DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to Applicant’s communication of 8/7/2025. Amendments to claims 1-6, 11, 17 and 18 have been entered. Claims 1-18 are pending and have been examined. The rejection and response to arguments are stated below.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS)s submitted on 8/7/2025 and 10/15/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, lines 18 into 19 recites the limitation “a quote provider remote server”. It is unclear if this is the same server as the “a quote provider remote server” recited in line 15. Dependent claims 2-10 are rejected as being dependent on a rejected claim.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claims 1 and 11 are directed to a process; Step 1-yes.
Under Step 2A, prong 1, claims 1 and 11 recite a series of steps for compiling data to generate and scan a QR code representing customer data and remote location data which stores characteristic vehicle or home data for a quote request which is a fundamental economic practice, e.g. managing an insurance quote to mitigate risk, and a commercial or legal interaction, e.g. advertising or marketing, and thus grouped as “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity”.
Claim 1, as a whole and the limitations in combination, recite this abstract idea. Specifically, the limitations of representative claim 1, bolded below and stripped of all additional elements, recite the abstract idea as follows.
1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method of generating a QR (Quick Response) code detailing vehicle or home feature and characteristic information, the method comprising:
receiving, via one or more processors and/or associated transceivers, an identification of a vehicle or home selected by a user;
determining or identifying, via the one or more processors and/or associated transceivers, a location address for locating a remote computing device storing characteristic data of the vehicle or home selected by the user; and
generating, via the one or more processors and/or associated transceivers, a QR code encoding quote request information including (i) a quote provider identifier associated with a quote provider remote server, (ii) a product identifier associated with the vehicle or home, and (iii) a product offeror identifier associated with the remote computing device, wherein when detected by a camera or a wireless transceiver of a mobile device associated with the user, the QR code causes the mobile device to (a) transmit an information request to the remote computing device using the location address, the location address identified using the product identifier and the product offeror identifier, and (b) transmit an electronic quote request to a quote provider remote server identified using the quote provider identifier, the electronic quote request including characteristic data received from the quote provider remote server.
The limitations of representative claim 11 similarly recite this abstract idea. The generation of a quote request document that is pre-populated with information and data and the subsequent acceptance of said document are part of the abstract idea with the additional elements being “one or more processors and/or associated transceivers” and a “remote server”.
The claimed limitations of both claims 1 and 11 recite a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of a fundamental economic practice and commercial or legal interaction, but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than the mere nominal recitation of “one or more processors and/or associated transceivers”, “a remote computing device storing characteristic data”, “a quote provider remote server” and “a camera or a wireless transceiver of a mobile device associated with the user” in claim 1 and “a camera or a wireless transceiver of the mobile device”, “a remote server”, “one or more processors and/or associated transceivers of the mobile device” and a “remote computing device storing characteristic data” in claim 11, there is nothing in the claim element which takes the steps out of the methods of organizing human activity abstract idea grouping. Thus, claims 1 and 11 recite an abstract idea.
Under step 2A, prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites using generic, commercially available, off-the-shelf computing devices, i.e. processors suitably programmed to perform the recited steps. The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors with memory suitably programmed communicating, see at least FIG. 1 and 2 and paragraphs [0006], the location is “(e.g., website or other address information) of the one or more processors.”, also at least [0045], [0193-0194], [0202], [0207-0209], [0215-0217] and [0221-0228] of the specification), such that it amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h). Furthermore, the steps of receiving or transmitting information/data and detecting data via a camera or transceiver of a mobile device are considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05(g). Accordingly, the additional elements claimed do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Claims 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using generic computer processors with memory suitably programmed gathering information and communicating over a generic network to perform the limitation steps amounts no more than adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f) and generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, see MPEP 2106.05 (h). Furthermore, the steps of receiving or transmitting information/data and detecting data via a camera or transceiver of a mobile device are considered adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.05 (g). Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components interacting in a conventional manner cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible.
For instance, in the process of claims 1 and 11, the limitation steps, claimed at a high level of generality, recite steps that are considered mere instructions to apply an exception akin to a commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd.; Gottschalk and Versata Dev. Group, Inc.; see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). Furthermore, these the insignificant extra-solution activity steps rely on well-understood, routine and conventional computing functionality carried out by a generic processor with memory such as data gathering/transmission over a generic communication network and data storage, akin to receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec,(utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., (sending messages over a network) and buySAFE, Inc. (computer receives and sends information over a network), storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93 and “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition)”; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Applicant has leveraged generic computing elements to perform the abstract idea of compiling data to generate a QR code representing said data and scanning a QR code for information, transmitting said information and receiving an insurance quote, without significantly more.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 12-18 when analyzed as a whole and in an ordered combination are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea, as detailed below. The additional recited limitations in the dependent claims only refine the abstract idea.
For instance, claim 2 recites displaying information, e.g. a QR code, on a generic display screen which is an abstract idea and mental process, see ‘“a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016)”’ Furthermore, claim 2 recites intended use language (“to allow the QR code to be scanned by the camera or the wireless transceiver of the mobile device”) such that the mobile device does not actively scan the QR code. As such claims 3-6, dependent on claim 2, cannot happen since the QR code was never actively scanned. Also scanning via a camera of a mobile device is insignificant extra-solution activity to merely gather information to be used in the abstract idea which is well-understood, routine and conventional computing activity such as “electronically scanning or extracting data from a physical document, Content Extraction and Transmission, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (optical character recognition)”; see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Claims 3 and 4 further refine the abstract idea by adding the fundamental economic principal of receiving an insurance quote determined from characteristics of the item to be insured. This is managing insurance, i.e. a contract agreement, to mitigate risk in the most known manner used throughout commerce. The nominally recited “mobile device” and “remote server” do not change this analysis as it is simply applying the abstract idea on generic processors and displays used as tools. The “electronic” quote request automating an otherwise previously known manual step for applying for an insurance quote. Furthermore, transmitting and receiving data is a very conventional computing activity and displaying information is part of the abstract idea. Claims 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 all further refine the abstract idea. Receiving information, based on a home or vehicles characteristics, pertaining to loan terms and insurance quotes is a most fundamental economic practice to mitigate risk through an insurance contractual agreement. Furthermore, transmitting information, receiving information and presenting information is an abstract idea in and of itself, see Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The nominally recited generic mobile device and processors suitably programmed do not change this. The “electronic” quote request automating an otherwise previously known manual step for applying for an insurance quote. Claim 12 merely recites that the quote document, i.e. an insurance quote, is based on the customer information which is pre-populated into said document. This is automating a manual task that can be completed by a human being. Claims 13, 14, 15 and 16 further refine the abstract idea by defining the type of information represented by the vehicle or house characteristic data. The type and the specificity of the information does not make the abstract idea any less abstract. Claims 17 and 18 are analyzed similarly to claims 5-10 above.
Clearly, the additional recited limitations in the dependent claim only refines the abstract idea further. Further refinement of an abstract idea does not convert an abstract idea into something concrete.
The claims merely amount to the application or instructions to apply the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for compiling data to generate a QR code representing customer data and remote location data which stores characteristic vehicle or home data and scanning a QR code for information, transmitting said information, e.g. an electronic quote request, and receiving an insurance quote for a vehicle or house) on one or more computers, and are considered to amount to nothing more than requiring a generic computer system (e.g. mobile devices and servers, i.e. processors suitably programmed, communicating over a network and displaying information) to merely carry out the abstract idea itself. As such, the claims, when considered as a whole, are nothing more than the instruction to implement the abstract idea (i.e. a series of steps for compiling data to generate a QR code representing customer data and remote location data which stores characteristic vehicle or home data and scanning a QR code for information, transmitting said information and receiving an insurance quote for a vehicle or house) in a particular, albeit well-understood, routine and conventional technological environment.
Accordingly, the Examiner concludes that there are no meaningful limitations in the claims that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself or integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed in the Remarks dated 8/7/2025, with respect to the previous claim objection and 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The previous claim objection and 112(b) rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed in the Remarks filed 8/7/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of claims 1-18 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the Remarks, Applicant argues “A. The Pending Claims Are Not Directed to an Abstract Idea” Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner has bolded all abstract idea limitations above leaving all additional elements for further analysis. Determining a multitude of information to include a quote provider, i.e. an insurance company, a product identifier a product offeror identifier to request and provide an insurance quote existed well before the advent of computing technology and has always been a business problem and not a technical problem. Clearly, human beings, either as entities using various means of data transfer or interacting with generic computing devices which are suitably programmed, can perform the abstract idea of gathering information and requesting an insurance quote. Automating this manual process does not make this abstract idea any less abstract.
On pages 11 and 12 of the Remarks, Applicant argues ‘“One path to establishing a practical application is to show an improvement to another technology. See MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1).
For example, the Claim 1 recites generating a quick response (QR) code. Generally, QR codes are used to encode a small amount of information (e.g., a single web address), are not capable of encoding a sufficient amount of information for a generation of an electronic quote document.
Thus, a technical problem exists in how to provide this amount of information using QR code technology.
Claim 1 solves this technical problem by using an unconventional QR code configuration, namely, a QR code that encodes at least three different identifiers: (i) an quote provider identifier, (ii) a product identifier, and (iii) a product offeror identifier. The quote provider identifier enables the system to route an electronic quote request to a specific quote provider, and the product identifier and product offeror identifier enable the system to identify a computing device that can provide information relating to a product sufficient for completing the electronic quote request. Thus, this unconventional configuration of the proximity information source enables the system to access a potentially large set of information without this information needing to be stored locally within information source, thereby enabling the usage of a compact information source such as a QR code.
Accordingly, in this case, "the specification sets forth an improvement in technology ... [and] the claim includes the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification," which is sufficient to establish a practical application.”’ Examiner respectfully disagrees
A QR code can be programmed to contain any type, or “link” to other sources, for providing various information for requesting an insurance quote for a particular item. This is not a technical problem. Determining and obtaining user information, product information and an insurance companies information in order to produce an insurance quote has always been a business issue and did not arise from the invention of computing devices and QR codes. Gathering information for these entities has always been a part of the abstract idea of requesting an insurance quote. Using an encoded QR code to gather this information may improve the abstract idea of gathering information but this is not a technical improvement but merely an improvement to the abstract idea. Also, there are no technical details such that a person could not merely look up or ask for said information. Applicant has automated a manual business process.
MPEP § 2106.05(a) discusses cases in which the Federal Circuit determined that the claims did not reflect an improvement to computer-functionality or other technology. For instance, if a claimed process can be performed without a computer, the Federal Circuit has indicated that it cannot improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit "cannot be characterized as an improvement in a computer" because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally). The Federal Circuit has also indicated that mere automation of manual processes or increasing the speed of a process where these purported improvements come solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer are not sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality. FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095, 120 USPQ2d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055, 123 USPQ2d 1100, 1108-09 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Similarly, the Federal Circuit has indicated that a claim must include more than conventional implementation on generic components or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology. See, e.g., Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1264-65, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1208-09 (Fed. Cir. 2016); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612-13, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1747-48 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP § 2106.05(a) for further discussion of these cases, and additional examples of what the courts have indicated does and does not show an improvement to computer functionality or other technology.
On pages 12 and 13 of the Remarks, Applicant argues, ‘“B. Applicant's Claims Are Directed to "Significantly More" Than the Abstract Idea”” and Applicant further argues, in light of the Berkheimer memo, ‘“In the instant application, the pending claims clearly recite more than well-understood, routine, or conventional functionality systems for computer systems, at least with respect to a computer-implemented method including "generating, via the one or more processors and/or associated transceivers, a QR code encoding quote request information including (i) a quote provider identifier associated with a quote provider remote server, (ii) a product identifier associated with the vehicle or home, and (iii) a product offeror identifier associated with the remote computing device, wherein when detected by a camera or a wireless transceiver of a mobile device associated with the user, the QR code causes the mobile device to (a) transmit an information request to the remote computing device using the location address, the location address identified using the product identifier and the product offeror identifier, and (b) transmit an electronic quote request to a quote provider remote server identified using the quote provider identifier, the electronic quote request including characteristic data received from the quote provider remote server," as is recited in amended Claim 1.
The Office Action provides no indication that these recitations of the pending claims (alone or as an ordered combination) are well understood, routine, or conventional in computer systems.”’ Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The steps of the claims, taken individually or as an ordered combination, have been identified in the rejection as corresponding to abstract ideas. The additional elements in the claims are “one or more processors and/or associated transceivers”, “a remote computing device storing characteristic data”, “a quote provider remote server” and “a camera or a wireless transceiver of a mobile device associated with the user” leveraged to execute the claimed steps. Applicant’s specification in at least FIG. 1 and 2 and paragraphs [0006], the location is “(e.g., website or other address information) of the one or more processors.”, also at least [0045], [0193-0194], [0202], [0207-0209], [0215-0217] and [0221-0228] clearly disclose that the claims at issue do not require any nonconventional computer, network, or other components, or even a non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces but merely call for performance of the claimed functions on a set of generic computer components. The elements of the instant process, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these elements. The elements of the instant underlying process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone.
According to the USPTO guidelines of April 19, 2018 incorporating the Berkheimer memo (Berkheimer memo, hereinafter),
In a step 2B analysis, an additional element (or combination of elements) is not well-understood, routine or conventional unless the examiner finds, and expressly supports a rejection in writing with, one or more of the following:
1. A citation to an express statement in the specification or to a statement made by an applicant during prosecution that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
2. A citation to one or more of the court decisions discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) as noting the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
3. A citation to a publication that demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional element(s).
4. A statement that the examiner is taking official notice of the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the additional elements). This option should
be used only when the examiner is certain, based upon his or her personal knowledge, that the additional elements) represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity engaged in by those in the relevant art, in that the additional elements are widely prevalent or in common use in the relevant field, comparable to the types of activity or elements that are so well-known that they do not need to be described in detail in a patent application to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
The fact that a generic computing system, such as described above, can be suitably programmed to perform the claimed method without requiring any nonconventional computer, network, or other computing components, or even a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces” but instead merely call for performance of the claimed functions on a set of generic computer components, satisfies the Berkheimer memo requirement that the additional elements are conventional elements (as outlined in criterion 1 of the Berkheimer memo). Furthermore, Examiner has pointed to the computing functionality leveraged as well-understood, routine and conventional computing functionality, both individually and in combination, See MPEP 2106.05(d). The elements of the instant process, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these elements. The elements of the instant process, when taken in combination, together do not offer substantially more than the sum of the functions of the elements when each is taken alone. Hence these additional elements do not add anything significantly more than an abstract idea.
In light of the Alice decision and the guidance provided in the MPEP, the features listed in the claims, are not considered an improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. At best, these features may be considered to be a business solution, using computers, to a problem of compiling data to generate a QR code representing customer data and remote location data which stores characteristic vehicle or home data and scanning a QR code for information, transmitting said information and receiving an insurance quote for a vehicle or house. The alleged benefits that Applicants argue are due to business decisions, using computers, rather than any improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself. By relying on computing devices to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 “use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions” is not an inventive concept). As discussed in the rejection above, the components of the instant system, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these components. At best, Applicant has claimed features that may improve an abstract idea. However, an improved abstract idea is still abstract, (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 (‘“We may assume that the techniques claimed are “groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant,” but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89-90 (2012); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[A] claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea.”’
There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other. There is nothing, for example, in the pending claims to suggest that the claimed “one or more processors and/or associated transceivers”, “a remote computing device storing characteristic data”, “a quote provider remote server” and “a camera or a wireless transceiver of a mobile device associated with the user”, all suitably programmed, are somehow made more efficient or that the manner in which these elements carry out their basic functions is otherwise improved in any way. The alleged advantages that Applicants argue do not concern an improvement in computer capabilities but instead relate to an alleged improvement in compiling data to generate a QR code representing customer data and remote location data which stores characteristic vehicle or home data and scanning a QR code for information, transmitting said information and receiving an insurance quote for a vehicle or house, for which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity.
In summary, the computer is merely a platform on which the abstract idea is implemented. Simply executing an abstract concept on a computer does not render a computer “specialized,” nor does it transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent-eligible one. See Bancorp Servs., LLC v. Sun Life Assurance Co. of Can., 687 F.3d 1266, 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2012). There are no improvements to another technology or technical field, no improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing or any other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment as a result of performing the claimed method. The claimed sequence of steps comprises only “conventional steps, specified at a high level of generality,” which is insufficient to supply an “inventive concept.” Id. at 2357 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294, 1297, 1300). Also, the addition of merely novel or non-routine components to the claimed idea does not necessarily turn an abstraction into something concrete (See Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, _ F.3d_, 2014 WL 5904902, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2014). Hence the claims do not recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
For these reasons and those stated in the rejections above, rejection of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained by the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are listed on the enclosed PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRISTOPHER J BRIDGES whose telephone number is (571)270-5451. The examiner can normally be reached 7:00am-3:30pm M-F EDT.
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, Mike Anderson can be reached on 571-270-0508. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER BRIDGES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3693