DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 11, and 20 are amended. Claims 4, 6, 14, and 16 are cancelled. Claims 21 and 22 are new. Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, 17-22 are pending in the application.
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 .
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.
Examiner’s Notes
The Examiner cites particular sections in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant(s). Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant(s) fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner.
Specification
The use of the term ACTIVEX, JAVA, OSCAR, TELNET, VMWARE, MICROSOFT, CITRIX, VIBE, and BLUETOOTH which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, 17-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1: “destination application” (line 13) should have been –destination computing application—.
Claims 2-3, 5-10, and 21-22 inherit the features of claim 1 and are objected to accordingly.
Claim 11: “destination application” (line 17) should have been –destination computing application—.
Claims 12-15 and 17-20 inherit the features of claim 11 and are objected to accordingly.
Claim 20: “destination application” (line 15) should have been –destination computing application—.
Claim 21: “determine a” (line 1) and “a destination” (line 2) should have been –determining the— and –the destination—, respectively.
Claim 22: the abbreviation “RGB” (line 5) should have been in its full form at least for the first time it is used in the claims; i.e. –red-green-blue (RGB)—.
Appropriate corrections are required. Applicant is advised to review the entire claims for further needed corrections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 21 and 22 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 21 recites the limitation "the respective application" in line 3, line 4, lines 5-6, and line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are no previously recited “a respective application” in the claims, and it is not clear if this limitation is referring to “a source computing application” or to “a destination computing application” as previously recited in claim 1.
For the following analysis, based on the original disclosure, the Examiner will consider the limitation “the respective application” as referring to –the source computing application—.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the respective application" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There are no previously recited “a respective application” in the claims, and it is not clear if this limitation is referring to “a source computing application” or to “a destination computing application” as previously recited in claim 1.
For the following analysis, based on the original disclosure, the Examiner will consider the limitation “the respective application” as referring to –the source computing application—.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With respect to claim 1: Claim is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more because:
Step 2A, Prong 1: The limitations “determining… a source color theme associated with at least one of the source computing application and the data”, “determining… a destination color theme associated with a destination computing application, the destination computing application being communicatively coupled to the source application”, “comparing… the source color theme and the destination color theme” as drafted, are functions that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recite the abstract idea of a mental process. The limitations encompass a human mind carrying out the function through observation, evaluation judgment and /or opinion, or even with the aid of pen and paper, such as determining and comparing color theme information. Thus, these limitations recite and fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A, Prong 2: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element “using the at least one processor” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than merely invoking a computing machinery as a tool to perform the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Furthermore, “detecting, using at least one processor, a copy action being executed on a data in a source computing application” and “executing, using the at least one processor, a paste action on the data in the destination computing application, wherein the data is pasted with a different visual appearance in the destination application based on the comparison of the source color theme and the destination color theme” are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.05(f).
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is therefore directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “detecting, using at least one processor, a copy action being executed on a data in a source computing application” and “executing, using the at least one processor, a paste action on the data in the destination computing application, wherein the data is pasted with a different visual appearance in the destination application based on the comparison of the source color theme and the destination color theme” amount to no more than mere instructions, or generic computer/computer components to carry out the exception.
The recitation of generic computer instruction and computer components to apply the judicial exception do not amount to significantly more, thus, cannot provide an inventive concept. Accordingly, the claim is not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claims 2-3, 5, and 7-10: Claims 2-3, 5, and 7-10 further identify additional elements that are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception which fails to amount to significantly more than the exception. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Accordingly, the claims are not patent eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claims 11-13, 15, and 17-19: Claims 11-13, 15, and 17-19 are directed to a system comprising at least one programmable processor and a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10. As such, claims 11-13, 15, and 17-19 are also directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and are not eligible under 35 USC 101 in view of the abovementioned reasons with respect to claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10.
With respect to claim 20: Claim 20 is directed to a computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations corresponding to the method disclosed in claim 1. As such, in view of the abovementioned reasons with respect to claim 1, claim 20 is also directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and is not eligible under 35 USC 101.
With respect to claims 21: Claim 21 is directed to obtaining image clip information which is an insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of obtaining data, and evaluating and calculating information which are mental processes. As such, claim 21 is also directed to a judicial exception without significantly more and are not eligible under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-13, 15, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loughry et al. (US 2020/0027249 A1; hereinafter Loughry) in view of Cory (US 2007/0061752 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Loughry teaches: A computer-implemented method, comprising:
detecting, using at least one processor (see e.g. Loughry, Fig. 5: “Processor 504”; and paragraph 35), a [copy] action (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 18: “displayed”; and paragraph 24: “displaying”) being executed on a data (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 18: “contents displayed on a GUI”; and paragraph 24: “displaying contents in an original format”) in a source computing application (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 18: “an email application”; and paragraph 24: “in a bright mode”);
determining, using the at least one processor, a source color theme (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 22: “a bright viewing mode”; and paragraph 18: “original color”) associated with at least one of the source computing application and the data (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 18: “an email application may be toggled between dark and bright viewing modes”; paragraph 24: “GUI screen 200A displaying contents in an original format… the screen is in a bright mode”; and Fig. 2A-B);
determining, using the at least one processor, a destination color theme (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 22: “dark viewing mode”; and paragraph 18: “converting the colors”) associated with a destination computing application (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 18: “an email application may be toggled between dark and bright viewing modes”; paragraph 24: “in dark mode”; and Fig. 2C),
comparing, using the at least one processor, the source color theme and the destination color theme (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 30: “examine the first object to compare a first characteristic of that object to the reference characteristic for background, at 325. The first characteristic may include a color characteristic of the first object, such as a color of the text in the object. Thus, this step may include comparing the color of the text for the selected object to the defined color for the background. This may be done to determine if the color of the text as originally received satisfies a visibility threshold with respect to the newly defined background color. For example, if the color of the text as received is dark blue and the defined background color for the dark mode is black, the method compares the dark blue color with the black color to determine if the dark blue color will be visible on the black color background”); and
executing, using the at least one processor, a [paste] action on the data (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 32: “display all the adjusted and/or unadjusted objects in the converted display screen”) in the destination computing application, wherein the data is [pasted] with a different visual appearance in the destination application (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 31: “adjust the first characteristic (e.g. color of the text) of the object”; and paragraph 32: “adjust the second characteristic (e.g. background of the text) of the object”) based on the comparison of the source color theme and the destination color theme (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 31: “When it is determined, at 330, that the ratio does not satisfy the visibility threshold, method 300 proceeds to adjust the first characteristic (e.g. color of the text) of the object, at 335”; paragraph 32: “When it is determined, at 350, that the ratio does not satisfy the visibility threshold, method 300 proceeds to adjust the second characteristic (e.g. background of the text) of the object, at 355… Once it is determined, at 360, that no other unexamined object remains, method 300 proceeds to display all the adjusted and/or unadjusted objects in the converted display screen, at 365”; and Fig. 2C, 3).
Even though Loughry discloses performing an action (e.g. a display content action) on an email application in light mode (i.e. a source application) and performing an action (e.g. a display visually adjusted content) on an email application in dark mode (i.e. a destination application), Loughry does not explicitly disclose these actions being copy/paste actions.
However, Cory teaches:
copy (see e.g. Cory, paragraph 19: “copying and pasting operations from one application to another application”)
paste (see e.g. Cory, paragraph 19: “copying and pasting operations from one application to another application”)
the destination computing application being communicatively coupled to the source application (see e.g. Cory, paragraph 19: “copying and pasting operations from one application to another application”; and paragraph 56: “link operation 506 establishes the link between the pasted chart and the source file”);
Loughry and Cory are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: transferring content between applications while managing content format. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Loughry with the teachings of Cory. The motivation/suggestion would be to provide cross-application support for content transfer; thus improving the robustness of the system (see e.g. Cory, paragraphs 1-5).
With respect to claim 2, Loughry as modified teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the source computing application and the destination computing application include at least one of the following: a software application (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 18: “an email application”; and paragraph 27: “email application… internet browser”), a user interface window of a software application (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 27: “content for displaying on a GUI… the content may include email messages received in an email application or in an internet browser for displaying in the browser”; and Fig. 2A-C), and any combination thereof (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 27: “content for displaying on a GUI… the content may include email messages received in an email application or in an internet browser for displaying in the browser”; and Fig. 2A-C).
With respect to claim 3, Loughry as modified teaches: The method according to claim 1,
Loughry does not but Cory teaches:
wherein the source computing application (see e.g. Cory, Fig. 4: “Spreadsheet Application 410”) and the destination computing application (see e.g. Cory, Fig. 4: “Presentation Application 402”, “Word Processing Application 404”) are different computing applications (see e.g. Cory, paragraph 43: “copying and pasting a chart from a spreadsheet application to a host application… the chart may then be pasted to a host application (402, 404). Although two host applications (402, 404) are shown, any number of host applications may be associated with system 400”).
Loughry and Cory are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: transferring content between applications while managing content format. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Loughry with the teachings of Cory. The motivation/suggestion would be to provide cross-application support for content transfer; thus improving the robustness of the system (see e.g. Cory, paragraphs 1-5).
With respect to claim 5, Loughry as modified teaches: The method according claim 1, wherein the data includes at least one of the following: a video, an audio, an image, a graphics data (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 18: “background color”; and Fig. 2A-C), a text data (see e.g. paragraph 18: “text color of the contents”; and Fig. 2A-C), a rich text data, and any combination thereof.
With respect to claim 7, Loughry as modified teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the destination color theme is different from the source color theme (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 18: “toggled between dark and bright viewing modes separately”; and Fig. 2A-C).
With respect to claim 8, Loughry as modified teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the comparing includes changing a first color of the data associated with the source application into a second color for the executing of the second action (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 25: “examines the color of the text to ensure that the original color is visible on the new background. If it is not, the color is changed, accordingly, while taking into account the original color. This means that the method can convert the color of the text to many different colors depending on the original color. The converted color is selected based on the original color and its visibility against the background”; and paragraph 31).
With respect to claim 9, Loughry as modified teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the comparing includes adding highlighting to the data for the executing of the second action (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 26: “text portion 235A which has a highlighted background in the GUI screen 200A is converted such that in the converted screen 200C, text portion 235C has a different background color than the base background color to show the highlighting”; and paragraph 31: “highlighting included in the received content will also be displayed in the converted content”).
With respect to claim 10, Loughry as modified teaches: The method according to claim 1, wherein the comparing includes retaining a color of the data associated with the source application for the executing of the second action (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 31: “If, however, it is determined, at 330, that the visibility threshold is satisfied, method 300 proceeds to step 340”; and paragraph 32: “If, however, it is determined, at 350, that the visibility threshold is satisfied, method 300 proceeds to step 360… display all the… unadjusted objects in the converted display screen”).
With respect to claims 11-13, 15, and 17-19: Claims 11-13, 15, and 17-19 are directed to a system comprising at least one programmable processor and a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations corresponding to the method disclosed in claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10; please see the rejections directed to claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 above which also cover the limitations recited in claims 11-13, 15, and 17-19. Note that, Loughry also discloses a computer system 500 comprising memory 506, 508 with instructions to implement the method disclosed in claims 1-3, 5, and 7-10 (see e.g. Loughry, paragraphs 35-39; and Fig. 5).
With respect to claim 20: Claim 20 is directed to a computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform operations corresponding to the method disclosed in claim 1; please see the rejection directed to claim 1 above which also covers the limitations recited in claim 20. Note that, Loughry also discloses a machine-readable medium storing instructions to implement the method disclosed in claim 1 (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 38).
With respect to claim 21, Loughry as modified teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein determine a source color theme and determining a destination color theme each comprises:
obtaining an [image clip] of the respective application (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 27: “receiving content for displaying on a GUI”),
determine a background of the respective application (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 28: “After receiving the content, method 300 proceeds to define a reference characteristic for the background”),
calculate a theme value (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 33: “calculate an opposite value for the luminance property of the converted color”; and paragraph 34: “scale the modified luminance value Cy′ to compensate for the reference background color”) based on an average RGB value of the background for the respective application (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 31: “adjust the first characteristic (e.g. color of the text) of the object, at 335, as described with respect to the flow chart of method 400”; paragraph 33: “a process for adjusting a characteristic of one object among the one or more objects existing in contents received for displaying on a GUI. Method 400 begins by converting the color space of the characteristic from an original color space to a more convenient color space, at 410. For example, the color space may be converted from the commonly used RGB color space (or any equivalent linear color space) to the CIELUV color space… Once the color space has been converted, method 400 proceeds to calculate an opposite value for the luminance property of the converted color, at 420”; and paragraph 34: “Method 400 then proceeds to step 430 to scale the modified luminance value Cy′ to compensate for the reference background color being the darkest color”), and
determining a theme of the respective application based on the corresponding theme value (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 34: “Once the modified luminance value is scaled, the color space is converted back to the original color space (e.g., RGB), at 440. In this manner, the color characteristic is adjusted to have an opposing brightness (luminance) value than its original brightness. As a result, the color is converted to a color that becomes visible in the new viewing mode”).
Even though Loughry discloses obtaining a graphical content (e.g. text), Loughry does not explicitly disclose this graphical content being an “image clip”.
However, Cory teaches:
image clip (see e.g. Cory, paragraph 28: “images, and other arrangements of text and/or graphical objects”)
Loughry and Cory are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: transferring content between applications while managing graphical object format. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Loughry with the teachings of Cory. The motivation/suggestion would be to enable the system to handle different types of graphical objects; thus improving overall applicability of the system.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Loughry in view of Cory as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaplan et al. (US 2014/0149330 A1; hereinafter Kaplan).
With respect to claim 22, Loughry as modified teaches: The method of claim 1, wherein the comparing and executing are performed (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 30: “examine the first object to compare a first characteristic of that object to the reference characteristic for background, at 325… comparing the color of the text for the selected object to the defined color for the background”)
Loughry does not but Kaplan teaches:
by a clipboard hooking component (see e.g. Kaplan, paragraph 39: “a background service, waiting for copy commands to happen. In a step 108, the system intercepts the copied section from the clipboard”) integrated with an operating system clipboard component (see e.g. Kaplan, paragraph 39: “computer's clipboard”; and paragraph 66: “collecting data at the operating system level, such as clipboard data”), wherein the clipboard hooking component is configured to detect any copy and paste commands executed in the operation system (see e.g. Kaplan, paragraph 39: “contextual knowledge management system may automatically intercept the data being gathered online, such as by monitoring the computer's clipboard for data "copied and pasted" by the user”), and wherein the clipboard hooking component is further configured to record one or more properties of the respective application where the detected command originated (see e.g. Kaplan, paragraph 39: “present contextual knowledge management system may automatically intercept the data being gathered online, such as by monitoring the computer's clipboard for data "copied and pasted" by the user. The system may then collect and store one or more contextual parameters”; and paragraphs 40-42).
Loughry and Kaplan are analogous art because they are in the same field of endeavor: transferring and displaying graphical content between applications. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Loughry with the teachings of Kaplan. The motivation/suggestion would be to improve the graphical content transfer process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In detail:
(i) Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC §101 (Remarks, page 1), the Examiner notes that “detecting… a copy action” can be performed mentally by observing and evaluating information regarding actions, and the limitation “executing… a paste action, wherein the data is pasted with a different visual appearance in the destination application” is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception. (see MPEP §2106.05(f)).
As such, the Examiner maintains the rejections under 35 USC §101. For more details, please see the corresponding rejections above.
(ii) Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejections under 35 USC §103 (Remarks, pages 1-2), the Examiner notes that Cory discloses copy/paste actions (see e.g. Cory, paragraph 19: “copying and pasting operations from one application to another application”).
Specifically, Loughry discloses transferring graphical content from an application in a view mode to an application in a different view mode to display the graphical content in an adjusted form to comply with the different view mode, such as adjusting the colors of objects of the graphical content (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 31: “When it is determined, at 330, that the ratio does not satisfy the visibility threshold, method 300 proceeds to adjust the first characteristic (e.g. color of the text) of the object, at 335”; paragraph 32: “When it is determined, at 350, that the ratio does not satisfy the visibility threshold, method 300 proceeds to adjust the second characteristic (e.g. background of the text) of the object, at 355”).
That is, Loughry discloses displaying graphical content with a different visual appearance in the application with the different view mode. As such, Loughry teaches the limitation “the data is… with a different visual appearance in the destination application”.
Consequently, Loughry in view of Cory teaches the amended limitations as recited in claim 1. For more details, please see the corresponding rejection above.
(iii) Regarding Applicant’s arguments with respect to the new claim 21 (Remarks page 2), the Examiner notes that Loughry in view of Cory discloses receiving content for display on a GUI, such as an image (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 27; and Cory, paragraph 28) and determining background characteristics (see e.g. Loughry, paragraph 28).
Loughry further discloses calculating luminance values for the theme of the destination application based on common RBG color space values and converting the color space to comply with the new viewing mode; i.e. a theme (see e.g. Loughry, paragraphs 33-34).
As such, Loughry in view of Cory teaches the limitations recited in claim 21. For more details, please see the corresponding rejection above.
CONCLUSION
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Manmohan et al. (US 2016/0292454 A1) discloses intercepting a copy operation for data being copied to a clipboard, storing information describing an application from which the data was copied, and evaluating a corresponding paste operation (see abstract).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Umut Onat whose telephone number is (571)270-1735. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9:00-7:30.
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, Kevin L Young can be reached at (571) 270-3180. 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.
/UMUT ONAT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2194