DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Priority
Examiner acknowledges that the instant application is a National Stage Application under 35 U.S.C. 371 with relation to PCT Application No. EP2021/065338, filed 06/08/2021, which claims foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) to Application No. FR2006159, filed 06/12/2020. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Status of Claims
Applicant’s communications filed on 5/19/2026 have been considered.
Claims 11 and 16 are currently amended.
Claims 11-13, 16, and 18-19 are currently pending and have been examined.
Allowable Subject Matter over Prior Art
As noted for reasons in the “Subject Matter Free of Prior Art” in the Office Action mailed 2/19/2026, Claims 11-13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the claim rejections(s): 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office Action.
Claims 16, 18 and 19 currently stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103, in view of Applicant’s amendments.
Eligibility Considerations
Claims 11-13 recite eligible subject matter. Specifically, claims 11-13 do not recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon, and thus the claim is eligible without further analysis with regards to Prong Two. Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test, it was determined that claims 11-13 are directed towards a machine, and therefore claims 11-13 are directed to one of the four statutory categories. Furthermore, Claim 11 recites a device for acquiring images of a pair of spectacles, comprising: a flat surface defined by an outline having a known shape and dimensions, said flat surface comprises, at least, on the periphery thereof: a black frame marking said outline having a known shape and dimensions, and in an area bounded by the outline: an acquisition area having a homogenous, non-reflective colour, said acquisition area comprising at least two adjustable structures having at least two openings intended to support the legs of said pair respectively defined therein, and at least one position marker representing the pupils of a wearer, so as to facilitate the height positioning of the spectacle lenses in said acquisition area. The identified limitations of the claim do not fall within any of the groupings of abstract ideas (Mathematical Concepts, Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities, or Mental Processes). Thus, claim 11 is not directed to a judicial exception, and Subject Matter Eligibility analysis stops at this step. Accordingly, the claim qualifies as eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. Dependent claims 12 and 13 depend from claim 11, and accordingly recite eligible subject matter.
It is further noted that claims 16, 18 and 19 have been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the current Office Action, in light of Applicant’s amendments, as discussed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the interpretation of claims under 35 USC 112(f), as well as the corresponding rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 6-9 that the amended claims overcome the previous 35 USC 112(f) interpretation of the previously claimed “adjustment means” of claim 11. Applicant further argues that the corresponding rejection of claims 11-13, 16, and 18-19 under 35 USC 112(a) regarding the recited “adjustment means” of claim 11, has been overcome in light of the amendments to claim 11. It is noted that the previously claimed “adjustment means” has been deleted from the claim language herein, and accordingly, the claims are no longer being interpreted under 112(f). Furthermore, the previously filed 112(a) rejection has been withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments. Accordingly, the previous 112(f) rejection and 112(a) rejection have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC 112(b) have been fully considered.
Applicant argues on pages 9-12 that the amendments to claims 11 and 16 corrected the previously noted rejections of the claims under 35 USC 112(b). These arguments are persuasive, however, while the previously filed 112(b) rejections of claims 11-13, 16, and 18-19 have been withdrawn in light of the amendments to claims 11 and 16, it is noted that new claim rejections under 35 USC 112(b) have been applied to claims 11-13, 16, and 18-19 in this Office Action, as discussed below.
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.
Claims 11-13, 16, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 11, the claim, as amended, recites “said acquisition area comprising at least two adjustable structures having at least two openings to support the legs of said pair respectively defined therein”. The metes and bounds of this claim is unclear inasmuch as one of ordinary skill in the art cannot determine how to avoid infringement of this claim because they are not apprised of how the at least two openings are “respectively defined therein”. While it appears that the claim refers to the claimed at least two openings as “respectively defined therein,” it is unclear which aspect of this limitation is being referred to as “therein”. The limitation recites multiple components, including an acquisition area and at least two adjustable structures, and accordingly it is unclear which of these components is claimed as “therein”. In other words, it is unclear in which claimed component(s) the at least two openings are respectively defined. Accordingly, the claim is rendered indefinite. For examination purposes, this limitation has been interpreted as “said acquisition area comprising at least two adjustable structures, each adjustable structure having a respective opening to support the legs of said pair”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-13, 16, and 18-19 depend from claim 11, and therefore inherit the deficiency noted in claim 11, above. Therefore, these claims are indefinite and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 16, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Under Step 1 of the Subject Matter Eligibility Test for Products and Processes, the claims must be directed to one of the four statutory categories. See MPEP 2106.03. Claims 16, 18 and 19 are directed towards a process. Therefore, claims 16, 18 and 19 are directed to one of the four statutory categories (Step 1: YES, regarding claims 16, 18 and 19).
Under Step 2A of the MPEP, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a judicially recognized exception. See MPEP 2106.04. Step 2A is a two-prong inquiry.
Under Prong 1, it is determined whether the claim recites a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception.
However, taking Claim 16 as representative, claim 16 recites limitations that fall within the certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas, including:
A method for acquiring images of a pair of spectacles, comprising least the following steps:
a) a phase of identification:
a1) display of an acquisition,
a2) identification of the professional,
a3) search for a 3D model of the pair of spectacles in a catalogue present, and determining if the 3D model can be retrieved,
if the 3D model is able to be retrieved, using the 3D model and moving to a fitting phase based on the 3D model, while if the 3D model cannot be retrieved, performing steps to generate a 3D model comprising:
b) an acquisition phase:
b1) placement of a pair of spectacles,
b2) capture of an image of the pair of spectacles,
b3) acquisition of the coded identification means,
c1) extraction of the rack of the pair of spectacles,
c2) sending of a clipped image of the pair of spectacles and the features of the pair of spectacles,
c3) generation of a 3D model of spectacles from the clipped image,
c3') saving the 3D model of the pair of spectacles in the catalogue,
c4) generation of a fitting by the professional,
based on the 3D model either retrieved from the catalogue or the 3D model generated from the acquisition phase, performing:
d) a fitting phase:
d1) sending of the fitting to a customer,
d2) capture of an image of the customer's face or loading of an image of the customer's face from a photo gallery,
d3) form a fitting image.
Claim 16 recites certain methods of organizing human activity, such as performing commercial interactions. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). The MPEP defines the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping as including fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The abstract ideas recited in representative claim 16 are certain methods of organizing human activity because identifying a professional to search for a model of a pair of spectacles in a catalogue, retrieving the model, and performing a fitting with the model the provide to a customer is a commercial or legal interaction because it is an advertising, marketing or sales activity, or business relations.
Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, claim 16 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Under Step 2A (prong 2), if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception (see MPEP 2106.04). As stated in the MPEP, when “an additional element merely recites the words ‘apply it (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea,” the judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application. In this case, representative claim 16 includes additional elements such as (additional elements are bolded):
A method for acquiring images of a pair of spectacles using the device according to claim 11, comprising least the following steps:
a) a phase of identification on a professional terminal:
a1) display on an output peripheral of the professional terminal of an acquisition web page,
a2) identification of the professional,
a3) search for a 3D model of the pair of spectacles in a catalogue present on the server, and determining if the 3D model can be retrieved,
if the 3D model is able to be retrieved, using the 3D model and moving to a fitting phase based on the 3D model, while if the 3D model cannot be retrieved, performing steps to generate a 3D model comprising:
b) an acquisition phase:
b1) placement of a pair of spectacles on the acquisition area of the device,
b2) capture of an image of the flat surface of the device supporting the pair of spectacles using an image acquisition peripheral of a professional terminal,
b3) acquisition of the coded identification means,
c) an image processing phase,
c1) extraction of the rack of the pair of spectacles,
c2) sending of a clipped image of the pair of spectacles and the features of the pair of spectacles to an image acquisition server,
c3) generation by the server of a 3D model of spectacles from the clipped image,
c3') saving the 3D model of the pair of spectacles in the catalogue on the server,
c4) generation of a virtual fitting web page by the professional terminal,
based on the 3D model either retrieved from the catalogue or the 3D model generated from the acquisition phase and image processing phase, performing:
d) a fitting phase:
d1) sending of the virtual fitting web page to a customer terminal,
d2) capture of an image of the customer's face using the image acquisition peripheral of the customer terminal or loading of an image of the customer's face from a photo gallery,
d3) inlay of the 3D model of spectacles on the image of the customer's face to form a fitting image.
These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. As such, these computer-related limitations are not found to be sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Claim 16 specifying that the abstract idea of providing a spectacle fitting for a customer is executed in a computer environment merely indicates a field of use in which to apply the abstract idea because this requirement merely limits the claims to the computer field, i.e., to execution on a generic computer. As such, under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 16 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two: NO).
Since claims 16 recites an abstract idea and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claims 16 is “directed to” an abstract idea (Step 2A: YES). Accordingly, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Next, under Step 2B, examiners should evaluate additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). In this case, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Returning to representative claim 16, taken individually or as a whole the additional elements of claims 16 amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer and/or no more than a general link to a technological environment. For the same reason these elements are not sufficient to provide an inventive concept. Therefore when considering the additional elements alone, and in combination, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus the claim is not patent eligible (Step 2B: NO).
Dependent claims 18-19, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because they do not add “significantly more” to the abstract idea. As for dependent claims 18-19, these claims recite limitations that further define the same abstract idea noted in independent claim 16, and do not recite any additional elements other than what is disclosed in independent claim 16. Therefore, claims 18-19 are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above. Accordingly, under the Alice/Mayo test, claims 16, 18, and 19 are ineligible.
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16, 18 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldberg et al. (US 2021/0065285 A1) in view of Tang (US 2017/0270581 A1).
Regarding Claim 16, Goldberg discloses A method for acquiring images of a pair of spectacles using the device according to claim 11, comprising least the following steps ([Fig. 4]; [0060-0061] displaying a virtual representation of spectacles overlaid on the face of the user):
a3) search for a 3D model of the pair of spectacles in a catalogue present on the server, and determining if the 3D model can be retrieved ([Fig. 9]; [0083-0085] The frame-similarity operation may identify, based on the user's selection of one or more frames, and the set of those frames that fit, a set of similar frames that fit. In this way, the user may be provided with an expanded set of frames that are likely to fit and that are likely to be aesthetically pleasing to the user… The frame-similarity operation can include determining a similarity score between each pair of frames in a frame database; [0087] a user that is merely browsing an online catalog of frames can be provided with an option to narrow their search to frames that are likely to fit; see [0057] three-dimensional models of spectacles 300 stored in a frame database by fitting servers 130 (e.g., for each pair of spectacles that is available for order or purchase)),
if the 3D model is able to be retrieved, using the 3D model and moving to a fitting phase based on the 3D model, while if the 3D model cannot be retrieved, performing steps to generate a 3D model comprising ([0085] the frame-similarity operation can be performed prior to fitting and/or VTO operations, so that fitting servers 130 have a pre-computed frame-similarity map that can be accessed during or after fitting operations; [Fig. 10]; [0088-0089] Responsive to a selection of option 1002, camera 205, light source 207, and/or sensor 209 may be activated to obtain three-dimensional location information for the user; see [0047-0049] obtaining three-dimensional location information of a user’s facial features using sensors):
b) an acquisition phase:
b1) placement of a pair of spectacles on the acquisition area of the device,
b2) capture of an image of the flat surface of the device supporting the pair of spectacles using an image acquisition peripheral of a professional terminal,
b3) acquisition of the coded identification means,
c) an image processing phase,
c1) extraction of the rack of the pair of spectacles,
c2) sending of a clipped image of the pair of spectacles and the features of the pair of spectacles to an image acquisition server,
c3) generation by the server of a 3D model of spectacles from the clipped image,
c3') saving the 3D model of the pair of spectacles in the catalogue on the server,
c4) generation of a virtual fitting web page by the professional terminal,
based on the 3D model either retrieved from the catalogue or the 3D model generated from the acquisition phase and image processing phase, performing ([0085] the frame-similarity operation can be performed prior to fitting and/or VTO operations, so that fitting servers 130 have a pre-computed frame-similarity map that can be accessed during or after fitting operations):
d) a fitting phase ([Fig. 10]; [0089] Responsive to a selection of option 1002, camera 205, light source 207, and/or sensor 209 may be activated to obtain three-dimensional location information for the user. The three-dimensional location information for the user is provided to fitting engine 801 of the fitting servers, and a subset 1100 of the frames in the frame database having the highest fit probabilities can be provided to the user via interface 202):
d1) sending of the virtual fitting web page to a customer terminal ([Fig. 11]; [0089] a subset 1100 of the frames in the frame database having the highest fit probabilities can be provided to the user via interface 202, as illustrated in FIG. 11),
d2) capture of an image of the customer's face using the image acquisition peripheral of the customer terminal or loading of an image of the customer's face from a photo gallery ([Fig. 12]; [0090] the user can be provided with a selectable option 1200 to perform a fitting operation after the one or more frames have been selected, as illustrated in FIG. 12… responsive to a selection of option 1200, camera 205, light source 207, and/or sensor 209 may be activated to obtain three-dimensional location information for the user. The three-dimensional location information for the user is provided to fitting engine 801 of the fitting servers; see [0047-0049] obtaining three-dimensional location information of a user’s facial features using sensors),
d3) inlay of the 3D model of spectacles on the image of the customer's face to form a fitting image ([0091] If the user later requests a virtual try-on of the frames, the fit information determined for those frames can be used to generate text and/or graphical indicators, such as indicators 600, 602, and 604 of FIG. 6, for display with images of the user and a virtual representation of the frames overlaid; see [0047-0049] obtaining three-dimensional location information of a user’s facial features using sensors; [Fig. 14][0095]).
Goldberg discloses a method for virtual fittings of items such as spectacles (see at least Goldberg [abstract]), including searching for a 3D model of a pair of spectacles in a catalogue on a server (see at least [Fig. 9][0057][0083-0085]), and if the 3D model is able to be retrieved, moving to and performing a fitting phase ([Fig. 10][0047-0049][0085][0088-0089]). However, Goldberg does not explicitly disclose a) a phase of identification on a professional terminal: a1) display on an output peripheral of the professional terminal of an acquisition web page, and a2) identification of the professional.
However, in the field of providing virtual outfitting information to users (see at least Tang [abstract]), Tang, on the other hand, teaches a) a phase of identification on a professional terminal ([0065] With reference to FIG. 4, a provider creates his/her provider and/or group leader profile… see [0056] The information of the provider and/or group leader who provides said outfit 134 is displayed on the provider profile panel 124. Said user can view information related to said provider, including provider's experience, education, related styles, designs and etc through said provider profile panel 124; [0058] Any and all components of the virtual fitting system may execute as or on a touch screen mobile device such as a mobile phone and tablet):
a1) display on an output peripheral of the professional terminal of an acquisition web page ([0067] Said provider also finds the users who want to receive such virtual outfitting experience and/or service. Said provider use said system 100 to simultaneously add his/her virtual outfitting item on top of said selected users' photos, creating the visual result of said users wearing the outfit item he/she is offering; [0068] Said provider save said visual results as images, and distribute said custom outfitting images to each individual users simultaneously using said system 100. Said individual user receives said virtual outfitting result image that is custom created for him/her by said provider on their feed display panel 134), and
a2) identification of the professional ([0056] The information of the provider and/or group leader who provides said outfit 134 is displayed on the provider profile panel 124. Said user can view information related to said provider, including provider's experience, education, related styles, designs and etc through said provider profile panel 124).
The steps of Tang are applicable to the method of Goldberg, as they share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to the provision of virtual outfitting services to potential buyers. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the virtual fitting method as taught by Goldberg, to include w a) a phase of identification on a professional terminal: a1) display on an output peripheral of the professional terminal of an acquisition web page, and a2) identification of the professional, as taught by Tang. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have been motivated to expand the virtual fitting method of Goldberg in order to allow users to receive advice from professionals of the appropriate area (such as stylists or fashion gurus) in a virtual fitting setting (Tang, [0005-0006]).
Note: Claim 16 recites that, if the 3D model is able to retrieved, “using the 3D model and moving to a fitting phase based on the 3D model” is required, while if the 3D model cannot be retrieved, “performing steps to generate a 3D model,” including b) an acquisition phase, and c) an image processing phase” is required. Accordingly, “b) an acquisition phase” and “c) an image processing phase” are not positively recited, as they further limit a step that is not required by the claim (“if the 3D model cannot be retrieved”). Claim 16 has been rejected in view of the prior art teaching the alternative step of “if the 3D model is able to retrieved, using the 3D model and moving to a fitting phase based on the 3D model”.
Regarding Claim 18, Goldberg in view of Tang teaches the limitations of claim 16.
Goldberg further discloses wherein the flat surface has an outline of rectangular shape and has a colorimetric pattern.
Note: Claim 16, from which Claim 18 depends, recites that, if the 3D model is able to retrieved, “using the 3D model and moving to a fitting phase based on the 3D model” is required, while if the 3D model cannot be retrieved, “performing steps to generate a 3D model,” including b) an acquisition phase, and c) an image processing phase” is required. Accordingly, steps b) and c) are not positively recited in Claim 16, and Claim 18 further limits the alternative steps b) and c), and does not exclude the alternative step of, if the 3D model is able to be retrieved, using the 3D model and moving to a fitting phase based on the 3D model. Claim 16 was rejected in view of the prior art teaching the alternative step of using the 3D model and moving to a fitting phase. Accordingly, Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons set forth with regards to Claim 16.
Regarding Claim 19, Goldberg in view of Tang teaches the limitations of claim 18.
Goldberg further discloses wherein the colorimetric pattern is positioned between the black frame and the acquisition area.
Note: Claim 16, from which Claim 19 depends, recites that, if the 3D model is able to retrieved, “using the 3D model and moving to a fitting phase based on the 3D model” is required, while if the 3D model cannot be retrieved, “performing steps to generate a 3D model,” including b) an acquisition phase, and c) an image processing phase” is required. Accordingly, steps b) and c) are not positively recited in Claim 16, and Claim 19 further limits the alternative steps b) and c), and does not exclude the alternative step of, if the 3D model is able to be retrieved, using the 3D model and moving to a fitting phase based on the 3D model. Claim 16 was rejected in view of the prior art teaching the alternative step of using the 3D model and moving to a fitting phase. Accordingly, Claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons set forth with regards to Claim 16.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Koh et al. (US 2014/0211022 A1) – Acquisition of color calibration charts including a physical color reference comprising a color chart including a color background surrounding a plurality of color patches.
Szalavari et al. (US 2018/0341831 A1) – Automated image analysis including a detection contour delineating a transition between a border and a clear space of a code to be captured by a camera.
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 ZACHARY R DONAHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-5850. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8a-5p.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
/ZACHARY RYAN DONAHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights