DETAILED ACTION
This communication is a Final Rejection Office Action in response to the 7/28/2025 filling of Application 17/897,177. Claims 1-20 are now presented.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/26/2025, with respect to the prior art have been fully considered and are persuasive. The prior art rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant argues “Applicant respectfully submits that automatically and electronically verifying a service contribution through an external API from which a digital network contribution and/or a digital activity can be extracted is not a method of organizing human activity. Indeed, as Applicant has explained, one of the problems Applicant seeks to solve is vetting service contributions contributed by. participants in crowd funded projects. See Specification [00157]. Applicant asserts this is it is not routine and requires a technological advance to do so. In addition, one of the present advantages can include that the claimed system can used as or within a "trustless" environment where automatic execution removes the need for human judgement.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of first and second APIs to access distribution data are recited broadly. The claims do not state how the APIs are used to access data. As such, the use of the recited APIs is indicative of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements of the broadly recited APIs attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. As such, the broadly recited APIs do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “Claim 5 includes limitations describing a distributed ledger, which can be set up to operate trustlessly, as known in the art of blockchain systems such as Bitcoin. Seen within this context, the claimed invention is co-opting organizations of human activity in a way only possible through the application of technology. In the Independent Claims, the claimed invention now enables a new type of services contribution to be relied upon and trusted without necessarily needing human oversight or intervention. There is no organization of human activity analogous to this use at all.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees The block chain elements have not been classified as an abstract methods of organizing human activity. The block chain elements have been analyzed as additional elements. The additional elements of the broadly recited the distributed ledger attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. As such, the broadly recited distributed ledger does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. Further, in the application arguments the applicant states that these limitations are known in the art of blockchain systems such as Bitcoin and as such do not represent a technical improvement.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “Examiner also contends that "[i]n the instant claim, the steps of define (sic) a contribution condition and define an initiation condition can be performed mentally or via a pen and paper." Office Action at 5. Applicant disagrees, and again draws attention to the process or executable instructions that carry out: receiving a contribution request (in the case of Claim 6 and Claim 15), calling a first external API, extracting a contribution data, and then evaluating such data automatically retrieved from computing systems to determine whether the contribution condition meets the contribution criteria. Such a query and response through an application programming interfaces cannot occur through pen and paper, nor do human's use API's to retrieve information from or write information to paper.”
The API elements have not been classified as an abstract method of organizing human activity or a mental process. The API elements have been analyzed as additional elements. Calling first and second APIs to access distribution data are recited broadly. The claims do not state how the APIs are used to access data. As such, the use of the recited APIs is indicative of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. In the instant case, the additional elements of the broadly recited APIs attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. As such, the broadly recited APIs do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “Even if the claims recite a judicial exception, as Examiner contends (Office Action at 7), such judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. The claimed invention now allows a new type of contribution, a services contribution, to be relied and trusted without the need for human oversight or intervention. The system and methods further enable external verification of such contributions. The claims are not merely linked to a particular technological environment, as examiner contends. Office Action at 8. Applicant replies that Applicant has not linked the claims to a particular technological environment. Applicant submits that such a link would be, for example, attempting to limit claim scope by artificially limiting the claims to a particular type of group project, type of industry, or type of user, without regard to a particular challenge inherent in those groups. Rather, the claimed invention, the electronic service contribution, and challenges of its electronic verification are integrally linked to challenges with managing crowd sourced projects in a digital environment.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. In the instant case, the combination of the generic computer components, the database, the networked environment and the APIs do not add more that when viewing the elements individually. As such, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Absent the specifics regarding how the APIs, and the distributed ledger work, the additional elements do not amount to an improvement to the technology.
Regarding the rejection under 101, the Applicant further argues “Claim 5, includes such limitations as "wherein the random number generated at least in part from operation of the distributed ledger network" and "wherein the random number generated at least in part by utilizing a block time of the distributed ledger network." Using an entropy source to open random transaction windows and/or deriving that information from operation of a distributed ledger network is a patent eligible technological advancement integrated into a practical application. Applicant further notes that many DLT networks include open and verifiable information upon which the randomness and thus the transaction window timing can be verified by anyone with access to the DLT, further supporting a trustless environment.”
