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 .
Status of Claims
In the response filed January 30, 2026, Applicant amended claims 16, 22-24, 26, 30, 34, and 35. Claims 1-15 were previously canceled. Claims 16-35 are pending the current application.
Response to Arguments
The limitations of claims 22-24 were interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Examiner thanks Applicant for amending the claims. The limitation no longer invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant asserts that the claims as a whole integrate the alleged abstract idea into a practical application because they solve a concrete, technology-centric problem: real-time, rule-based generation of individualized nutrient packages that respect time-validity constraints and update-interval safeguards, executed within a distributed network of authenticated nodes. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The processing module, node, and databased in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 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 16-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims are not directed to patent eligible subject matter.
Claims 16-35 do fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims recite a machine (i.e., system) and process (i.e., a method).
Although claims 16-35 fall under at least one of the four statutory categories, it should be determined whether the claim wholly embraces a judicially recognized exception, which includes laws of nature, physical phenomena, and abstract ideas, or is it a particular practical application of a judicial exception (See MPEP 2106 I and II).
Claims 16-35 are directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea) without significantly more.
Part I: Step 2A, Prong One: Identify the Abstract Idea
Under step 2A, Prong One of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). The determination consists of a) identifying the specific limitations in the claim that recite an abstract idea; and b) determining whether the identified limitations fall within at least one of the three subject matter groupings of abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity).
The identified limitations of independent claim 16 recite:
a processing module configured to receive entity data, receive product nutrient(s) data and to individually compose nutrients based on the entity data and the product nutrient(s) data;
a node, wherein the node comprises an input terminal configured to receive entity data in a form of user input, wherein the user input comprises manual, vocal, electronic, and/or visual input, and wherein the node is configured to provide the entity data to the processing module;
a node interface module, located in a medical, pharmaceutical, and/or any nutrient product(s) supplying facility comprising a local stock of nutrient products, wherein the node interface module is configured to receive local product nutrient(s) data from a medical and/or pharmaceutical database module, wherein the local product nutrient(s) data comprises nutrient product data locally available at the node interface module, wherein the node interface module is configured to provide the local product nutrient(s) data to the processing module which is configured to compose a nutrient composition based on the local product nutrient(s) data, the nutrient composition being kept up to date, such that the nutrient composition is tailored to the locally available stock of nutrient products; and
a receiver node configured to receive a nutrient composition composed by the processing module, wherein the receiver node is part of a shipping system, product handling system, and/or a retail system, wherein the receiver node is configured to initiate a shipping, wherein the shipping comprises handing over of at least one nutrient product included in the nutrient composition;
wherein the processing module is configured to generate time validity data, comprising a time limit, when generating the nutrient composition;
wherein the time validity data pertain to a suggested time of consumption for a nutrient product included in the nutrient composition; and
wherein the nutrient composition comprises update interval information, specifying when an entity should provide updated entity data once the time limit included in the time validity data is reached.
The identified limitations of independent claim 34 recite:
receiving entity data and individually composing nutrients based on the entity data by a processing module;
receiving and processing product nutrient(s) data and/or composing a nutrient composition based on the entity data and nutrient(s) data;
providing the entity data by a node, wherein receiving the entity data comprises receiving a user input from an input terminal of the node;
communicating between the node and a node interface module to receive the entity data from the node by the node interface module;
receiving local product nutrient(s) data from a medical and/or pharmaceutical database module by the node interface module, wherein the local product nutrient(s) data comprises nutrient product data locally available at the node interface module;
providing the local product nutrient(s) data to the processing module by the node interface module and composing the nutrient composition further based on the local product nutrient(s) data by the processing module, the nutrient composition being kept up to date, such that the nutrient composition is tailored to the locally available stock of nutrient products;
receiving a nutrient composition composed by the processing module at a receiver node; and
initiating a shipping, wherein the shipping comprises handing over of at least one nutrient product included in the nutrient composition; and
generating time validity data, comprising a time limit, when generating the nutrient composition by the processing module;
wherein the time validity data pertain to a suggested time of consumption for a nutrient product included in the nutrient composition; and
wherein the nutrient composition comprises update interval information, specifying when an entity should provide updated entity data once the time limit included in the time validity data is reached.
The identified limitations recite generating a nutrient composition based on receiving entity data, which is a method of concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment or opinion. The claim limitations fall within the Mental Processes groupings of abstract ideas. The performance of the claim limitations using generic computing components (i.e., processing module, node, and database) does not preclude the claim limitations from being performed in the human mind. For instance, the limitations encompass a healthcare professional collecting time validity and entity data (such as a supplier or manufacturer) and drafting the nutrient composition using a pen and paper. Thus, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
Part I: Step 2A, prong two: additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application
Under step 2A, Prong Two of the Alice framework, the claims are analyzed to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. In particular, the claims are evaluated to determine if there are additional elements or a combination of elements that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claims are more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The processing module, node, and databased in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, 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.
Dependent claims 17-33 and 35, when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea. For example, the dependent claims recite processing data to generate the nutrient composition.
Since these claims are directed to an abstract idea, the Office must determine whether the remaining limitations “do significantly more” than describe the abstract idea.
Part II. Determine whether any Element, or Combination, Amounts to“Significantly More” than the Abstract Idea itself
Under Part II, the steps of claims, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not improve another technology or technical field, do not improve the functioning of the computer itself, and are not enough to qualify as "significantly more". For example, the steps require no more than a conventional computer to perform generic computer functions. As stated above in Prong Two, The processing module, node, and database in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Therefore, based on the two-part Mayo analysis, there are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself. Claims 16-35, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, are rejected as ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Dependent claims 17-33 and 35 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional claims do no recite significantly more than an abstract idea.
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.
Claims 16-22 and 25-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Froseth et al. (US 2002/0004749 A1) in view of Lahteenmaki (US 2016/0306931 A1) in further view of Neumann (US 2021/0304868 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Froseth discloses a system for automatically composing individualized nutrient compositions from a plurality of nutrients comprising products, the system comprising:
a processing module configured to receive entity data, receive product nutrient(s) data and to individually compose nutrients based on the entity data and the product nutrient(s) data (Paragraph [0130]: The consumer then views and selects 306 from customized food product choices provided by the merchant that best suits the taste and health needs of the individual….the consumer can then choose to further customize 308 one or more of the food product choices prior to selecting 310 a customized food product);
a node, wherein the node comprises an input terminal configured to receive entity data in a form of user input, wherein the user input comprises manual, vocal, electronic, and/or visual input, and wherein the node is configured to provide the entity data to the processing module (Paragraph [0106]: The computer-readable instructions perform a method of interpreting survey responses input by a method of interactively selecting and ordering a customized food product. As noted below, the computer 116 may also be capable of receiving information from one or more supplemental computing devices);
a node interface module, located in a medical, pharmaceutical, and/or any nutrient product(s) supplying facility comprising a local stock of nutrient products, wherein the node interface module is configured to receive local product nutrient(s) data from a medical and/or pharmaceutical database module, wherein the local product nutrient(s) data comprises nutrient product data locally available at the node interface module, wherein the node interface module is configured to provide the local product nutrient(s) data to the processing module which is configured to compose a nutrient composition based on the local product nutrient(s) data (Paragraph [0137]: receiving 328 a first set of data representing ingredients for a customized food product and a second set of data representing nutritional information for each one of the ingredients…. the data received to produce 330 a set of generalized combinations (also referred to herein as templates) of the ingredients); and
a receiver node configured to receive a nutrient composition composed by the processing module, wherein the receiver node is part of a shipping system, product handling system, and/or a retail system (Paragraph [0137]: The computerized method also generates 334 one or more data structures comprising a plurality of combinations of the ingredients, the nutritional information, and the one or more nutritional scores for each one of the generalized combinations of the ingredients),
wherein the receiver node is configured to initiate a shipping, wherein the shipping comprises handing over of at least one nutrient product included in the nutrient composition (Paragraph [0133]: The customized order is then shipped 320 via any suitable means and delivered 322 to the consumer).
Froseth discloses the limitations above. Froseth does not explicitly disclose:
the nutrient composition being kept up to date, such that the nutrient composition is tailored to the locally available stock of nutrient products;
wherein the processing module is configured to generate time validity data, comprising a time limit, when generating the nutrient composition;
wherein the time validity data pertain to a suggested time of consumption for a nutrient product included in the nutrient composition; and
wherein the nutrient composition comprises update interval information, specifying when an entity should provide updated entity data once the time limit included in the time validity data is reached.
Lahteenmaki teaches:
wherein the processing module is configured to generate time validity data, comprising a time limit, when generating the nutrient composition (Paragraph [0122]: In connection of the said substances, also the intake limit can be given, which can, for example, be individualised for a certain person or be dependent on some gene or illness and further, for example, on age and situation in life, for example, pregnancy);
wherein the time validity data pertain to a suggested time of consumption for a nutrient product included in the nutrient composition (Paragraph [0049]: “Intake limit” is an intake limit comprising the upper and lower limit, defined for a certain nutrient and/or medical substance; for example, with salt, the daily intake limit can be 1-5 g. The intake limit is also typically connected with time limit); and
wherein the nutrient composition comprises update interval information, specifying when an entity should provide updated entity data once the time limit included in the time validity data is reached (Paragraph [0112]: If there are found inconsistencies, for example, in the intake limits of the substances….After all contents information has been gone through, the most intensive/important inconsistencies and their effects on the user's health and/or metabolic state can be found out, and a replacing nutrient or contents element can be endeavoured to be found from the database arrangement to replace the nutrient and/or contents element causing the inconsistency).
Neumann teaches:
the nutrient composition being kept up to date, such that the nutrient composition is tailored to the locally available stock of nutrient products (Paragraph [0073]: computing device 104 may adjust a nutritional output 128 based on the availability of certain elements contained within a nutritional output 128 based on the seasonal time of year, the availability of certain elements, and the geographic location of the user…. an ingredient may be locally available, such as when an ingredient is only geographically available at certain locations).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Froseth to disclose wherein the processing module is configured to generate time validity data, comprising a time limit, when generating the nutrient composition; wherein the time validity data pertain to a suggested time of consumption for a nutrient product included in the nutrient composition; and wherein the nutrient composition comprises update interval information, specifying when an entity should provide updated entity data once the time limit included in the time validity data is reached as taught by Lahteenmaki. Using the method and arrangement for arranging an information service to determine nutrition and/or medication of Lahteenmaki would provide the formation of information related to the suitability of nutrients and/or medical substances for different parties and to the transmission of information between different parties and systems (Lahteenmaki Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Froseth, in view of Lahteenmaki, to disclose the nutrient composition being kept up to date, such that the nutrient composition is tailored to the locally available stock of nutrient products as taught by Neumann. Using the selection process of Neumann would provide the optimization value utilizing the nutritional output (Neumann Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Froseth discloses the system according to claim 16, further comprising a node interface module configured to communicate with the node and to receive the entity data, wherein the node interface module is configured to communicate with an external database module to receive further entity data (Paragraph [0129]).
Regarding claim 18, Froseth discloses the system according to claim 17, wherein the node is further configured to authenticate a communication of the node interface module and/or the processing module with the external database module to initiate a transmission of entity data from the external database module to the node interface module and/or the processing module, and wherein the transmitted entity data is specific to the entity represented by the node which authenticates the communication (Paragraph [0129]).
Regarding claim 19, Froseth discloses the system according to claim 17, wherein the node is further configured to activate the entity interface module and wherein the user interface is configured to be activated by the node and configured to trigger communication with one or more of the nodes upon activation (Paragraph [0086]).
Regarding claim 20, Froseth discloses the system according to claim 17, further comprising an entity profile database configured to store entity data, wherein the processing module is further configured to store entity data provided by the nodes and/or the external database module in the entity profile database and further configured to generate a nutrient composition based on the entity data stored in the entity profile database (Paragraph [0112]).
Regarding claim 21, Froseth discloses the system according to claim 16, wherein the processing module is further configured to generate a filter based on the provided entity data to reduce a product interaction potential, a pharmaceutical interaction potential, and/or an allergic reaction potential for the entity, wherein the processing module is further configured to apply the filter to the product nutrient(s) data to generate filtered product nutrient(s) data, and to generate a nutrient composition on the basis of the filtered product nutrient(s) data (Paragraph [0188]).
Regarding claim 22, Froseth discloses the system according to claim 16, further comprising a system database and a data access module, wherein the data access module comprises memory storing instructions and a processor configured to execute the instructions to access product nutrient data from product nutrient database(s) and to manage storing of the product nutrient data in the system database, and wherein the processing module is further configured to compose the nutrient composition based on received external entity data and/or entity data provided by the node and/or nutrient data provided by the system database (Paragraph [0115]).
Regarding claim 25, Froseth discloses the system according to claim 17, wherein the node interface module is further configured to receive local product nutrient(s) data from a local database module and to communicate the local product nutrient(s) data and/or the entity data available at the node interface module to the processing module which is further configured to compose a nutrient composition based on the local product nutrient(s) data, wherein the local product nutrient(s) data comprises nutrient product(s) data locally available at the node interface module (Paragraph [0137]).
Regarding claim 26, Froseth discloses the system according to claim 16, wherein the processing module is further configured to compose a template nutrient composition based on at least one entity dataset (Paragraph [0122]).
Regarding claim 27, Froseth discloses the system according to claim 26, wherein the processing module is further configured to update the template nutrient composition based on receiving further entity data, wherein the at least one entity dataset and the further entity data match in at least one entity data variable (Paragraph [0123]).
Regarding claim 28, Froseth discloses the system according to claim 16, wherein the processing module is further configured to generate nutrient dosage information for at least one nutrient included in the nutrient composition when generating the nutrient composition (Paragraph [0189]).
Regarding claim 29, Froseth discloses the system according to claim 16, wherein the processing module is further configured to generate time varying dosage information for a nutrient included in the generated nutrient composition (Paragraph [0189]).
Regarding claim 30, Froseth discloses the system according to claim 16, wherein the processing module is further configured to compose a plurality of equivalent nutrient compositions based on the entity data, and wherein the equivalent nutrient compositions comprise similar nutrient concentrations and differ in at least one nutrient product, and wherein the processing module is further configured to select a preferred nutrient composition from the plurality of nutrient compositions based on product specific data (Paragraph [0123]).
Regarding claim 31, Froseth discloses the system according to claim 16, further comprising a master node configured to provide a composing template to the processing module and wherein the processing module is further configured to generate a nutrient composition on the basis of to the composing template (Paragraph [0123]).
Regarding claim 32, Froseth discloses the system according to claim 16, wherein the processing module is configured to perform a multidimensional optimization when generating the nutrient composition (Paragraph [0235]).
Regarding claim 33, Froseth discloses the system according to claim 32, wherein the processing module is further configured to generate an optimized combination of nutrients based on the multidimensional optimization and wherein the processing module is further configured to match existing nutrient products from the product nutrient(s) data to the optimized combination of nutrients to generate a nutrient composition (Paragraph [0235]).
Regarding claim 34, Froseth discloses a method for automatically composing individualized nutrient compositions from a plurality of nutrient(s) comprising products, the method comprising:
receiving entity data and individually composing nutrients based on the entity data by a processing module (Paragraph [0129]: The interactive merchant survey asks questions to determine health, nutrition and taste preferences of each consumer. );
receiving and processing product nutrient(s) data and/or composing a nutrient composition based on the entity data and nutrient(s) data (Paragraph [0130]: The consumer then views and selects 306 from customized food product choices provided by the merchant that best suits the taste and health needs of the individual….the consumer can then choose to further customize 308 one or more of the food product choices prior to selecting 310 a customized food product);
providing the entity data by a node, wherein receiving the entity data comprises receiving a user input from an input terminal of the node (Paragraph [0132]: The consumer than sends a request to the merchant server system to place 312 a customized order for one or more particular cereal products.);
communicating between the node and a node interface module to receive the entity data from the node by the node interface module (Paragraph [0132]: The merchant server receives the request, which can be identified with a unique code as described above. );
receiving local product nutrient(s) data from a medical and/or pharmaceutical database module by the node interface module, wherein the local product nutrient(s) data comprises nutrient product data locally available at the node interface module (Paragraph [0137]: receiving 328 a first set of data representing ingredients for a customized food product and a second set of data representing nutritional information for each one of the ingredients);
providing the local product nutrient(s) data to the processing module by the node interface module and composing the nutrient composition further based on the local product nutrient(s) data by the processing module (Paragraph [0137]: the data received to produce 330 a set of generalized combinations (also referred to herein as templates) of the ingredients. );
receiving a nutrient composition composed by the processing module at a receiver node (Paragraph [0137]: The computerized method also generates 334 one or more data structures comprising a plurality of combinations of the ingredients, the nutritional information, and the one or more nutritional scores for each one of the generalized combinations of the ingredients);
initiating a shipping, wherein the shipping comprises handing over of at least one nutrient product included in the nutrient composition (Paragraph [0133]: The customized order is then shipped 320 via any suitable means and delivered 322 to the consumer.).
Froseth discloses the limitations above. Froseth does not explicitly disclose:
the nutrient composition being kept up to date, such that the nutrient composition is tailored to the locally available stock of nutrient products;
generating time validity data, comprising a time limit, when generating the nutrient composition by the processing module;
wherein the time validity data pertain to a suggested time of consumption for a nutrient product included in the nutrient composition; and
wherein the nutrient composition comprises update interval information, specifying when an entity should provide updated entity data once the time limit included in the time validity data is reached.
Lahteenmaki teaches:
generating time validity data, comprising a time limit, when generating the nutrient composition by the processing module (Paragraph [0122]: In connection of the said substances, also the intake limit can be given, which can, for example, be individualised for a certain person or be dependent on some gene or illness and further, for example, on age and situation in life, for example, pregnancy);
wherein the time validity data pertain to a suggested time of consumption for a nutrient product included in the nutrient composition (Paragraph [0049]: “Intake limit” is an intake limit comprising the upper and lower limit, defined for a certain nutrient and/or medical substance; for example, with salt, the daily intake limit can be 1-5 g. The intake limit is also typically connected with time limit); and
wherein the nutrient composition comprises update interval information, specifying when an entity should provide updated entity data once the time limit included in the time validity data is reached (Paragraph [0112]: If there are found inconsistencies, for example, in the intake limits of the substances….After all contents information has been gone through, the most intensive/important inconsistencies and their effects on the user's health and/or metabolic state can be found out, and a replacing nutrient or contents element can be endeavoured to be found from the database arrangement to replace the nutrient and/or contents element causing the inconsistency).
Neumann teaches:
the nutrient composition being kept up to date, such that the nutrient composition is tailored to the locally available stock of nutrient products (Paragraph [0073]: computing device 104 may adjust a nutritional output 128 based on the availability of certain elements contained within a nutritional output 128 based on the seasonal time of year, the availability of certain elements, and the geographic location of the user…. an ingredient may be locally available, such as when an ingredient is only geographically available at certain locations).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Froseth to disclose generating time validity data, comprising a time limit, when generating the nutrient composition by the processing module; wherein the time validity data pertain to a suggested time of consumption for a nutrient product included in the nutrient composition; and wherein the nutrient composition comprises update interval information, specifying when an entity should provide updated entity data once the time limit included in the time validity data is reached as taught by Lahteenmaki. Froseth discloses selecting, ordering and distributing customized food products by selecting one or more additives from the list of additives to create the customized food product (Froseth Abstract). Using the method and arrangement for arranging an information service to determine nutrition and/or medication of Lahteenmaki would provide the formation of information related to the suitability of nutrients and/or medical substances for different parties and to the transmission of information between different parties and systems (Lahteenmaki Abstract).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Froseth, in view of Lahteenmaki, to disclose the nutrient composition being kept up to date, such that the nutrient composition is tailored to the locally available stock of nutrient products as taught by Neumann. Using the selection process of Neumann would provide the optimization value utilizing the nutritional output (Neumann Abstract).
Regarding claim 35, Froseth discloses the method according to claim 34, further comprising: merging first entity data provided by nodes and second entity data provided by an external database module to generate merged entity data and composing nutrients based on the merged entity data by the processing module (Paragraph [0112]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23 and 24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable over the prior art if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. However, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
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 CHINYERE MPAMUGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8853. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/CHINYERE MPAMUGO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights