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 .
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 and 5-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Under Step 1, claims 1, 8 and 15 are directed to at least one statutory category, a system, method and non-transitory computer readable medium, respectively.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 or 8 or 15 is directed to an abstract idea of for generating: receive group data associated with a plurality of groups, the group data including at least one requirement for joining each of the plurality of groups, the at least one requirement designated by at least one member of each group; generate, for each group, at least one of one or more rules or model based upon the group data, the one or more rules and the model generated to output a determination whether candidate data of a candidate member requesting admittance into at least one of the plurality of groups meets the at least one requirement to join the at least one group the one or more rules and the model including the at least one requirement; train the model using sample data sets associated with members of each group to generate an output indicating whether the candidate data satisfies the at least one requirement corresponding to each group; generate, for each group, at least one smart contract configured to execute in response to receiving the candidate data, the at least one smart contract comprising executable instructions configured to input the candidate data into generate the output; generate a first block in associated with a first group of the plurality of groups, the first block storing data comprising the corresponding at least one smart contract and at least one of the corresponding one or more rules or the model or the corresponding; simultaneously record the corresponding at least one smart contract; in response to receiving first candidate data for a first candidate member requesting admittance into the at least one group, (i) determine assignation of the first candidate member to the first group using at least one of the corresponding one or more rules ore the corresponding model, (ii) generate a second block in, the second block associated with the first candidate member and comprising the first candidate data, and (iii) execute the corresponding at least one smart contract stored in the first block; link the first block to the second block by hashing a copy of the first block and storing the hashed copy of the first block in the second block; in response to executing the executable instructions of the corresponding at least one smart contract, (i) input the first candidate data into at least one of the corresponding one or more rules or the corresponding model, and (ii) return the output from at least one of the corresponding one or more rules or the corresponding model, the output indicating a determination of whether the first candidate data satisfies the corresponding at least one requirement to join the first group, thereby determining whether the first candidate member has been accepted or denied into the first group as a member; store the output in the second block ; and simultaneously record, whether the first candidate member has been accepted or denied as the member of the first group. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors.
Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or 8 or 15 include: a computer system enhanced blockchain structures, the computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device and a blockchain ledger, the at least one processor configured to: computer-executable, an artificial intelligence (Al), the AI model generated to output, the one or more computer-executables rules and the AI model, train the AI model to generate an output; automatically execute comprising executable instructions to at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model to generate the output; generate a first block in a blockchain structure a first block storing data comprising the corresponding at least one smart contract and at least one of the corresponding one or more computer-executable rules or the corresponding trained AI model; simultaneously record the corresponding at least one smart contract at each of a plurality of nodes of the blockchain structure by transmitting the first block to each node; using at least one of the corresponding one or more computer executable rules or the corresponding trained AI model, (ii) generate a second block in the blockchain structure, the second block and (iii) automatically execute the corresponding at least one smart contract stored in the first block; link the first block to second block by hashing a copy of the first block and storing the hashed copy of the first block in the second block; in response to executing the executable instructions of the corresponding at least one smart contract, into at least one of the corresponding one or more computer-executable rules or the corresponding trained AI model, and at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model; simultaneously record, at each node of the blockchain structure, by transmitting the second block to each node of the blockchain structure. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data are amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element amount to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system/method/non-transitory computer readable medium.
Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer system enhanced blockchain structures, the computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device and a blockchain ledger, the at least one processor configured to: computer-executable, an artificial intelligence (Al), the AI model generated to output, the one or more computer-executables rules and the AI model, train the AI model to generate an output; automatically execute comprising executable instructions to at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model to generate the output; generate a first block in a blockchain structure a first block storing data comprising the corresponding at least one smart contract and at least one of the corresponding one or more computer-executable rules or the corresponding trained AI model; simultaneously record the corresponding at least one smart contract at each of a plurality of nodes of the blockchain structure by transmitting the first block to each node; using at least one of the corresponding one or more computer executable rules or the corresponding trained AI model, (ii) generate a second block in the blockchain structure, the second block and (iii) automatically execute the corresponding at least one smart contract stored in the first block; link the first block to second block by hashing a copy of the first block and storing the hashed copy of the first block in the second block; in response to executing the executable instructions of the corresponding at least one smart contract, into at least one of the corresponding one or more computer-executable rules or the corresponding trained AI model, and at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model; simultaneously record, at each node of the blockchain structure, by transmitting the second block to each node of the blockchain structure is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. This is supported by the original disclosure that describes the computer components merely generic components, [0060] and [0070]. Applicant’s specification states that [0060] User computer device 702 may be operated by a user 704 (e.g., a social insurance user). User computer device 702 may receive input from user 704 via an input module 706. User computer device 702 includes a processor 708 for executing instructions. In some embodiments, executable instructions may be stored in a memory area 710. Processor 708 may include one or more processing units (e.g., in a multi-core configuration). Memory area 710 may be any device allowing information such as executable instructions and/or transaction data to be stored and retrieved. Memory area 710 may include one or more computer-readable media and [0070] Processor 805 executes computer-executable instructions. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and are ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible.
As for dependent claim 2, claim 2 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Claim 2 recites "a user device" which is also an additional element. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claim 3, claim 3 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Claim 3 recites "a plurality of computing devices" and “a distributed blockchain ledger” which is also additional elements. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claims 5-7 and 21, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claim 9, claim 9 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8. Claim 9 recites "a user device" which is also an additional element. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claim 10, claim 10 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8. Claim 10 recites "a plurality of computing devices" and “a distributed blockchain ledger” which is also additional elements. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claims 11-14, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claim 16, the claim 16 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15. Claim 16 recites "a user device" which is an additional element. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claim 17, claim 17 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15. Claim 17 recites "a plurality of computing devices" and “a distributed blockchain ledger” which is also additional elements. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
As for dependent claims 18-20, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the claims, the examiner has updated the 35 U.S.C. §101 based on applicant’s amendment.
In response to applicant’s argument that the claims are not directed to abstract idea, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 or 8 or 15 is directed to an abstract idea of abstract idea of or generating: receive group data associated with a plurality of groups, the group data including at least one requirement for joining each of the plurality of groups, the at least one requirement designated by at least one member of each group; generate, for each group, at least one of one or more rules or model based upon the group data, the one or more rules and the model generated to output a determination whether candidate data of a candidate member requesting admittance into at least one of the plurality of groups meets the at least one requirement to join the at least one group the one or more rules and the model including the at least one requirement; train the model using sample data sets associated with members of each group to generate an output indicating whether the candidate data satisfies the at least one requirement corresponding to each group; generate, for each group, at least one smart contract configured to execute in response to receiving the candidate data, the at least one smart contract comprising executable instructions configured to input the candidate data into generate the output; generate a first block in associated with a first group of the plurality of groups, the first block storing data comprising the corresponding at least one smart contract and at least one of the corresponding one or more rules or the model or the corresponding; simultaneously record the corresponding at least one smart contract; in response to receiving first candidate data for a first candidate member requesting admittance into the at least one group, (i) determine assignation of the first candidate member to the first group using at least one of the corresponding one or more rules ore the corresponding model, (ii) generate a second block in, the second block associated with the first candidate member and comprising the first candidate data, and (iii) execute the corresponding at least one smart contract stored in the first block; link the first block to the second block by hashing a copy of the first block and storing the hashed copy of the first block in the second block; in response to executing the executable instructions of the corresponding at least one smart contract, (i) input the first candidate data into at least one of the corresponding one or more rules or the corresponding model, and (ii) return the output from at least one of the corresponding one or more rules or the corresponding model, the output indicating a determination of whether the first candidate data satisfies the corresponding at least one requirement to join the first group, thereby determining whether the first candidate member has been accepted or denied into the first group as a member; store the output in the second block ; and simultaneously record, whether the first candidate member has been accepted or denied as the member of the first group. This concept falls under the abstract idea category of certain methods of organizing human activity, specifically commercial or legal interactions as it is directed to sales activities or behaviors. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument with regard to claims are directed to significantly more than the abstract idea and step 2A prolong 2 and step 2B, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the additional elements recited in claim 1 or 8 or 15 include: a computer system enhanced blockchain structures, the computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device and a blockchain ledger, the at least one processor configured to: computer-executable, an artificial intelligence (Al), the AI model generated to output, the one or more computer-executables rules and the AI model, train the AI model to generate an output; automatically execute comprising executable instructions to at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model to generate the output; generate a first block in a blockchain structure a first block storing data comprising the corresponding at least one smart contract and at least one of the corresponding one or more computer-executable rules or the corresponding trained AI model; simultaneously record the corresponding at least one smart contract at each of a plurality of nodes of the blockchain structure by transmitting the first block to each node; using at least one of the corresponding one or more computer executable rules or the corresponding trained AI model, (ii) generate a second block in the blockchain structure, the second block and (iii) automatically execute the corresponding at least one smart contract stored in the first block; link the first block to second block by hashing a copy of the first block and storing the hashed copy of the first block in the second block; in response to executing the executable instructions of the corresponding at least one smart contract, into at least one of the corresponding one or more computer-executable rules or the corresponding trained AI model, and at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model; simultaneously record, at each node of the blockchain structure, by transmitting the second block to each node of the blockchain structure. These additional limitations do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claimed computer components, receiving and transmitting data amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, which is not indicative of integration into a practical application; see MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional element amounts to no more than merely linking the general technology to the judicial exception without significantly more and, in the alternative, mere insignificant extra-solution activity to gather data used in the claimed system/method/non-transitory computer readable medium. Under Step 2B, the claimed invention is considered as a whole whether the additional elements individually or as an ordered combination amount to an inventive concept. Upon further determination, the claims do not integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of a computer system enhanced blockchain structures, the computer system comprising at least one processor in communication with at least one memory device and a blockchain ledger, the at least one processor configured to: computer-executable, an artificial intelligence (Al), the AI model generated to output, the one or more computer-executables rules and the AI model, train the AI model to generate an output; automatically execute comprising executable instructions to at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model to generate the output; generate a first block in a blockchain structure a first block storing data comprising the corresponding at least one smart contract and at least one of the corresponding one or more computer-executable rules or the corresponding trained AI model; simultaneously record the corresponding at least one smart contract at each of a plurality of nodes of the blockchain structure by transmitting the first block to each node; using at least one of the corresponding one or more computer executable rules or the corresponding trained AI model, (ii) generate a second block in the blockchain structure, the second block and (iii) automatically execute the corresponding at least one smart contract stored in the first block; link the first block to second block by hashing a copy of the first block and storing the hashed copy of the first block in the second block; in response to executing the executable instructions of the corresponding at least one smart contract, into at least one of the corresponding one or more computer-executable rules or the corresponding trained AI model, and at least one of the one or more computer-executable rules or the trained AI model; simultaneously record, at each node of the blockchain structure, by transmitting the second block to each node of the blockchain structure is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer system, and recites the steps of data manipulation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer system and/or adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception is not indicative of an inventive concept. This is supported by the original disclosure that describes the computer components merely generic components, [0060] and [0070]. Applicant’s specification states that [0060] User computer device 702 may be operated by a user 704 (e.g., a social insurance user). User computer device 702 may receive input from user 704 via an input module 706. User computer device 702 includes a processor 708 for executing instructions. In some embodiments, executable instructions may be stored in a memory area 710. Processor 708 may include one or more processing units (e.g., in a multi-core configuration). Memory area 710 may be any device allowing information such as executable instructions and/or transaction data to be stored and retrieved. Memory area 710 may include one or more computer-readable media and [0070] Processor 805 executes computer-executable instructions. The sending and receiving data over a network have been determined by the courts to be well-known, conventional and routine functions, see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i). Claims 8 and 15 recite similar limitations and are ineligible for similar rational. Therefore, claims 1, 8 and 15 are not patent eligible. As for dependent claim 2, claim 2 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Claim 2 recites "a user device" which is also an additional element. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claim 3, claim 3 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Claim 3 recites "a plurality of computing devices" and “a distributed blockchain ledger” which is also additional elements. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claims 5-7 and 21, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 1. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claim 9, claim 9 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8. Claim 9 recites "a user device" which is also an additional element. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claim 10, claim 10 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8. Claim 10 recites "a plurality of computing devices" and “a distributed blockchain ledger” which is also additional elements. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claims 11-14, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 8. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claim 16, the claim 16 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15. Claim 16 recites "a user device" which is an additional element. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claim 17, claim 17 recites limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15. Claim 17 recites "a plurality of computing devices" and “a distributed blockchain ledger” which is also additional elements. These elements are merely being applied to the abstract idea, as supported by the specification at [0060]-[0065] and [0073], and do not, when considered as a whole, individually and in ordered combination, amount to an inventive concept. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. As for dependent claims 18-20, these claims recite limitations that further define the abstract idea noted in claim 15. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Further in step 2B, as noted above, this is considered well-understood, routine, conventional activity noting the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) that indicate that mere receipt or transmission of data over a network is a well-understood, routine and conventional function. Therefore, the applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
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 I JUNG LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-1370. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Christine Behncke can be reached at (571)272-8103. 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.
I JUNG LIU
Examiner
Art Unit 3695
/I JUNG LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3695
Prosecution Insights