The use of the entropy source to generate random numbers is recited broadly. The claims do not explain how this works or is an improvement over the conventional means of using entropy sources in distributed ledgers. As such, this doe not represent a technical improvement over existing technique.
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 1-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, in step 1 it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, in step 2A prong 1 it must then be determined whether the claim is recite a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea). If the claim recites a judicial exception, under step 2A prong 2 it must additionally be determined whether the recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. If a claim does not integrate the Abstract idea into a practical application, under step 2B it must then be determined if the claim provides an inventive concept.
In the Instant case, Claims 1-5 are directed toward a system for electronic data structuring and management of crowd sourced projects. Claims 6-20 are directed toward methods for management of crowd sourced projects. Claims 6-15 are directed to methods for management of crowd sourced projects. As such, claims 1-20 are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
MPEP 2106.04 II. A. explains that in step 2A prong 1 Examiners are to determine whether a claim recites a judicial exception. MPEP 2106.04(a) explains that:
To facilitate examination, the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
As per step 2A prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of defining project structures for controlling contribution, initiation, and/or distribution of a projects which falls into the abstract idea categories of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes.
The elements of Claim 1 that represent the Abstract idea include:
A system for electronic data structuring, and management, and external service contribution verification for crowd sourced projects, the system comprising:
receive an initialization request from the first user,
generate the contingent project object, the project structuring engine further comprising:
define a contribution condition for a plurality of users to contribute to the contingent project object, the contribution condition comprising a service contribution that comprises at least one of a digital network contribution of one of the plurality of users and a digital activity of one of the plurality of users and which is electronically verifiable;
define an initiation condition data comprising an initiation action and an initiation criteria, where the initiation action is self-executing upon a determination by an initiation evaluation routine that the initiation criteria has been met,
select an initiation data source comprising an initiation data necessary, as a first input to the initiation evaluation routine, to an evaluation of whether the initiation criteria has been met,
define a first distribution condition data comprising a first distribution action and a first distribution criteria,
wherein the first distribution action is self- executing upon a determination by a distribution evaluation routine that the first distribution criteria has been met, and
select a first distribution data source as a second input to the distribution evaluation routine, the first distribution data source comprising a distribution data that is necessary to an evaluation of whether the first distribution criteria has been met;
extract a contribution data evidencing the service contribution, compare the contribution data evidencing the service contribution to a contribution criteria stored in the contingent project object, and
determine the contribution data meets the contribution criteria, and
a condition engine comprising computer readable instructions that when executed:
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. states:
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.
The instant claims are directed to defining project structures for controlling contribution, initiation, and/or distribution of a project which is a method of organizing human activity. The fact that the actions are self-executing does not save the claim. The self execution of the actions are directed to merely automating a process that could otherwise be performed by humans.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) states:
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions
In the instant claim, the steps of define a contribution condition and define an initiation condition can be performed mentally or via a pen and paper. As such, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Under step 2A prong 2 the examiner must then determine if the recited abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. MPEP 2106.04 states:
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e)
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
• Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
• Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
• Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
In the instant case, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, Claim 1 recites the additional elements of:
a project server comprising:
a processor of the project server,
a memory of the project server,
a project database storing a contingent project object comprising a unique identifier of the contingent project object that is a computer readable string, a project title that is human readable, and a first referential attribute referencing a user profile of a first user,
an initialization routine comprising computer readable instructions that when executed performs the recited abstract idea;
the use of client device to communicate;
a contribution condition subroutine comprising computer readable instructions that when executed performs the recited abstract idea;
the use of through a first and second external API accessing a server computer electronically storing at least one of the digital network contribution and the digital activity,
an initiation condition creation subroutine comprising computer readable instructions that when executed performs the recited abstract idea;
an initiation data source designation subroutine comprising computer readable instructions that when executed performs the recited abstract idea;
a distribution condition generation routine comprising computer readable instructions that when executed performs the recited abstract idea;
a distribution data source designation subroutine comprising computer readable instructions that when executed performs the recited abstract idea;
a condition server comprising:
a processor of the condition server,
a memory of the condition server,
a contribution evaluation routine comprising computer readable instructions that when executed:
call the first external API to access at least one of the digital network contribution and the digital activity,
extract a contribution data evidencing the service contribution, compare the contribution data evidencing the service contribution to a contribution criteria stored in the contingent project object, and
determine the contribution data meets the contribution criteria, and
a condition engine comprising computer readable instructions that when executed:
call the second external API to extract the distribution data source for automatic evaluation by the distribution evaluation routine; and
a network communicatively coupled to the project server and the condition server.
However, the project server; the processor of the project server; the a memory of the project server and the computer readable instructions to perform the abstract idea and the self-execution of the recited actions are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components.
Further, the project database amounts to generic data storage which is insignificant extra solution activity.
Further, the network communicatively coupled to the project server and the use of client devices amounts to generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. For example, the abstract idea of defining project structures for controlling contribution, initiation, and/or distribution of a project is linked to an the recited networked environment.
Further, the use of first and second APIs to access distribution data are recited broadly. The claims do not state how the APIs are use to access data. As such, the use of the recited APIs is indicative of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
In the instant case, the additional elements of the broadly recited APIs attempt to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. As such, the broadly recited APIs do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
The combination of the generic computer components, the database, the networked environment and the APIs do not add more that when viewing the elements individually. As such, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In step 2B, the examiner must determine whether the claim adds a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field - see MPEP 2106.05(d).
As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional computer elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
Further, generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. As such, the networked environment does not provide an inventive concept.
Further, similar to the analysis with respect to step 2A prong 2 recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished cannot provide an inventive concept under step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
The combination of the generic computer components, the database, the networked environment and the APIs do not add more that when viewing the elements individually. As such, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept.
Claims 2-5 further limit the mental processes and methods of human activity already rejected in the parent claim, but fail to remedy the deficiencies of the parent claim as they do not impose any additional elements that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claims 4, 5 recite limitations directed to defining a distribution action for a subset of the plurality of users at a random time based on generation of a random number utilizing an entropy source” However, the claim does not define how the number is generated or how the entropy source is utilized.
Further, claim 5 recites the use of a distributed ledger. However, the use of the distributed ledger model is indicative of adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. MPEP 2106.05(f) states:
When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following:
(1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec, 838 F.3d 1307, 1327, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Internet Patents Corp. v. Active Network, Inc., 790 F.3d 1343, 1348, 115 USPQ2d 1414, 1417 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, claiming a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Electric Power, 830 F.3d at 1356, 119 USPQ2d at 1743.
By way of example, in Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017), the steps in the claims described "the creation of a dynamic document based upon ‘management record types’ and ‘primary record types.’" 850 F.3d at 1339-40; 121 USPQ2d at 1945-46. The claims were found to be directed to the abstract idea of "collecting, displaying, and manipulating data." 850 F.3d at 1340; 121 USPQ2d at 1946. In addition to the abstract idea, the claims also recited the additional element of modifying the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document. 850 F.3d at 1342; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48. Although the claims purported to modify the underlying XML document in response to modifications made in the dynamic document, nothing in the claims indicated what specific steps were undertaken other than merely using the abstract idea in the context of XML documents. The court thus held the claims ineligible, because the additional limitations provided only a result-oriented solution and lacked details as to how the computer performed the modifications, which was equivalent to the words "apply it". 850 F.3d at 1341-42; 121 USPQ2d at 1947-48 (citing Electric Power Group., 830 F.3d at 1356, 1356, USPQ2d at 1743-44 (cautioning against claims "so result focused, so functional, as to effectively cover any solution to an identified problem")).
In the instant case, the additional elements of the broadly recited the distributed ledger attempts to cover any solution to the identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it”. As such, the broadly recited distributed ledger does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more.
Further, similar to the analysis with respect to step 2A prong 2 recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished cannot provide an inventive concept under step 2B of the eligibility analysis.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in claims 1-5 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The analysis above applies to all statutory categories of invention. The presentment of claim 1 otherwise styled as a method or computer program product, for example, would be subject to the same analysis. As such, claims 6-20 are also rejected.
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 DEIRDRE D HATCHER whose telephone number is (571)270-5321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8-4:30.
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, Brian Epstein can be reached at 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.
/DEIRDRE D HATCHER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625