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 .
Response to Amendment
The following is a FINAL Office action in reply to the Amendments and Arguments received on March 3, 2026.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 5 have been amended.
Claims 1-8 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
The use of the terms “S3 bucket” and “relational database service (RDS) instance database” which is a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-4 are drawn to methods while claim(s) 5-8 is/are drawn to an apparatus. As such, claims 1-8 are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One:
In prong one of step 2A, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether they recite a judicial exception.
Claim 1 (representative of independent claim(s) 5) recites the following steps:
A method for providing a tour of a real estate property, the method comprising:
registering a user;
authenticating the user;
triggering, by the user, the interactive tour upon successful authentication;
displaying, a plurality of contents, wherein the plurality of contents is associated with the real estate property from a plurality of real estate properties;
selecting at least one content from the plurality of contents by the user
playing an audio content associated with the at least one selected content from the plurality of contents, wherein the audio content elucidates at least one feature of the real estate property;
processing, the audio content to dynamically adjust the audio content based on user input received wherein the dynamic adjustment comprises at least one of: selection of at least one language from a plurality of languages to play the audio content, modification of an accent of the audio content, and modification of a tone of the audio content; and
performing, one or more additional actions upon playing the audio content, wherein the one or more additional actions comprise at least one of: play back of the audio content, sharing of the audio content, and
These steps, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, encompass a human manually (e.g., in their mind, or using paper and pen) providing audio playback during a real estate tour, which could be the agent speaking when a user desires to hear more about a real estate feature (i.e., one or more concepts performed in the human mind, such as one or more observations, evaluations, judgments, opinions), but for the recitation of generic computer components. If one or more claim limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation(s) in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "mental processes" subject matter grouping of abstract ideas.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A - Prong One: YES).
Independent claim(s) 5 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim(s) recite the additional elements/limitations of:
interactive virtual tour
a real estate module
multimedia contents
by an audio tour controller block of the real estate module,
via a user interface,
wherein the real estate module is implemented on a cloud-based system comprising a load balancer, an S3 bucket, and a relational database service (RDS) instance database.
A system for providing an interactive virtual tour of a real estate property
a processor
a memory
a real estate module, coupled with the processor and the memory
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on producing the abstract idea nor do they represent an improvement to the technology, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Additionally, “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of modification of an icon associated with the at least one selected multimedia content;" serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A -Prong Two: NO).
Step 2B:
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
As discussed above in "Step 2A - Prong 2", the requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions listed above is equivalent to adding the words "apply it" on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. These limitations therefore do not qualify as "significantly more" (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)).
As discussed above in “Step 2A - Prong 2”, the recited additional element(s) of modification of an icon associated with the at least one selected multimedia content;” serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not qualify as “significantly more5' (see MPEP 2106.05(g, h)).
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Regarding Dependent Claims (2A/ 2B):
Dependent claims 4 and 8, fail to include any additional elements and are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner.
Dependent claims 2 and 6 include additional limitations that are part of the abstract idea except for:
the real estate module
multimedia contents
The additional elements of the dependent claims are equivalent to adding the words ''apply it'' on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer. Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
The recited additional element(s) of " recording an audio content for the at least one selected multimedia content" in claims 3 and 7 serve merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. These limitations therefore do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jarrell (2008/0126206) in view of Kommera (2020/0125453) and Lal (10,592,203).
