriate correction is required.
15. Claims 2 and 9 recite “further comprising: detecting the device usage of the user device…” There is a lack of antecedent basis for the limitation “the device usage” in claims 2 and 9, which renders claims 2 and 9 indefinite. The phrase “device usage” was originally recited in claims 1 and 8, but was amended to recite “user-specific device usage.” Appropriate correction is required.
16. Claims 2-3, 5, 7 and 21-23 depend from claim 1 and fail to cure the §112(b) deficiency noted above, and are therefore rendered indefinite based on dependency. Claims 9, 12, and 14 depend from claim 8 and fail to cure the §112(b) deficiency noted above, and are therefore rendered indefinite based on dependency. Claims 16, 18, and 20 depend from claim 15 and fail to cure the §112(b) deficiency noted above, and are therefore rendered indefinite based on dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
17. 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.
18. Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-12, 14-18, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
19. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106), it is first noted that the method (claims 1-3, 5, 7 and 21-23), computer program product (claims 8-9, 12, and 14), and system (claims 15-16, 18 and 20) is directed to at least one potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, article of manufacture, and machine, respectively). As noted in paragraph 0011: “A computer readable storage medium, as used herein, is not to be construed as being transitory signals per se, such as radio waves or other freely propagating electromagnetic waves, electromagnetic waves propagating through a waveguide or other transmission media (e.g., light pulses passing through a fiber-optic cable), or electrical signals transmitted through a wire.” Thus, Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility test for claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20-23 is satisfied.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One, it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls into both the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings set forth in MPEP 2106. Specifically, the claims recite limitations falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping by reciting steps for managing commercial interactions (marketing/sales activities), or managing interactions between people including by following rules or instructions. Similarly, the claims recite steps falling under the “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings by reciting steps that can be performed in the human mind (via observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). With respect to independent claim 1, the limitations reciting the abstract idea are indicated in bold below: collecting, in a networked computers system, contextual data from user registration information and from usage of a registered device, the contextual data related to user-specific device usage, the contextual data including calendar events scheduled by the user and sensitivity of usage; storing the contextual data for historical analysis of various applications used on the user device, including a first application, and corresponding device usage metrics; receiving, by a calibrator module, access datasets for a set of wireless resource providers, the access datasets including identifying credentials and payment information; generating, by the calibrator module, a power usage model for a specified period of time by analyzing the contextual data collected while the first application is in use and a preference dataset for the first application; determining, by the calibrator module, a power requirement plan according to the power usage model; predicting a deficit in available power for the registered device due to a change in calendar events for the specified period of time; identifying, by the calibrator module, a target resource provider in the set of wireless resource providers capable of meeting a power requirement of the power requirement plan for the specified period of time; and responsive to identifying the target resource provider, automatically establishing, as a preservation step due to the predicted deficit in available power, a connection to the selected target resource provider using a corresponding access dataset. Considered together, these steps set forth an abstract idea of resource management, which falls under the realm of managing commercial interactions (marketing/sales activities), or managing interactions between people including by following rules or instructions, thus falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping and also fall under the “Mental Processes” grouping set forth in MPEP 2106.
Therefore, because the limitations above set forth activities falling within the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings described in MPEP 2106, the additional elements recited in the claims are further evaluated, individually and in combination, under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The independent claims recite the additional elements of: a networked computers system, a registered device, device, various applications used on the user device, a first application, and a calibrator module (claim 1), a computer-readable storage medium having a set of instructions stored therein, a processor, a networked computers system, a registered device, device, various applications used on the user device, including a first application, and a calibrator module (claim 8), a processor set, a computer readable storage medium, program instructions, a networked computers system, a registered device, device, various applications used on the user device, including a first application, and a calibrator module (claim 15). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Furthermore, these additional elements fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they fail to provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field, fail to apply the exception with a particular machine, fail to apply the judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, fail to effect a transformation of a particular article to a different state or thing, and fail to apply/use the abstract idea in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry, it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The independent claims recite the additional elements of: a networked computers system, a registered device, device, various applications used on the user device, a first application, and a calibrator module (claim 1), a computer-readable storage medium having a set of instructions stored therein, a processor, a networked computers system, a registered device, device, various applications used on the user device, including a first application, and a calibrator module (claim 8), a processor set, a computer readable storage medium, program instructions, a networked computers system, a registered device, device, various applications used on the user device, including a first application, and a calibrator module (claim 15). These elements have been considered individually and in combination, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), and merely serve to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (network computing environment) and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Notably, Applicant’s Specification acknowledges that the claimed invention relies on nothing more than a general-purpose computer executing instructions to implement the invention (Specification at paragraph [0015]). Therefore, the additional elements merely describe generic computing elements or computer-executable instructions (software) merely serve to tie the abstract idea to a particular operating environment, which does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20-21 recite the same abstract ideas as recited in the independent claims by reciting steps/details for managing commercial interactions and steps that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). For example, dependent claims 2-3, 5, 7, 21-23 recite “further comprising: detecting the device usage of the user device, the device usage including power consumption while the first application is running on the user device,” “further comprising: monitoring power usage of the user device for changes with respect to the collected contextual data” “wherein the contextual data includes events and event locations to be attended by the user,” “wherein: the ser of wireless resource providers provide wireless power to user devices; and the target resource provider is a wireless power transfer provider,” “further comprising: providing, by the target resource provider, the wireless power as a priority resource provider ahead of non-priority resource providers, wherein the target resource provider is a pre-paired personal host device,” “wherein identifying the target resource provider includes: mapping a contextual requirement for power to available wireless resource providers in the set of wireless resource providers; and responsive to mapping at least one available wireless resource provider capable of meeting a power requirement of the power requirement plan, selecting the target resource provider,” “wherein: the contextual data further includes: power consumption patterns of the user and pre-defined usage periods; and the specified period of time is a pre-defined usage period as defined by the contextual data,” “wherein: generating the power usage model is performed for a sensitive context during the specified period of time; and the pre-paired personal host device acts as a backup to the registered device due to the sensitive context; the method further comprising: filling the power of the pre-paired personal host device to ensure maximum availability of power during the specified period of time,” which are details for managing commercial interactions and that can be performed in the human mind (including observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). The additional elements recited in the dependent claims include a pre-paired personal host device (claims 7, 14, and 20) are directed to generic computing elements and instructions/software that serve to tie the abstract to a particular technological environment, similar to simply adding the words “apply it” to the abstract idea, which is not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more.
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are 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 generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
For more information, see MPEP 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
20. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-9, 12, 14-16, 18, and 20-23 are allowable over prior art. With respect to independent claims 1, 8, and 15, the closest prior art, Boyapalle et al., Pub. No.: US 2023/0130774 A1, Anderson et al., Pub. No.: US 2016/0105846 A1, Duncan et al., Pub. No.: US 2009/0292487 A1, and Esquibel et al., Patent No.: US 10,110,046 B1, collectively teach features for collecting, in a networked computers system, contextual data related to device usage; storing the contextual data for historical analysis of various applications used on the user device, including a first application, and corresponding device usage metrics; receiving, by a calibrator module, access datasets for a set of wireless resource providers, the access datasets including identifying credentials and payment information; generating, by the calibrator module, a power usage model for a specified period of time by analyzing the contextual data collected while the first application is in use and a preference dataset for the first application; determining, by the calibrator module, a power requirement plan according to the power usage model; identifying, by the calibrator module, a target resource provider in the set of wireless resource providers capable of meeting a power requirement of the power requirement plan for the specified period of time; and responsive to identifying the target resource provider, automatically establishing a connection to the target resource provider using a corresponding access dataset [See Office Action mailed 06/20/2025 for prior art citations pertinent to the above-noted subject matter].
However, with respect to independent claim 1, Boyapalle et al., Anderson et al., Duncan et al., and Esquibel et al., and the other prior art of record does not teach collecting, in a networked computers system, contextual data from user registration information and from usage of a registered device, the contextual data related to user-specific device usage, the contextual data including calendar events scheduled by the user and sensitivity of usage; predicting a deficit in available power for the registered device due to a change in calendar events for the specified period of time; and responsive to identifying the target resource provider, automatically establishing, as a preservation step due to the predicted deficit in available power, a connection to the target resource provider using a corresponding access dataset.
However, with respect to amended independent claim 1, while Boyapalle et al. describes
monitoring the network usage of a device associated with each of one or more personas (paragraph 0080), and newly found art describes responsive to identifying the target resource provider, automatically establishing, as a preservation step (Shuster et al., Patent No.: US 9,393,868 B2, col. 13, lines 1-7: “If the threshold likelihood that the charge will not support the desired activities is still exceeded, the user may be given an additional warning, the device temporarily powered off (either manually or automatically), the proposed list of uses for the remainder of the charge modified, and/or other steps taken to preserve the remaining charge for necessary tasks.”) and a preservation step (Aasheim, Patent. No.: US 9,026,814 B2, col., 6, lines 1-16: “a power-conserving component to carry out decisions and take other actions.”), neither reference teaches selecting from a set of wireless resource provider using provider specific access dataset nor automatically establishing a new connection to a chosen provider specifically as a power preservation response to a predicted power deficit. The prior art of record does not teach collecting, in a networked computers system, contextual data from user registration information and from usage of a registered device, the contextual data related to user-specific device usage, the contextual data including calendar events scheduled by the user and sensitivity of usage; predicting a deficit in available power for the registered device due to a change in calendar events for the specified period of time; and responsive to identifying the target resource provider, automatically establishing, as a preservation step due to the predicted deficit in available power, a connection to the target resource provider using a corresponding access dataset.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The claims are directed to allowable subject matter because the prior art of record either individually or in combination does not teach: “A computer-implemented method comprising: collecting, in a networked computers system, contextual data from user registration information and from usage of a registered device, the contextual data related to user-specific device usage, the contextual data including calendar events scheduled by the user and sensitivity of usage; storing the contextual data for historical analysis of various applications used on the user device, including a first application, and corresponding device usage metrics; receiving, by a calibrator module, access datasets for a set of wireless resource providers, the access datasets including identifying credentials and payment information; generating, by the calibrator module, a power usage model for a specified period of time by analyzing the contextual data collected while the first application is in use and a preference dataset for the first application; determining, by the calibrator module, a power requirement plan according to the power usage model; predicting a deficit in available power for the registered device due to a change in calendar events for the specified period of time; identifying, by the calibrator module, a target resource provider in the set of wireless resource providers capable of meeting a power requirement of the power requirement plan for the specified period of time; and responsive to identifying the target resource provider, automatically establishing, as a preservation step due to the predicted deficit in available power, a connection to the target resource provider using a corresponding access dataset,” as recited in amended claim 1 (and as similarly encompassed by independent claims 8 and 15), thus rendering claims as allowable over prior art. However, these claims are not allowable because they remain rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Leabman et al., Patent No.: US 10,965,164 B2 – describes systems and methods of wirelessly delivering power to a receiver device.
Vamvakas, Panagiotis, Eirini Eleni Tsiropoulou, and Symeon Papavassiliou. "Dynamic provider selection & power resource management in competitive wireless communication markets." Mobile Networks and Applications 23.1 (2018): 86-99 – describes the combined problem of Wireless Internet Service Provider selection by the mobile customers and corresponding power allocation.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, 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 DARLENE GARCIA-GUERRA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3339. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30a.m.-5:00p.m. EST.
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, Brian M. Epstein can be reached on (571) 270-5389. 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.
/Darlene Garcia-Guerra/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights