DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
In light of Applicant's submission filed January 22, 2026, the Examiner has maintained and updated the 35 USC § 101 and 103 rejection.
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.
The claims herein are directed to a method and system which would be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes). Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following limitations that are considered to be abstract ideas:
Claims 21, 29, and 37
receiving, a plurality of ad requests from a processor of a publisher server, the plurality of ad requests including variables for serving online ads on a publisher web page, the online ads including a user interface, the variables including at least (i) a first ad configuration associated with a sub-region of the publisher web page, a first pixel size, and a first content type, and (ii) a second ad configuration also associated with and coextensive over a second pixel size, and a second content type of the sub-region of the publisher web page, wherein the second ad configuration is different from the first ad configuration and the content type comprises a flash display, a pop-up display, or a roll-over animation; receiving, campaign optimizer, a campaign goal and a plurality of ad bids from a processor of an advertiser server, the plurality of ad bids including bids to serve ads in the first ad configuration and bids to serve ads in the second ad configuration, each of the plurality of ad bids including target variables, the target variables including at least one or more ad configurations;
determining, by the campaign optimizer, a bidding strategy based on the campaign goal;
transmitting to the advertising network server, by the campaign optimizer, the plurality ad bids based on the bidding strategy;
matching, the plurality of ad requests to the plurality of ad bids based on the variables of the plurality of ad requests and the target variables to identify a portion of the plurality of ad bids that satisfies the variables of the plurality of ad requests;
determining, a bid price for each ad associated with the portion of the plurality of ad bids;
generating, a table that lists ads associated with the portion of the plurality of ad bids in descending order based on the respective determined bid price;
determining, based on the generated table, which of the ad bids, of the portion of the plurality of ad bids, maximize yield by applying one or more control parameters; and
selecting, one or more ad bids, of the portion of the plurality of ad bids, to serve ads in the first ad configuration and to serve ads in the second ad configuration, based at least in part on the determination of the ad bits that maximize yield.
transmitting to network, the one or more selected ad bids to a publishing server, the one or more selected ad bids corresponding with one or more advertising content for display on the publisher web page in the first ad configuration and the second ad configuration.
The limitations of independent claims 21, 29, and 37, as detailed above, as drafted, falls within the “Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas namely “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions)” or “because the claims disclose receiving advertising configuration information, receiving a plurality of bids, matching advertising requests, using a table to match ads with bids and determining which ads would maximize yield . Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular the claims recite the additional elements of using processor, advertising network server, publishing server, user device, computer network, and data storage device. The aforementioned additional generic computing elements perform the steps of the claims at a high level of generality (i.e. As a generic medium performing generic computer function of receiving, matching, determining, generating, selecting) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to
amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of processor, advertising network server, publishing server, user device, computer network, and data storage device, to receiving, matching, determining, generating, selecting, and transmitting amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional processor, advertising network server, publishing server, user device, computer network, and data storage device, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
Thus, taken individually and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to
significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea).
The dependent claims 22-28, 30-26 and 38-40 appear to merely further limit the abstract idea and as such, the analysis of dependent claims 22-28, 30-26 and 38-40 results in the claims “reciting” an abstract idea. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. the additional elements do not amount to an inventive concept (significantly more) other than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 21-40 are not patent eligible.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 21-40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Muthukrishnan (US 2010/0198694) and in further view of Krassner et al. (US 20070150353) and in further view of Holtan (US 11,062,351) in further view of Amit et al. (US 10, 607, 250) in further view of Collins (US 2006/0026064)
Claims 21, 29, and 37: Muthukrishnan discloses a computer-implemented method for executing an online auction of diverse online advertisements (“ads”), the method including:
receiving, by a processor of an advertising network server over a computer network, a plurality of ad requests from a processor of a publisher server, the plurality of ad requests including variables for serving online ads on a publisher web page, the variables including at least (i) a first ad configuration associated with a sub-region of the publisher web page, a first pixel size and a first content type and (ii) a second ad configuration also associated with and coextensive over a second size and a second content type the sub-region of the publisher web page, wherein the second ad configuration is different from the first ad configuration; (see for example [0025, 0039, 0046], corresponding to advertisement configurations. Also see [0025, 0032 )
receiving, by the processor of the advertising network server over the computer network, a plurality of ad bids from a processor of an advertiser server, the plurality of ad bids including bids to serve ads in the first ad configuration and bids to serve ads in the second ad configuration, each of the plurality of ad bids including target variables, the target variables including at least one or more ad configurations; (see for example example[0046] each of the advertisers A, B, C and D can provide, for example, a separate cost per thousand impression (""CPM"’) bid for an advertisement slot in each of a one slot configuration, two slot configuration and three slot configuration in the display area)[0041, discloses bid data that specifies advertisement slot configurations. Ad slot configurations (see [0039] include size of the ad slot and type of ad(e.g. banner ad)) Also see [0037])
but does not explicitly disclose matching, by the processor of the advertising network server, the plurality of ad requests to the plurality of ad bids based on the variables of the plurality of ad requests and the target variables to identify a portion of the plurality of ad bids that satisfies the variables of the plurality of ad requests; determining, by the processor of the advertising network server, a bid price for each ad associated with the portion of the plurality of ad bids; generating, by the processor of the advertising network server, a table that lists ads associated with the portion of the plurality of ad bids in descending order based on the respective determined bid price; determining, by the processor of the advertising network server, based on the generated table, which of the ad bids, of the portion of the plurality of ad bids, maximize yield by applying one or more control parameters; and selecting, by the processor of the advertising network server, one or more ad bids, of the portion of the plurality of ad bids, to serve ads in the first ad configuration and to serve ads in the second ad configuration, based at least in part on the determination of the ad bits that maximize yield; transmitting for display on a user device, by the processor of the advertising network server, one or more advertising content to the publishing server, the one or more advertising content corresponding with the selected one or more ad bids; the content type comprises a flash display, a pop-up display, or a roll-over animation However Krassner discloses matching, by the processor of the advertising network server, the plurality of ad requests to the plurality of ad bids based on the variables of the plurality of ad requests and the target variables to identify a portion of the plurality of ad bids that satisfies the variables of the plurality of ad requests; [0109] the content type comprises a flash display, a pop-up display, or a roll-over animation; ([0073 and 0083], flash content); ; online ads including a user interface([0084], clicking of the ad, is equivalent to a user interacting with the ad(e.g user interface))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have modified the system of Muthukrishnan so as to have included matching, by the processor of the advertising network server, the plurality of ad requests to the plurality of ad bids based on the variables of the plurality of ad requests and the target variables to identify a portion of the plurality of ad bids that satisfies the variables of the plurality of ad requests; transmitting for display on a user device, by the processor of the advertising network server, one or more advertising content to the publishing server, the one or more advertising content corresponding with the selected one or more ad bids; the content type comprises a flash display, a pop-up display, or a roll-over animation in order to fulfill advertising request. (see Krassner [0109]) Holtan discloses determining, by the processor of the advertising network server, a bid price for each ad associated with the portion of the plurality of ad bids; generating, by the processor of the advertising network server, a table that lists ads associated with the portion of the plurality of ad bids in descending order based on the respective determined bid price; (See for example (Col. 7 lines 5-11), a bid table with bids in descending order)
determining, by the processor of the advertising network server, based on the generated table, which of the ad bids, of the portion of the plurality of ad bids, maximize yield by applying one or more control parameters; (see for example (Col. 7 lines 22-30 and Col. 7 lines 39-55, his price is called the clearing price. In some embodiments, the clearing price is defined as (1) the price of the bid that makes the sum of the percentages go from less than 100% to greater than 100%, or (2) if the sum of the exactly 100%, the highest price of the bids that did not get selected. In other embodiments, the clearing price may be determined in a different manner. In other embodiments, for each impression, the advertiser may be charged at the maximum bid price for the selected advertisement, meaning that the cost of placing an advertisement in the same advertising space may differ by each impression according to the advertisement being displayed.)and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have modified the system of Muthukrishnan, and Krassner so as to include determining, by the processor of the advertising network server, a bid price for each ad associated with the portion of the plurality of ad bids; generating, by the processor of the advertising network server, a table that lists ads associated with the portion of the plurality of ad bids in descending order based on the respective determined bid price; determining, by the processor of the advertising network server, based on the generated table, which of the ad bids, of the portion of the plurality of ad bids, maximize yield by applying one or more control parameters in order to affect how advertisements are allocated.
Muthukrishnan, Krassner, and Holtan do not explicitly disclose selecting, by the processor of the advertising network server, one or more ad bids, of the portion of the plurality of ad bids, to serve ads in the first ad configuration and to serve ads in the second ad configuration, based at least in part on the determination of the ad bits that maximize yield. However Amit discloses selecting, by the processor of the advertising network server, one or more ad bids, of the portion of the plurality of ad bids, to serve ads in the first ad configuration and to serve ads in the second ad configuration, based at least in part on the determination of the ad bids that maximize yield. (Col. 4 lines 26-35, Col. 8 lines 1-25,claim 18) transmitting, by the processor of the advertising network server, the one or more selected ad bids to a publishing server, the one or more selected ad bids corresponding with one or more advertising content for display on the publisher web page in the first ad configuration and the second ad configuration. (see for example Col. 1 lines 20-35, fig2b, shows that ad 220(bigger ad) has a higher price, and ad 221 that is smaller has low price. See table 1 at Col 5 lines 35-45) ) It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have modified the system of Muthukrishnan, Krassner, and Holtan so as to selecting, by the processor of the advertising network server, one or more ad bids, of the portion of the plurality of ad bids, to serve ads in the first ad configuration and to serve ads in the second ad configuration, based at least in part on the determination of the ad bits that maximize yield, transmitting, by the processor of the advertising network server, the one or more selected ad bids to a publishing server, the one or more selected ad bids corresponding with one or more advertising content for display on the publisher web page in the first ad configuration and the second ad configuration in order to affect how advertisements are allocated.
Muthukrishnan, Krassner, Holtan, Amit do not explicitly disclose at a campaign optimizer, a campaign goal and a plurality of ad bids; determining, by the campaign optimizer, a bidding strategy based on the campaign goal; transmitting to the advertising network server, by the campaign optimizer, the plurality of ad bids based on the bidding strategy;
However Collins discloses campaign optimizer, a campaign goal and a plurality of ad bids; ([0070] facilitating automatic management or optimization of one or more ad campaigns. This can include utilizing business rules that may be specific to or specified by a particular advertiser as well as using business results or measures thereof, which can include ad campaign performance information or measures of aspects thereof. In some embodiments, the invention includes combining business rules with an aggregated real-time business result, or measure thereof, to facilitate automated, dynamic, real-time management or optimization of ad spending; also see [0077, 0078, 0084.)determining, by the campaign optimizer, a bidding strategy based on the campaign goal; transmitting to the advertising network server, by the campaign optimizer, the plurality of ad bids based on the bidding strategy; ( [0130] In some embodiments, the Bid Optimizer 508 can include programming, software, or one or more applications, which can be configurable by an advertiser-user, useful in determining a desirable or optimal bid by the advertiser for a listing such as a paid search result. Configuring by a user can include, for example, the user setting the targets and constraints. The constraints can include a maximum bid and a minimum bid. The targets can be associated with the listing and can be specified in terms of one or more metrics related to the performance of the listing. The Bid Optimizer 408 can analyze recent past analytics in connection with the metric and specify a bid recommendation forecasted by the bid optimizer to achieve the target or get as close to the target as possible. The Bid Optimizer 408 can provide a recommendation for a listing which can include a maximum bid and an update period, which update period can be a time between maximum bid hiding updates. Also see [0145, 0152])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to have modified the system of Muthukrishnan, Krassner, Holtan, and Amit so as to include a campaign optimizer, a campaign goal and a plurality of ad bids; determining, by the campaign optimizer, a bidding strategy based on the campaign goal; transmitting to the advertising network server, by the campaign optimizer, the plurality of ad bids based on the bidding strategy; in order to achieve advertisers business objectives and to update bids efficiently. (see Collins [0112,0131 0132]
Claims 22, 30, 38: Muthukrishnan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising: generating one ad request for an ad of a first pixel size for the first ad configuration; ([0035 and fig 2b) and generating one ad request for an ad of a second pixel size for the second ad configuration. [0037 and 0041]
Claims 23, 31, 39: Muthukrishnan discloses computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the first ad configuration includes a first combination of ad units, and the second ad configuration includes a second combination of ad units. [0034]
Claims 24, 32, 40: Muthukrishnan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the first ad configuration includes a rich media ad unit, and the second ad configuration includes a non-rich media ad unit.[0020]
Claim 25,33: Muthukrishnan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21, wherein the publisher web page is configured to display advertising in either the first ad configuration or the second ad configuration each time it is displayed on a web browser. [0025, 0039, 0046]
Claims 26,34: Muthukrishnan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 21, further comprising:
generating an auction item for each of the first ad configuration and the second ad configuration; and executing an online auction to award an impression to a bid to serve an ad in the first ad configuration or a bid to serve an ad in the second ad configuration.[0039]
Claims 27, 35: Muthukrishnan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 26, wherein the bids to serve ads in the first ad configuration are received in combination with a first bid price, and the bids to serve ads in the second ad configuration are received in combination with a second bid price [0046]
Claims 28, 36: Muthukrishnan discloses the computer-implemented method of claim 27, further comprising: calculating a first aggregate revenue amount based on the first bid price; and calculating a second aggregate revenue amount based on the second bid price. [0050]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues the 101 rejection that the claims are not a certain methods of organizing human activity, the Examiner respectfully disagrees and will be explained below.
Step 2A Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea? The claim recites a certain method of organizing human activity (fundamental economic practices, commercial interactions, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations) Specifically the claims recite:
Receiving ad request and bids
Determining a bidding strategy based on a campaign goal
Transmitting the plurality of ad bids
Matching ad request to bids
Determining bid prices
Ranking ads
Selecting ads that maximize yield
Transmitting… the selected ad bids to a publishing server, for display
When considered individually and as a whole the aforementioned steps correspond to managing an auction, pricing and distribution and advertising inventory.
This is analogous to fundamental economic practices (e.g. auctions, pricing, distribution of goods), commercial interactions between advertisers and publishers. Also, commercial interactions between advertisers and publishers and also Marketing and sales activities.
Also see offer-based price optimization, OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362–63, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015);MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), which is equivalent to the applicant’s invention. Optimizing pricing using a computer is an abstract idea.
The applicant further argues the 101 rejection by stating that the claims are integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to improvements to the technology of executing an online action. The applicant cites paragraphs [0005 and 0006] of the specification The Examiner respectfully disagrees based on the cited paragraphs the improvement is purely an economic improvement and not technical improvement. Improving revenue does not equate to Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field. For example, the cited paragraphs discuss sub-optimal yield, higher revenue, and advertiser satisfaction. These are business metrics and not technical metrics. The cited paragraphs also discuss different ad sizes, different formats, however this is merely content selection. Content selection is not a technical improvement. The applicant’s campaign optimizer is recited in the claims at a high level of generality. Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f)
Therefore, the applicant’s argument that the claims recite a technical improvement is not persuasive. The claims are directed to increasing revenue yield and improving advertiser satisfaction. The asserted improvements by the applicant are economic and therefore are improvements to a business practice and not to computer technology or another technical field. The claims do not recite a specific improvement to the functioning of the computer, but merely use generic computing components to implement an abstract idea of an advertising auction process.
As stated previously, Per MPEP 2106.05(a) - If it is asserted that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. The specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art. Conversely, if the specification explicitly sets forth an improvement but in a conclusory manner (i.e., a bare assertion of an improvement without the detail necessary to be apparent to a person of ordinary skill in the art), the examiner should not determine the claim improves technology. An indication that the claimed invention provides an improvement can include a discussion in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art. For example, in McRO, the court relied on the specification’s explanation of how the particular rules recited in the claim enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could only be performed subjectively by humans, when determining that the claims were directed to improvements in computer animation instead of an abstract idea. McRO, 837 F.3d at 1313-14, 120 USPQ2d at 1100-01. In contrast, the court in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC relied on the specification’s failure to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention accomplished the alleged improvement when holding the claimed methods of delivering broadcast content to cellphones ineligible. 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016). The applicant has not provided a citation in the specification that identifies a technical problem and explains the details of an unconventional technical solution expressed in the claim, or identifies technical improvements realized by the claim over the prior art.
Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a)
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b)
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c)
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo
The applicant has not provided sufficient arguments or evidence that the claims have limitations that are indicative of integrations into a practical application. Thus the 35 U.S.C 101 rejection is maintained. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21-40 have been considered but are moot due to the updated rejection above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Borgs et al. (US 2007/013004) - The system has an acquisition component that receives bids associate with an ad campaign. An analyzer component modifies the bids to maximize the total utility of the campaign with in a budget based on the advertisement campaign data such as keywords and several budgets constrain. An optimization component computes the optimal bids and the slot placement of campaign ads based on marginal utility of each keyword or ad and the campaign budget.
Duggal et al. (US 2009/0037267) - The method involves generating a number of advertising categories based on non-uniform percentage distribution of advertising impressions for an advertising campaign, where the percentage distribution corresponds to the advertising categories. A determination is made to find whether enough advertising inventory is available to fulfill target number of advertising impressions, and shortage of available inventory is detected by the number of advertising categories for generating actual number of advertising impressions for the number of advertising categories.
Collins et al. (US 2007/0027754) - A data store facilitates hierarchical storage of advertisement campaign data providing advertisers with multiple levels of structure for control of advertisement content. One or more advertisements store a creative and an uniform resource locator (URL) to the advertised property. An campaign data structure stores one or more advertisement group data structures associated with advertisement campaign. An account data structure stores one or more advertisement campaigns associated with the advertised web properties.
Schaub et al. (US 2013/0097013) - The method involves determining, at a computer, keywords to be included in keyword portfolio and determining optimal rank for keyword based on historical key word volume and key word impressions. Base bid for each keyword is determined based on aggregate of historical data independent of any advertiser specific parameters. An individual advertiser multiplier for advertisers independent of any specific keyword portfolio parameters is determined based on target volume and cost optimization. The base bid is modulated using multiplier to determine each individual advertiser bid.
Jordan (US 2013/0325589) - method, system, and computer program product for using advertising campaign allocation optimization results to calculate bids. The method commences by receiving a candidate impression opportunity corresponding to an advertising campaign that has both branding objectives and performance-based objectives. Contracts that can be satisfied by serving the candidate impression opportunity use advertising campaign allocation optimization results to determine a set of matching contracts
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 DARNELL A POUNCIL whose telephone number is (571)270-3509. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 - 6:00.
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, Ilana Spar can be reached at (571) 270-7537. 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.
/D.A.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3622
/ILANA L SPAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
Prosecution Insights