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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 6, and 7 are amended. Claim 5 is canceled. Claims 1-4, 6, and 7 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/26/2025 was filed before the mailing of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 5, filed 10/27/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/27/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant states that the independent claims are amended to recite the payment of a charging fee or a discharging fee between a user and an electric power company, and that the recitation in combination with other features of the claim integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. The recitation of payment of a charging fee or a discharging fee between a user and an electric power company directly corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions, business relations, managing personal interactions and relationships). The additional elements, as mentioned in the 101 section below, are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the smart contract amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (for electric power transactions). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 1-4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-4 and 6 recite a system (i.e. machine), and claim 7 recites a method (i.e. process). Therefore claims 1-4, 6, and 7 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claim 1 recites the limitations of receiving transaction data and records a block including the received transaction data in the [distributed ledger]; generating association information that associates a contract address which is a storage location specific to the [smart contract] with contract identification information for identifying the contract; in response to a contract execution instruction being input by a user, transmitting an address request together with the contract identification information, and transmitting the transaction data generated to the contract address returned from the [first processor], and executing the [smart contract] stored in the contract address to which the transaction data is transmitted so as to make payment of a charging fee or a discharging fee between the user and an electric power company. The invention is drawn towards managing smart contracts and claim 1 recites limitations that directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions, business relations, managing personal interactions and relationships), as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving and recording transaction data including a smart contract for execution of a contract, and generating association information that associates a contract address with contract identification information for identifying the contract. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) since the claim limitations describe the observation and evaluation of data. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as additional elements under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claim recites the additional elements of: a plurality of computers that operates such that each computer holds a same distributed ledger and a plurality of terminal apparatuses; the computers including a first processor that includes: a ledger management unit and an association-information management unit; a second processor; a smart contract. The additional elements of the plurality of computers and various above-mentioned components are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the smart contract amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (for electric power transactions). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claim 6 recites the limitations the [smart contract] is on a contract for electric power transaction by charging and discharging [a battery mounted on a vehicle], and [the terminal apparatus] seeking to execute the contract is [a mobile terminal owned by a user of the vehicle] or [a terminal apparatus mounted on the vehicle]. The claim limitations are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed above. The claim also recites the additional elements of the smart contract, a battery mounted on a vehicle, the terminal apparatus/mobile terminal, and terminal apparatus mounted on the vehicle. The additional elements of the terminal apparatus/mobile terminal, and terminal apparatus mounted on the vehicle amounts to “apply it” or merely using a computer as a tool to implement the judicial exception. The smart contract and battery mounted on the vehicle amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (electric power transactions). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 7 recites the limitations of recording in the [distributed ledger] a block including transaction data including a [smart contract] for execution of a contract; and generating association information that associates a contract address which is a storage location specific to the smart contract with contract identification information for identifying the contract, and storing the generated association information, wherein the contract management method further comprises, in response to a contract execution instruction being input by a user, transmitting an address request together with the contract identification information, and transmitting the transaction data generated to the contract address returned from the [first processor], and executing the [smart contract] stored in the contract address to which the transaction data is transmitted so as to make payment of a charging fee or a discharging fee between the user and an electric power company. The invention is drawn towards managing smart contracts and claim 7 recites limitations that directly correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions, business relations, managing personal interactions and relationships), as evidenced by limitations detailing recording transaction data including a smart contract for execution of a contract, and generating association information that associates a contract address with contract identification information for identifying the contract. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) since the claim limitations describe the observation and evaluation of data. The claim recites an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as additional elements under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B below.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claim recites the additional elements of: a plurality of computers that hold a same distributed ledger, a plurality of terminal apparatuses, a first processor and second processor, and a smart contract. The additional elements of a plurality of computers, a plurality of terminal apparatuses, and a distributed ledger, are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Further, the smart contract amounts to generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use (for electric power transactions). Accordingly, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer, and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-4 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2-4 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (2021/0160069) in view of Naim (2020/0334667).
Claim 1: Watanabe discloses: A contract management system including a plurality of computers that operate such that each computer holds a same distributed ledger and a plurality of terminal apparatuses: (Watanabe ¶0015 disclosing a distributed ledger of each terminal; see also Fig. 1)
wherein each of the plurality of computers includes a first processor, the first processor includes: a ledger management unit that receives transaction data and records a block including the received transaction data in the distributed ledger; and (Watanabe ¶0061 smart-contract registration terminal 1 (the smart-contract registration unit 14) compiles the script code of a smart contract to generate bytecode, also extracts ABI information from the script code of the smart contract, and generates a transaction including the bytecode and the ABI information; smart-contract registration terminal 1 (the transaction issuing unit 13) then issues a transaction including the bytecode and the ABI information (S12), and broadcasts the transaction generated at S11 onto the network 4 allowing the transaction to be propagated to all the terminals connected to the network; ¶0063 the transaction approval terminal verifies the transaction, generates a block and adds the block to distributed ledger; ¶0081 discloses the terminals can be implemented using a central processing unit (CPU) or processor)
an association-information management unit that, when the ledger management unit records in the distributed ledger a block including transaction data including a smart contract for execution of a contract, generates association information that associates a contract address which is a storage location specific to the smart contract with contract identification information for identifying the contract, (Watanabe ¶0065 the transaction approval terminal 2 calculates an address (identification information) for uniquely identifying the smart contract included in the transaction transmitted at S12 and gives the address to the smart contract (bytecode); transaction approval terminal 2 then registers (stores) the address that it gave and the ABI information included in the transaction into the ABI information DB of its own distributed ledger 11 and sets the hash value of the ABI information DB after the registration in the block header of the generated block)
each of the plurality of terminal apparatuses includes a second processor, wherein the second processor, in response to a contract execution instruction being input by a user, transmits an address request together with the contract identification information, and transmits the transaction data generated to the contract address returned from the first processor, and (Watanabe ¶0072 disclosing user terminal 3 uses the received address as a key for the ABI information DB in the distributed ledger 11 to make an inquiry to the ABI information DB of its own distributed ledger 11 and obtains the ABI information corresponding to the address (S18). Then, using the obtained ABI information, the user terminal 3 issues a transaction for requesting execution of the smart contract (S19); note that in ¶0070 the smart-contract registration terminal 1 (the smart-contract registration unit 14) then notifies the user terminal 3 of the address indicating the storage location of the smart contract or makes the user terminal 3 know the address (S17))
Watanabe in view of Naim discloses:
the first processor, of one of the plurality of computers that receives the transaction data, executes the smart contract stored in the contract address to which the transaction data is transmitted so as to make payment of a charging fee or a discharging fee between the user and an electric power company.
Watanabe disclose the first processor, of one of the plurality of computers that receives the transaction data, executes the smart contract stored in the contract address to which the transaction data is transmitted (Watanabe ¶0074 transaction approval terminal 2 executes the smart contract specified in this transaction by verifying the transaction transmitted at S19). Watanabe dos not explicitly disclose that the transaction data is transmitted so as to make payment of a charging fee or a discharging fee between the user and an electric power company. Naim suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Naim ¶0074 disclosing a customer can transfer and create a smart contract that will combine a number of transactions, such as payments to a company (Company X) of $20 per month ($240 per year) plus payment to the electricity company of $63.33 per month ($760 per year) (as stated, he can withdraw them at any given moment), while Company X and the Electricity Company will be able to access the contract once a month and actually withdraw their share according to the agreement with the customer; ¶0002 discloses also the processing of data and verifications in electronic payment systems, specifically the use of blockchain technology). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe to include the transaction data is transmitted so as to make payment of a charging fee or a discharging fee between the user and an electric power company as taught by Naim. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Watanabe in order to process data and verifications in electronic payment systems in order to mitigate risk , and ensure integrity of the payment system (see ¶0028 of Naim).
Claim 7: Watanabe discloses: A contract management method performed by a contract management system including a plurality of computers that operate such that each computer holds a same distributed ledqer and a plurality of terminal apparatuses, the contract management method comprising: (Watanabe ¶0015 disclosing a distributed ledger of each terminal; see also Fig. 1)
by a first processor of each of the plurality of computers,recording in the distributed ledger a block including transaction data including a smart contract for execution of a contract; and (Watanabe ¶0061 smart-contract registration terminal 1 (the smart-contract registration unit 14) compiles the script code of a smart contract to generate bytecode, also extracts ABI information from the script code of the smart contract, and generates a transaction including the bytecode and the ABI information; smart-contract registration terminal 1 (the transaction issuing unit 13) then issues a transaction including the bytecode and the ABI information (S12), and broadcasts the transaction generated at S11 onto the network 4 allowing the transaction to be propagated to all the terminals connected to the network; ¶0063 the transaction approval terminal verifies the transaction, generates a block and adds the block to distributed ledger; ¶0081 discloses the terminals can be implemented using a central processing unit (CPU) or processor)
generating association information that associates a contract address which is a storaqe location specific to the smart contract with contract identification information for identifying the contract, and storing the generated association information, (Watanabe ¶0065 the transaction approval terminal 2 calculates an address (identification information) for uniquely identifying the smart contract included in the transaction transmitted at S12 and gives the address to the smart contract (bytecode); transaction approval terminal 2 then registers (stores) the address that it gave and the ABI information included in the transaction into the ABI information DB of its own distributed ledger 11 and sets the hash value of the ABI information DB after the registration in the block header of the generated block)
wherein the contract management method further comprises, by a second processor of each of the plurality of terminal apparatuses, in response to a contract execution instruction being input by a user, transmittinq an address request toqether with the contract identification information, and transmittinq the transaction data generated to the contract address returned from the first processor, and (Watanabe ¶0072 disclosing user terminal 3 uses the received address as a key for the ABI information DB in the distributed ledger 11 to make an inquiry to the ABI information DB of its own distributed ledger 11 and obtains the ABI information corresponding to the address (S18). Then, using the obtained ABI information, the user terminal 3 issues a transaction for requesting execution of the smart contract (S19); note that in ¶0070 the smart-contract registration terminal 1 (the smart-contract registration unit 14) then notifies the user terminal 3 of the address indicating the storage location of the smart contract or makes the user terminal 3 know the address (S17))
Watanabe in view of Naim discloses:
by the first processor, of one of the plurality of computers that receives the transaction data, executing the smart contract stored in the contract address to which the transaction data is transmitted so as to make payment of a charqinq fee or a discharqinq fee between the user and an electric power company.
Watanabe disclose the first processor, of one of the plurality of computers that receives the transaction data, executes the smart contract stored in the contract address to which the transaction data is transmitted (Watanabe ¶0074 transaction approval terminal 2 executes the smart contract specified in this transaction by verifying the transaction transmitted at S19). Watanabe dos not explicitly disclose that the transaction data is transmitted so as to make payment of a charging fee or a discharging fee between the user and an electric power company. Naim suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Naim ¶0074 disclosing a customer can transfer and create a smart contract that will combine a number of transactions, such as payments to a company (Company X) of $20 per month ($240 per year) plus payment to the electricity company of $63.33 per month ($760 per year) (as stated, he can withdraw them at any given moment), while Company X and the Electricity Company will be able to access the contract once a month and actually withdraw their share according to the agreement with the customer; ¶0002 discloses also the processing of data and verifications in electronic payment systems, specifically the use of blockchain technology). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe to include the transaction data is transmitted so as to make payment of a charging fee or a discharging fee between the user and an electric power company as taught by Naim. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Watanabe in order to process data and verifications in electronic payment systems in order to mitigate risk , and ensure integrity of the payment system (see ¶0028 of Naim).
Claim(s) 2-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Watanabe (2021/0160069) in view of Naim (2020/0334667) further in view of Narayanaswami (2020/0200824).
Claim 2: The contract management system according to claim 1,
wherein the association-information management unit, when receiving a deletion instruction to delete the association information from one of the terminal apparatuses, deletes the association information specified by the deletion instruction, when receiving an invalidation instruction to invalidate the association information from the one terminal apparatus, invalidates the association information specified by the invalidation instruction, and/or when receiving a validation instruction to validate the association information from the one terminal apparatus, validates the association information specified by the validation instruction.
Watanabe discloses that the transaction approval terminal deletes the script code from the transaction after verification and the block is generated, and also checks the validities and generates blocks through approval operations, but does not explicitly disclose that the association-information management unit, when receiving a deletion instruction to delete the association information from one of the terminal apparatuses, deletes the association information specified by the deletion instruction, when receiving an invalidation instruction to invalidate the association information from the one terminal apparatus, invalidates the association information specified by the invalidation instruction, and/or when receiving a validation instruction to validate the association information from the one terminal apparatus, validates the association information specified by the validation instruction. Narayanaswami suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Narayanaswami ¶0056 disclosing a chaincode may include the code interpretation of a smart contract, with additional features; the chaincode may be program code deployed on a computing network, where it is executed and validated by chain validators together during a consensus process; one function may be to commit a transaction related to execution of the smart contract on the ledger for recording current battery data with a timestamp, which may be provided to one or more of the nodes; ¶0075 clients may be instructions received from any source to enact activity on the blockchain; clients may be applications that act on behalf of a requester, such as a device, person or entity to propose transactions for the blockchain; endorsing peers which simulate and endorse transactions proposed by clients and committing peers which verify endorsements, validate transactions, and commit transactions to the distributed ledger). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Watanabe in view of Naim to include the association-information management unit, when receiving a deletion instruction to delete the association information from one of the terminal apparatuses, deletes the association information specified by the deletion instruction, when receiving an invalidation instruction to invalidate the association information from the one terminal apparatus, invalidates the association information specified by the invalidation instruction, and/or when receiving a validation instruction to validate the association information from the one terminal apparatus, validates the association information specified by the validation instruction as taught by Narayanaswami. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Watanabe in view of Naim in order to endorse transactions, verify endorsements, validate transactions, and commit transactions to the ledger (see ¶0075 of Narayanaswami).
Claim 3: The contract management system according to claim 2, wherein when the association-information management unit generates, deletes, invalidates, or validates the association information, the association-information management unit generates transaction data on the generation, deletion, invalidation, or validation of the association information, and the ledger management unit records a block including the generated transaction data in the distributed ledger. (Watanabe ¶0063 the transaction approval terminal verifies the transaction, generates a block and adds the block to distributed ledger)
Claim 4: The contract management system according to claim 2, wherein the one terminal apparatus is an operator terminal apparatus that is operated by an operator certified for management of the smart contract. (Watanabe ¶0033 disclosing the smart-contract registration terminal is a node for a registrant who registers a smart contract in a blockchain; ¶0077 disclosing the registrant being the creator)
Claim 6: The contract management system according to claim 1,
wherein the smart contract is on a contract for electric power transaction by charging and discharging a battery mounted on a vehicle, and a terminal apparatus, among the plurality of terminal apparatuses, seeking to execute the contract is a mobile terminal owned by a user of the vehicle or a terminal apparatus mounted on the vehicle.
Watanabe discloses smart contract associated and that the terminal apparatus among the plurality of terminal apparatuses is a mobile computing device of the owned by a user, but does not explicitly disclose that the smart contract is on a contract for electric power transaction by charging and discharging a battery mounted on a vehicle, and a terminal apparatus, among the plurality of terminal apparatuses, seeking to execute the contract is a mobile terminal owned by a user of the vehicle or a terminal apparatus mounted on the vehicle. Narayanaswami suggest or discloses this limitation/concept: (Narayanaswami ¶0005 disclosing electric vehicles such as the Tesla™ operate on a battery power and can be charged overnight at home or at charging stations located along the way similar to gas stations; as electric vehicles become more popular, more charging stations will be made available while the charging time will be reduced; some stations may provide an ability to swap batteries completely disassociating the vehicle from the battery; there will be more entities providing independent charging or swapping stations while the batteries may be usable across different brands of vehicles; more entities may be involved in the compliance and regulatory aspects of the batteries; ¶0034 disclosing a solution for monitoring of usability parameters of batteries in blockchain-based network; blockchain networks may be homogenous based on the asset type and rules that govern the assets based on the smart contracts; ¶0043 disclosing the blockchain may be used to capture the various events encountered by the battery during its operational lifecycle; charging event types, vehicle data, etc.; ¶0042 disclosing participants in the battery charging blockchain network may include car owner(s), passengers, leasing agencies, car and battery dealers transport agencies, etc.; ¶0045 battery analytics server may issue a certificate to release the battery from a charging station to a user (i.e., a vehicle owner); Fig. 5C discloses the user device that are seeking to execute the contract; ¶0071 an asset transfer session or a process or procedure that is driven by a smart contract which explicitly identifies one or more user devices; content of the smart contract may require digital signatures by one or more of the entities 552 and 556 which are parties to the smart contract transaction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Watanabe in view of Naim to include the smart contract is on a contract for electric power transaction by charging and discharging a battery mounted on a vehicle, and a terminal apparatus, among the plurality of terminal apparatuses, seeking to execute the contract is a mobile terminal owned by a user of the vehicle or a terminal apparatus mounted on the vehicle as taught by Narayanaswami since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Additional Prior Art References
Prior art references that are relevant to the applicant’s invention but not relied upon in the Office Action rejection(s) includes:
Nagla (2018/0018723): a vehicle record platform using blockchain technology. Vehicle records are recorded using blocks linked by vehicle identification number. The vehicle record stores historical information about vehicles, including collision information, financing information, transfer of ownership information, and other transaction information.
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628