Claim 1 and 5
Jarrell discloses the method for providing an interactive virtual tour of a real estate property, the method comprising:
A system for providing an interactive virtual tour of a real estate property, the system comprising: a processor; a memory; and a real estate module, coupled with the processor and the memory, configured to (Jarrell [0019][0062]): See at least [0019] “memory storing an instruction set and virtual tour data; and a processor for running the instruction set, the processor being in communication with the memory and the distributed computing network, wherein the processor is operative to: receive a virtual tour from the first computer
registering a user [Figure 5A, 5B]; authenticating the user [0054]; triggering a real estate module by the user for the interactive virtual tour upon the successful authentication; (Jarrell [0057][Figure 5A]); See at least [0057] “The user may be required to login by entering a user name in a first field 504a and a password in a second field 504b and pressing the "CONTINUE" link [authentication]…” See also [0033] “embodiments of the present invention solve the challenges described herein of utilizing virtual tours in the real estate market.” See [0062] for modules. See “Also, functional elements ( e.g., modules, databases, computers, clients, servers and the like) shown as distinct for purposes of illustration may be incorporated within other functional elements, separated in different hardware or distributed in a particular implementation.”
displaying, by the real estate module, a plurality of multimedia contents in response to triggering the real estate module, wherein the plurality of multimedia contents is associated with the real estate property from a plurality of real estate properties (Jarrell [0060][Figure 5C]); See at least [0060] “The user may scroll through the description 704 using a scroll bar 708 if necessary due to the length of the description 704. Clicking on the "Gallery" link causes a set of thumbnails to be displayed. The user can select one of these thumbnails to view a full-sized photograph 706.” Where the thumbnail is the multimedia content.
selecting at least one multimedia content from the plurality of multimedia contents by the user through the real estate module (Jarrell [0060]); See at least “Clicking on the "Gallery" link causes a set of thumbnails to be displayed. The user can select one of these thumbnails to view a full-sized photograph 706.” See also [0061] “The user can obtain information about the property such as the price and the number of bedrooms by clicking on the "PROPERTY DETAILS" link 734. The user can access tools such as a mortgage calculator by clicking on the "TOOLS" link 736.”
playing an audio content associated with the at least one selected multimedia content from the plurality of multimedia contents, wherein the audio content elucidates at least one feature of the real estate property (Jarrell [0018][0002][0047]); See at least “the first computer is programmed to create and modify virtual tours easily and quickly by arranging multiple photos, graphics, videos and/or other media types, organizing these media types into a specific order to create scenes for the tour, determining the length of time each scene will be displayed, determining the transition effect that will take place when moving to the next scene [selected multimedia content], enhancing these scenes by adding text and/or voice to each scene [elucidates at least one feature of the real estate property],” See also [0047] “The first computing device 206 is programmed to allow the agent to record voice on any or all scenes using a microphone plugged into their computer, and this voice is automatically compressed and uploaded with the tour and played automatically with each scene.”
Jarrell does not teach cloud based computing; however Kommera teaches the following:
wherein the (Kommera [0002][0003][0085]); Where the reference teaches a module [0085] implemented in the cloud [0002]. See [0002] “Amazon Web Services (AWS) provides the Relational Database Service (RDS) to subscribers.” See [0003] “Many cloud services also provide object storage for use by subscribers. For example, Amazon Web Services (AWS) provides Simple Storage Service (S3) for subscribers. Object storage provides for retention of unstructured data such that each object includes data, metadata, and at least one identifier and is independent of the other objects.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of providing an interactive interface, as taught by Jarrell, the cloud based storage system using Simple Storage Service and RDS instance database, as taught by Kommera, for retention of unstructured data such that each object includes data, metadata, and at least one identifier and is independent of the other objects and protects against catastrophic loss of information.
Jarell teaches an audio tour controller block of the real estate module, and real estate module, but neither reference teaches adjust the audio content based on a user adjustment on an interface. Lal teaches:
processing, the audio content to dynamically adjust the audio content based on user input received via a user interface (column 3 Lines 37-39], wherein the dynamic adjustment comprises at least one of: selection of at least one language from a plurality of languages to play the audio content, modification of an accent of the audio content, and modification of a tone of the audio content; (Lal [Column 5 Lines 15-17]) See at least “Once the user launches the digital assistant, a user can be prompted to select a language of interest…”
performing, one or more additional actions upon playing the audio content, wherein the one or more additional actions comprise at least one of: play back of the audio content, sharing of the audio content, and modification of an icon associated with the at least one selected multimedia content; (Lal [Column 5 Lines29-35]); See at least “Once the primary interaction with the assistant ends and an early personalized repository is built, the user can play a recorded media”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have included in the method of providing an interactive interface with the cloud based storage system, as taught by Jarrell and Kommera, user adjusted the audio content, as taught by Lal, to help personalize playback of the audible information (Lal [Column 1 Lines 7-10]).
Claim 2 and 6
Modified Jarrell, Kommera and Lal disclose the limitations above. Modified Jarrell further teaches the following:
wherein displaying, by the real estate module, the plurality of multimedia contents further comprises: determining, by the real estate module, whether the plurality of multimedia contents is in a draft stage and a presentation stage (Jarrell [Figure 3, 306][Figure 6]) See at least “Preview web tour” Where Examiner interprets the “save” option to complete the draft stage. See also [0055] and [Figure 4b] where the icon shows editing functions, including the finish button which suggest a draft and presentation stage.
performing, by the real estate module, at least one of:
in response to determining that the plurality of multimedia contents is in the presentation stage:
displaying the plurality of multimedia contents with the at least one feature [Figure 7], selecting the at least one multimedia content from the plurality of multimedia contents, modifying the at least one feature of the at least one selected multimedia content, viewing at least one modified feature of the at least one selected multimedia content and sharing the at least one modified feature of the at least one selected multimedia content (Jarrell [0018][0046][0060]) See at least “This software allows the local loading and stitching of photographs, video and audio to create a virtual tour. The software also enables the tour to be created easily by allowing the agent to add text to each scene [modify the feature of the multimedia content], arrange the scenes in any order, add music to the virtual tour, and allowing the agent to crop and enhance the scene's brightness and contrast. The software then allows for the uploading of the completed tour to that agent's account [viewing the modified feature] on the host central controller 202 across distributed computing network 204.” See [0051] “Once loaded, computing device 206 is capable of editing the virtual tour and communicating the modifications to central controller 202. Computing device 206 may use methods and technology similar to those described herein for the first client to both edit the virtual tour and communicate with the central controller 202. Modifications to the virtual tour may also be done once the tour is uploaded to the central controller using a web browser in lieu of using the client software.” See [0060] where the reference teaches See [Figure 7, 732] where the reference teaches sharing the modified feature
Claim 3 and 7
Modified Jarrell, Kommera and Lal disclose the limitations above. Modified Jarrell further teaches the following:
recording an audio content for the at least one selected multimedia content (Jarrell [0047]); See at least “The first computing device 206 is programmed to allow the agent to record voice on any or all scenes using a microphone plugged into their computer, and this voice is automatically compressed and uploaded with the tour and played automatically with each scene.”
indicating the audio content upon confirming the recording of the audio content for the at least one selected multimedia content, wherein the indication is provided in a form of indicia (Jarrell [0058]) See at least “Application 704 may allow the user to selectively view particular segments of cinematic infomercial using different selectable user options. The selectable user options are an option to explore 360° interior videos, an option to view 360 exterior videos, an option to view a 360-degree video of the environment, and an option to view 360-degree maps.” See also [Figure 7, 724] where the reference shows a horn indicia to indicate playback or ability to launch audio. See also [Figure 7, 716] which shows “run” which is interpreted to be indicia to play the multimedia content.
Claim 4 and 8
Modified Jarrell, Kommera and Lal disclose the limitations above. Modified Jarrell further teaches the following:
wherein the at least one feature is selected from a list comprising at least one of an address, a location, longitude, latitude, a specific information, a landmark, type, size, and cost associated with the real estate property (Jarrell [0061]). See “The user can obtain information about the property such as the price [cost] and the number of bedrooms [specific information; type] by clicking on the "PROPERTY DETAILS" link 734.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Applicant submits that the amended claims do not recite a mental process and are not directed to an abstract idea.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner notes that “[c]laims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer,” and that “courts have found requiring a generic computer or nominally reciting a generic computer may still recite a mental process even though the claim limitations are not performed entirely in the human mind” (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility). The Examiner also notes that “both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes (see p. 8 of the October 2019 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility).
Applicant’s “mandatory processing step” requires audio adjustment after a user a input. The dynamic adjustment is only a computing response to a human direction using computing tools. The instructions to fetch and play are mere instructions to “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
Applicant Argues: Applicant submits “The Claims Are Not Directed to Organizing Human Activity.”
Examiner agrees and has updated the rejection above.
Applicant Argues: The claims integrate that exception into a practical application… The amended claims require a specific technical architecture: a cloud-based system comprising a load balancer, an S3 bucket, and a Relational Database Service (RDS) instance database, together with a real estate module having an audio tour controller block. This is not a generic computer.
Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, adjusting language, accent and / or tone is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way of that adjusting using is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Furthermore, “the real estate module is implemented on a cloud-based system comprising a load balancer, an S3 bucket, and a relational database service (RDS) instance database” has been determined to be mere instructions to “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer and therefore does not integrate that exception into a practical application.
Lastly, there is no support for Applicant’s claim that the audio tour controller block is a specialized software module outside of Applicant’s claiming it to be a specialized module.
Applicant Argues: The claims improve the technical field of interactive multimedia platforms for real estate..
Applicant’s alleged improvement is not directed to an improvement to computer functionality/capabilities, an improvement to a computer-related technology or technological environment, and do not amount to a technology-based solution to a technology-based problem. A showing that a claim is directed to any improvement does not automatically mean a claim is patent eligible (e.g., an improved business function or an improved idea itself is not patent eligible). In this case, adjusting language, accent and / or tone is an abstract idea, and an “improved” way of that adjusting using is, if anything, an improvement to the idea itself.
Applicant Argues: BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC,
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the previous response. Examiner notes the following excerpt from Bascom (pages 12 and 14-17 of Opinion):
“We agree with the district court that filtering content is an abstract idea because it is a longstanding, well-known method of organizing human behavior, similar to concepts previously found to be abstract. See Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "tracking financial transactions to determine whether they exceed a pre-set spending limit (i.e., budgeting)" is an abstract idea that "is not meaningfully different from the ideas found to be abstract in other cases...involving methods of organizing human activity"); see also Content Extraction, 776 F.3d at 1347 (finding that "1) collecting data, 2) recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and 3) storing that recognized data in a memory" was an abstract idea because "data collection, recognition, and storage is undisputedly well-known" and "humans have always performed these functions"); Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that "a process of organizing information through mathematical correlations" is an abstract idea). An abstract idea on "an Internet computer network" or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea. See Intellectual Ventures I, 792 F.3d at 1368 n.2 (collecting cases).
“We agree with the district court that the limitations of the claims, taken individually, recite generic computer, network and Internet components, none of which is inventive by itself[…]However, we disagree with the district court's analysis of the ordered combination of limitations[…] the claims may be read to “improve[] an existing technological process.” Id. at 2358 (discussing the claims in Diehr, 450 U.S. 175).”
Based on the decision detailed above, it is clear that the claims in Bascom were deemed eligible exclusively on the fact that the claimed solution was the combination of elements, and it was how those elements were all used together in combination relative to the state of the prior art as of the filing date that sufficiently moved the claims beyond an abstract idea itself or merely applying the abstract idea (i.e. filtering content) on a computer.
Furthermore, any general allegation of patent eligibility because the instant claims may contain individual elements present in Bascom (e.g.. filtering, profile, ISP server) would be non-persuasive and insufficient to constitute eligible subject matter, as the Court was clear the individual elements were routine and conventional and thus not inventive, and it was the combination of those elements that was the deciding factor on eligibility.
Moreover, it is clear from the Bascom decision that the apparent improvement was not merely directed to the abstract idea itself (i.e. filtering content), but to the actual technology. However, such an improvement is not readily apparent in the instant case. In fact, the instant application does not parallel the fact patterns in Bascom at all, and more importantly Applicant has failed to provide evidence on how the instant claims, and particularly the combination of the instant claimed elements, provide an improvement or solution to an existing technological process that can be considered some more than routine or conventional.
Finally, generally speaking as it relates to Bascom, the Examiner notes that the ‘606 Patent of Bascom was directed towards technological processes of the late 1990's, and while the "inventive concept" was deemed patent eligible based on improving existing technological processes (as of the filing date), such an old and established improvement could now very well be considered routine and conventional relative to the current state of the art. Therefore, even if the instant case had an improvement paralleling that of Bascom (which the Examiner does not concede), the instant claims could still be deemed ineligible.
Applicant Argues: If the claims recite a judicial exception, the additional elements amount to significantly more.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and maintains the previous rejection. Not only do the claims presented in this application involve a standard computer system, but paragraph [0042] of the instant specification clearly states that the invention is implemented on a general-purpose processor system. Applicant does not claim possession of cloud-based system with specific components (load balancer, S3 bucket, RDS database) and dynamic audio adjustments via an audio tour controller block and thusly the use of the technology is identified to be additional elements as mere instructions to “apply it” or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer.
The Court was clear in Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, 830 F. 3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016) that the important distinction to draw regarding the decision in Enfish and how it relates to any claimed subject matter in question is that the focus of the claims need be on an improvement in computers as tools, not just on abstract ideas that use computers as tools.
(See Electric Power Group at 8. "The claims here are unlike the claims in Enfish. There, we relied on the distinction made in Alice between, on one hand, computer-functionality improvements and, on the other, uses of existing computers as tools in aid of processes focused on “abstract ideas” (in Alice, as in so many other § 101 cases, the abstract ideas being the creation and manipulation of legal obligations such as contracts involved in fundamental economic practices). Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358-59. That distinction, the Supreme Court recognized, has common-sense force even if it may present line-drawing challenges because of the programmable nature of ordinary existing computers. In Enfish, we applied the distinction to reject the § 101 challenge at stage one because the claims at issue focused not on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put, but on a specific improvement—a particular database technique—in how computers could carry out one of their basic functions of storage and retrieval of data. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335-36; see Bascom, 2016 WL 3514158, at *5; cf Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2360 (noting basic storage function of generic computer). The present case is different: the focus of the claims is not on such an improvement in computers as tools, but on certain independently abstract ideas that use computers as tools.”) (emphasis added)
Based on these findings of fact, the claimed subject matter at best is using a general-purpose computer as a tool, but fails to provide any improvement to said computer. The Examiner respectfully notes that the needed "improvement" in terms of patent eligibility is not one resulting from programming a generic processor to perform a different (or even improved) function, but rather a specific and actual improvement to the machine itself is needed. Based on these findings of fact, the Examiner contends the claims are indeed directed towards an abstract idea and Applicant's arguments to the contrary are considered to be non-persuasive.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 USC 102 have been fully considered but are moot because the newly amended limitations do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant Argues: Applicant respectfully submits that this rejection fails for the following reasons, each of which is independently sufficient to overcome the rejection: (1) none of the cited references, individually or in combination, teaches or suggests the mandatory claim step of processing audio content through an audio tour controller block to dynamically adjust the audio content by performing language selection, accent modification, or tone modification based on user input; and (2) there is no articulated motivation to combine the references to arrive at the claimed invention..
Examiner agrees and has withdrawn Ball as prior art and relied on Lal (10,592,203) for the combined teaching of amended limitations.
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 RASHIDA R SHORTER whose telephone number is (571)272-9345. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday from 9am- 530pm.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached at (571) 270-3445. 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.
/RASHIDA R SHORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights