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
The office action is being examined in response to the application filed by the applicant on December 12th, 2025.
Claims 1 and 2 have been amended and are hereby entered.
Claims 11 and 12 have been added.
Claims 1 - 12 are pending and have been examined.
This action is made FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks filed in response to the Office Action filed on September 24th, 2024 have been fully considered but are not fully persuasive for the reasons set forth below.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 112 rejection of pending claims on page 6: Applicant amends claim 1 to remove the phrase “said step” in the generating limitation and asserts that the claims are now definite. The amendment has been considered. To the extent that the indefiniteness issue identified in the prior Office Action was based on unclear antecedent basis or ambiguity arising from “said step,” the amendment overcomes the previously noted issue, and the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) is withdrawn.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 101 rejection of pending claims on pages 6 – 7: Applicant argues that the Examiner has characterized the claims at an impermissibly high level of generality and cites recent USPTO guidance (e.g., Ex parte Desjardins) for the proposition that meaningful technical limitations should not be ignored. Applicant further asserts that the claimed invention improves the technology of authenticating timepieces by locating an area of interest based on a defect and generating a unique identifying element excluding the defect. These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Step 2A Prong 1: The Examiner does not ignore the claimed limitations, but rather evaluates them in accordance with MPEP § 2106.04 by identifying the focus of the claimed invention. Even when considering the specific limitations recited—namely: (a) identifying a defect, (b) locating an area of interest based on the defect, (c) identifying graphical objects within that area, and (d) generating a digital identifying element excluding the defect—the claim as a whole is still directed to collecting, analyzing, and comparing information for the purpose of authenticating an object, which is a form of certain methods of organizing human activity (commercial authentication/verification) and/or mental processes.
Applicant’s argument that the Examiner is overgeneralizing is not persuasive because the analysis properly considers the claim as a whole while recognizing that the recited steps are forms of data gathering and analysis.
Step 2A Prong 2: Applicant argues that locating the area of interest based on a defect provides a technological improvement and results in a unique identifying element. However, the claimed additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claimed “area of interest based on a defect” is merely a rule for selecting data to be analyzed. Similarly, excluding the defect from the identifying element is a data filtering rule. These are part of the abstract idea itself rather than an application of the abstract idea in a technological manner. Importantly, the claims do not recite a specific improvement to image processing technology, a new data structure, or a specific algorithm that may improve computer performance. Instead, the claims user generic components (electronic device, processing unit, server, database) to perform the abstract idea. Thus, the claims do not reflect an improvement to computer functionality or another technology as required under MPEP § 2106.05(a).
Step 2B: Applicant asserts that the claimed invention amounts to “significantly more.” However, the additional elements—image acquisition modules, processors, servers, and databases—are recited at a high level of generality and perform only their well-understood and routine functions. Further, the claimed distinctions (e.g., excluding defect features, selecting a region near a defect) are data selection and analysis rules, which do not provide an inventive concept. These are considered routine design choices within the field of image processing and do not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter.
Accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments against the 103 rejections of pending claims on pages 7 – 8: Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant contends that the cited references fail to disclose “locating an area of interest on an exterior of the timepiece, the area of interest is located based on a position of the structural and/or aesthetic defect,” asserting that the prior art does not limit feature identification to a region determined based on a defect. However, Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim does not require any particular manner of defining the “area of interest,” nor does it require that the area be defined exclusively by the defect, or that the area be a specifically bounded or geometrically constrained region. The claim merely requires that an area of interest be located based on a position of a defect, which reasonably encompasses any selection or use of image data that is dependent on, derived from, or associated with the location of a detected feature or anomaly of the timepiece.
Further, the claim does not require that the defect be processed in any specific way beyond being identified, nor does it require that the area of interest exclude other regions of the image or be limited to only a narrowly defined portion of the timepiece. The claim also does not require a particular sequence of image processing operations beyond what is broadly recited.
Accordingly, the claimed “area of interest” reads on broadly selecting, analyzing, or utilizing portions of an image corresponding to identified features or locations on the timepiece. The cited portions of the prior art were applied to meet this limitation because they disclose processing image data at or based on identified locations/features on the object, which falls within the scope of the claimed “area of interest” as reasonably interpreted. Applicant’s argument that the prior art does not explicitly disclose restricting analysis to a defect-based region improperly imports limitations into the claim that are not recited. The claims do not require a specific algorithm for determining the area of interest, nor do they require that the area be determined solely by the defect without consideration of other image characteristics.
Therefore, the cited references were properly relied upon to meet the recited limitation, and accordingly, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is maintained.
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 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Firstly, it should be stated that claim 1 will be representative of the independent claim set. At Step 2A Prong 1: the abstract idea is defined by the elements (e.g., steps) of claim 1:
generating, via a processing unit of the electronic device, a digital identifying element from descriptive features of a digital graphical representation of the timepiece, said step comprising:
identifying a structural and/or aesthetic defect that is present on an exterior of said timepiece,
… identifying a plurality of graphical objects contained in within the area of interest of said graphical representation; and after the identify the plurality of graphical objects, creating the digital identifying element from only said descriptive features of the identified plurality of graphical objects such that the created digital identify element does not include a descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect contained in said area of interest of the graphical representation;
confirming a validity of the generated digital identify element, via a control unit of a server, by comparing the generated digital identifying element with a reference digital identifying element for the timepiece, said reference digital identifying element having been created when the timepiece was manufactured by a device for generating such a unique reference digital identifying element for the timepiece; and
broadcasting, on the broadcasting interface of the electronic device, an identification code of a brand and/or a serial number of the timepiece so as to provide visual and/or audible authentication information for said timepiece in response to the validity of the generated digital identifying element is being confirmed
The limitations recite an abstract idea because these limitations encompass collecting data (acquiring images of a timepiece, identifying defects, locating an area of interest, identifying graphical objects), analyzing the data (generating a digital identifying element based on descriptive features excluding the defect), comparing the data (confirming validity by comparing the generated element with a stored reference element), and communicating the result (broadcasting brand/serial number information upon confirmation). This amounts to the abstract idea of verification/authentication of an object through observation, analysis, and comparison, which falls within the category of certain methods of organizing human activity, commercial or legal interactions, such as authentication, verification, or identification, see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). Thus, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2: For independent claim 1, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The additional elements in claim 1 (e.g., a “processing unit of an electronic device,” an “image acquisition module,” a “server with a control unit,” and a “broadcasting interface (visual/audio output)” are recited at high levels of generality and represent generic computer components performing their ordinary functions (image capture, processing, data storage, comparison, transmitting results). See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The claims do not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology; rather, they use generic computing components as tools to perform the abstract idea of authentication. Although Applicant amended the claims to emphasize that the defect is identified but excluded from the identifier, this amounts to a rule for data selection, which is itself part of the abstract idea (i.e., which features to include or exclude in authentication). This does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea under Step 2A Prong Two.
Step 2B: For independent claim 1, as indicated in the Step 2A Prong 2 analysis, the additional element(s) in the claims are merely, using a generic computer device or computing technologies and/or other machinery as a tool to a mere instruction to practice the invention. For instance, the recited electronic device (with interface and camera), server, database, and network are simply components performing their ordinary functions (i.e., capturing, transmitting, comparing, and displaying). Merely implementing an abstract idea on generic computer components does not provide an inventive concept. Further, it does not represent an improvement to the functioning of computers or image capture technology, but instead is directed to the abstract idea of determining which data to use for authentication.
Accordingly, when viewed as a whole, the claim is directed to using abstract concepts such as image analysis and object identification being executed in a technical environment disclosed at a high level of generality. Neither the amended claims nor the specification discloses technical improvements to the underlying technology. Therefore, the claims do not recite significantly more than the abstract idea and fail under Step 2B.
For dependent claims 3 – 6 and 9, these claims fall under the same abstract idea of a method of organizing human activity. They describe additional limitations in the steps of:
Claim 3: applying identifying-element design algorithms to descriptive features while excluding features associated with structural or aesthetic defects— reciting “design algorithms” for feature selection is a generic invocation of mathematical processing.
Claim 4: selecting descriptive features at the periphery of the structural or aesthetic defect—periphery selection is a mental process or algorithmic parameter.
Claim 5: expanding the selection of descriptive features to an area surrounding the defect, with a configurable width— limiting the area of analysis to a configurable width ‘L’ is a mathematical/analytical rule and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 6: associating the area of interest containing the defect with a reference area of the timepiece’s external parts. Claim 6 is directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claims because associating the area of interest containing the defect is a part of authenticating a timepiece.
Claim 9: introducing the role of a generating device contributing to the creation of reference digital identifying elements for the timepieces—directed to the same abstract idea as the independent claim because the role of a generating device is a part of authenticating a time piece (i.e., data generation of identifiers for authentication). Further, it does not amount to an improvement in technology.
Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B: For dependent claims 2, 7 – 8 and 10, these claims recite additional elements that describe steps such as:
Claim 2: describing the acquisition step of a digital graphical representation of the timepiece through an image captured by the electronic device—generic computer function of using a digital camera.
Claim 7: defining the area of interest as being similar to a reference area archived in the server database—comparing with reference areas stored in a database is a routine computer function (lookup/matching).
Claim 8: recites a system comprising an electronic device, generating device, and server implementing the method connected via network—merely implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer system is insufficient.
Claim 10: (computer program) A computer-readable program implementing the ineligible method is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The additional elements merely implement the abstract idea of data collection and processing using generic computer technologies. The additional elements amount to no more than instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computing environment, as the claims describe high-level steps of selecting and processing data. The recited steps, such as selecting descriptive features and processing them, are expressed at a high level of generality and do not specify how these functions are distinctively achieved beyond generic methods. As a result, the additional elements are merely descriptive of the process and lack meaningful limitations that would transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
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.
Claims 1 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knowles (U.S. Pub No. 20220164590 A1) in view of Ross (U.S. Pub No. 20150371087 A1).
Regarding claim 1:
Knowles discloses:
generating, via a processing unit of the electronic device, a digital identifying element from descriptive features of a digital graphical representation of the timepiece, said step comprising: [¶0016 - 0017]: Features and/or attributes are extracted from a watch and are then saved into a database as watch feature data (digital identifying element). The watch feature data is then used to generate a match score in reference to a matching watch.
identifying a structural and/or aesthetic defect that is present on an exterior of said timepiece, Figs. 1 – 2; [¶0033]: Features are extracted via a feature transform algorithm, which are captured using a camera/image capture device. Features can be: stray marks and/or defects/variations, etc.
after the identifying the structural and/or aesthetic defect locating an area of interest on an exterior of the timepiece, the area of interest is located based on a position of the structural and/or aesthetic defect,
after the locating, identifying a plurality of graphical objects contained within the area of interest of the graphical representation; [¶0026]: Upon identifying the features via a feature transformation algorithm, the feature extractor is configured to receive an image of a face of the watch (area of interest). Upon receiving the image of the face of the watch, the image is processed to extract further features/watch feature data invariant to scale/orientation/viewpoint/illumination.
confirming a validity of the generated digital identify element, via a control unit of a server, by comparing the generated digital identifying element with a reference digital identifying element for the timepiece, said reference digital identifying element having been created when the timepiece was manufactured by a device for generating such a unique reference digital identifying element for the timepiece; and Figs. 4A – 4C; [¶0041]: The physical features or attributes of an authentic watch may be stored within a database, configured to a catalogue, which is used to compared associated features with a candidate watch—determining its authenticity via physical attributes/features.
Knowles further discloses ahigh-speed video recorder is used to capture images of the face of the watch (graphical objects). The motion features/physical features/attributes of the watch are then stored within a database as watch features data (digital identifying element) [¶0014 – 0016]. Knowles does not explicitly disclose the exclusion of a descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect contained in at least one area of interest of the graphical representation nor the broadcasting of an identification code/serial number of the timepiece in response to the validity of the generated digital identifying element is being confirmed. Thus, Ross teaches:
after the identify the plurality of graphical objects, creating the digital identifying element from only said descriptive features of the identified plurality of graphical objects such that the created digital identify element does not include a descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect contained in said at least one area of interest of the graphical representation; [¶0032]: The system captures an image of a specific region of a weapon including a structure. The system then isolates a first feature vector and stores it with association to the first image. and Figs. 4 – 5; [¶0071]: Exceptions of areas affected by deformations are noted and a digital ID (displayed by grayscale) are shown.
broadcasting, on the broadcasting interface of the electronic device, an identification code of a brand and/or a serial number of the timepiece so as to provide visual and/or audible authentication information for said timepiece in response to the validity of the generated digital identifying element is being confirmed Fig. 8; [¶0046]: The system captures an additional high-resolution image to be used in comparison with the first captured image. The system compares old and new serial number region images and calculates a match score.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to combine Knowles’ methods and systems for identifying and authenticating the provenances of watches with excluding descriptive features for structural and/or aesthetic defects of an item as well as broadcasting an identification code of a brand and/or a serial number of the timepiece so as to provide visual and/or audible authentication information for said timepiece in response to the validity of the generated digital identifying element is being confirmed, as taught by Ross, in order to accurately identify authentic features and characteristics of a timepiece without the uncertainty brought upon by the physical wear/defect/blemishes.
Regarding claim 2:
Knowles discloses all the limitations of claim 1 and further teaches:
wherein said generating comprises a designing a digital graphical representation of the timepiece including a phase of acquiring, by the acquisition module of the electronic device, at least one image of all or part of the timepiece. [¶0017]: A provenance service provider captures images of the face of the watch. Furthermore, a video or a high speed/high frame images of the hands of the watch can be recorded.
Regarding claim 3:
Knowles discloses all the limitations of claims 1 - 2 and further teaches:
comprising a phase of applying identifying-element design algorithms to said descriptive features of the various identified graphical objects Fig. 2, [¶0013, 0033].
However, Knowles does not teach but Ross does teach:
with the exception of the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect. [¶0032]: The system captures an image of a specific region of a weapon including a structure. The system then isolates a first feature vector and stores it with association to the first image. and Figs. 4 – 5; [¶0071]: Exceptions of areas affected by deformations are noted and a digital ID (displayed by grayscale) are shown.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to combine Knowles’ methods and systems for identifying and authenticating the provenances of watches with excluding descriptive features for structural and/or aesthetic defects of an item, as taught by Ross, in order to accurately identify authentic features and characteristics of a timepiece without the uncertainty brought upon by the physical wear/defect/blemishes.
Regarding claim 4:
Knowles discloses all the limitations of claims 1 – 3 and further teaches:
identifying a plethora defects and variations of defects as well as magnifying captured images of the features in order to properly identify imperfections Fig. 2; [¶0033-0035].
Knowles does not disclose performing a selection of the descriptive features, with the exception of the descriptive feature(s) for the structural and/or aesthetic defects, located on the graphical representation at a periphery of the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect. Thus, Ross teaches:
wherein during the phase, the processing unit of the electronic device, by executing these algorithms, performs a selection of the descriptive features, with the exception of the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect, which are located on the graphical representation at a periphery of the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect. Figs. 4 – 5; [¶0071]: Exceptions of areas affected by deformations are noted and a digital ID (displayed by grayscale) are shown.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to combine Knowles’ methods and systems for identifying and authenticating the plethora of features and characteristics of watches with excluding descriptive features for structural and/or aesthetic defects of an item, as taught by Ross, in order to accurately identify authentic features and characteristics of a timepiece without the uncertainty brought upon by the physical wear/defect/blemishes.
Regarding claim 5:
The combination of Knowles and Ross discloses all the limitations of claims 1 – 4. Knowles further discloses:
[¶0026]: The feature transformation algorithm identifies and selects features within captured images of the timepiece. The feature extractor may process the image to extract features invariant to scale/orientation/viewpoint in reference to the features.
Knowles does not explicitly disclose applying the identifying-element design algorithms to descriptive features of the various identified graphical objects with the exception of the descriptive features for the structural/aesthetic defect. However, Ross teaches:
comprising a phase of applying identifying-element design algorithms to said descriptive features of the various identified graphical objects, with the exception of the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect, during the phase, the processing unit of the electronic device, by executing these algorithms, performs a selection of the descriptive features, with the exception of the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect, which are located on the graphical representation in an area surrounding the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect, a width L whereof can be configured beforehand. Figs. 4 – 5; [¶0071]: Exceptions of areas affected by deformations are noted and a digital ID (displayed by grayscale) are shown.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify Knowles’ feature transformation algorithm to identify and select features in a configurable area with excluding the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect, as taught by Ross, as excluding non-useful or potentially misleading features (such as defects) from the feature set is a common practice in the field of image recognition and digital authentication to improve accuracy and robustness. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that defects on the surface of a timepiece could introduce variability that undermines consistent identification.
Regarding claim 6:
The combination of Knowles and Ross discloses all the limitations of claims 1 – 5.
Knowles discloses:
wherein a reference area of interest and said area of interest each form a part of the exterior of the timepiece comprised/illustrated on/in the graphical representation, this area containing said structural and/or aesthetic defect. [¶0013]: High resolution as well as high magnification images are taken of the watch face.
Regarding claim 7:
The combination of Knowles and Ross discloses all the limitations of claims 1 – 6.
Knowles discloses:
wherein the area of interest is similar to a reference area of interest for said timepiece which is archived in a database of the server. [¶0017]: Features of a timepiece are compared with watch feature data stored within a database to identify a corresponding timepiece.
Regarding claim 8:
The combination of Knowles and Ross discloses all the limitations of claims 1 – 7.
Knowles discloses:
a generating device and a server implementing the method according to claim 1, the electronic device comprising an interface for the visual and/or sound broadcasting of information and an image acquisition module, and the server comprising a database comprising reference digital identifying elements, the system comprising a wireless and/or wired network architecture connecting the electronic device to said server. Fig 1; [¶0017]: Watch feature data is stored in the database of a plethora of timepieces in order to generate one or more match scores. Fig. 1; [¶0020 – 0021]: A user interface can be a GUI paired with communication by a software program via the network.
Regarding claim 9:
The combination of Knowles and Ross discloses all the limitations of claims 1 – 8.
Knowles discloses:
wherein the generating device is capable of contributing to the creation of reference digital identifying elements for timepieces. [¶0026]: The feature transformation extractor adds features to the database and may do so with unique ID codes-- “upon extraction, these feature transformation features may be added to the database 114 as watch features data of the watch the face of which is captured in the analyzed image, i.e., the feature transformation features may be stored in the database 114 as unique visual fingerprints of the watch.”
Regarding claim 10:
The combination of Knowles and Ross discloses all the limitations of claims 1 – 9.
Knowles discloses:
when said program is executed by the control unit and the processing units respectively of the server and of the generating and electronic devices of a system. [¶0058]: Software instructions can be executed by the processor to automatically perform the steps of the disclosure.
Regarding claim 11:
The combination of Knowles and Ross discloses all the limitations of claims 1 – 10.
Knowles discloses:
wherein the area of interest is determined to be an area that surrounds the position of the structural and/or aesthetic defect and has a predetermined width. [¶0043 – 0046]: The hand-held imaging system is able to identify defects or anomalies and analyzes localized regions associated with those defects. [Examiner’s Note: Such localized analysis necessarily involves selecting a region surrounding the detected defect, where the region has a spatial extent corresponding to the portion of the image being processed. This spatial extent reasonably corresponds to the claimed “predetermined width,” as the region being analyzed must have defined boundaries for processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest effective filing date to modify Knowles’ feature transformation algorithm to identify and select features in a configurable area with excluding the descriptive feature for the structural and/or aesthetic defect, as taught by Ross, as excluding non-useful or potentially misleading features (such as defects) from the feature set is a common practice in the field of image recognition and digital authentication to improve accuracy and robustness. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that defects on the surface of a timepiece could introduce variability that undermines consistent identification.
Regarding claim 12:
The combination of Knowles and Ross discloses all the limitations of claims 1 – 9.
Knowles discloses:
wherein the area of interest is circular. [¶0015; Figs. 2 - 3]: The embodiment teaches the structural and feature analysis of a watch, which are not limited to color, size, shape, band type, etc.
Pertinent Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Nishiyama (U.S. Pub No. 20060012780 A1) is pertinent because it recites a “method of inspecting pattern defects can detect target defects in various processes stably by reducing erroneous detection of grains and morphology and decreasing the influence of an intensity nonuniformity in interference light.”
Bolliger (U.S. Patent No. 3756066A) is pertinent because it is related to “testing a timepiece to determine its rate (for example, in seconds per day).”
Sanwald (U.S. Patent No. 10102407B2) is pertinent because it is related to “generating a package identifier includes generating an image of a portion of a surface of a substrate of the package, generating a serial number of the package from the image, the serial number being based on at least one surface feature of the portion of the surface, and affixing a visual indicator on the package that is based on the serial number.”
Callegari (E.P. Pub No. 3036587 A2) is pertinent because it is related to “timepiece having at least one quartz oscillator and/or at least one transducer.”
Daguet (WO Pub No. 2019224125A1) is pertinent because it is related to “collecting, saving, analysing and issuing the results of the analysis (10) of mechanical watch data.”
Reese (U.S. Patent No. 4078420 A) is pertinent because it is related to “an analyzer for producing a digital display of the rate of deviation of a solid state wristwatch from a predetermined norm.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bill Chen whose telephone number is (571)270-0660. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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.
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, Nathan Uber can be reached on (571) 270-3923. 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.
/BILL CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/NATHAN C UBER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights