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 the Claims
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicants arguments, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the 101 rejection has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues, on page 10-11, that the claims as amended do not recite an abstract idea of certain methods of organizing human activity. Applicant argues directed to a reservation of plurality of identified services based on information in the service information tables and input received on the display screen. Such features relating to interactions with the graphical user interface (GUI) on the display clearly are not related to a method of organizing human activity or economic principles.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as making reservations based on a desired service (Specification, par. 0004). Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Applicant argues, on page 11, that even if the claims recite an abstract idea, the amended claim integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. Applicant argues that similar to core wireless, the claims are integrated into a practical application because Such GUI configuration with specific fields on the display screen along with the steps carried out to improve collective reservation of identified services on the display screen, are clearly directed to improvements in machine interaction that do not cover human activities.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The additional elements (computer elements, display screen, selection fields, etc) are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea. Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94, 2019 USPQ2d 138290 (Fed. Cir. 2019), the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Here, the improvement to usability for the client (specification, par. 0004) is an improvement to the business process of reservations and not a technology or technical field. Finally, Core Wireless was considered eligible because the claims provided an improved user interface specifically for “small screen devices”. The claims were "directed to a particular manner of summarizing and presenting information in electronic devices.". Here, the applicant’s specification in par. 0011 describes a terminal to include a computer, a tablet information terminal, a smartphone, a wearable terminal, and a gaming terminal. Therefore, there is no improvement to a user interface/functioning of computers or technology or technical field and the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Applicant argues, on pages 11-12, that under step 2B the claims adds significantly more beyond the abstract idea and that the Patent Office must prove that additional limitations are conventional routine and well known under Berkheimer.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Examiner further notes that At Step 2A Prong Two or Step 2B, there is no requirement for evidence to support a finding that the exception is not integrated into a practical application or that the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the exception unless the examiner asserts that additional limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional activities in Step 2B. Here, the Examiner has identified the additional elements to be are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims are ineligible.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 04/06/2026, with respect to the art rejection has been considered but is not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Gonzalez does not teach the limitations of "identify the plurality of services associated with the purpose in the client information based on one or more service information tables stored in the information processing system, wherein each of the service information tables stores the plurality of services associated with the purpose of the client, time required for each service, and a priority rank assigned for each service.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Gonzalez, in Fig. 5C teaches the plurality of services associated with the purpose of the client and the time required for each service. With respect to the priority rank, the argument is considered moot in light of the updated rejection. Examiner has updated the rejection of the independent claims in view of Gonzalez and Morisawa.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claim 1-18 is directed to a system with multiple components, and therefore is a machine.
Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory computer readable media and therefore are an article of manufacture.
Claim 20 is directed to a series of steps, and therefore is a process.
Independent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
The limitation of Claim 1 recites:
acquire, from a client for a plurality of reservable services in combination, client information including a purpose of the client, wherein the purpose of the client is acquired from the client …;
identify the plurality of services associated with the purpose in the client information based on one or more service information tables stored …, wherein each of the service information tables stores the plurality of services associated with the purpose of the client, time required for each service, and a priority rank assigned for each service;
acquire business operator information on business operators that provide the plurality of identified services, the business operator information including schedules of the business operators; and
make a collective reservation for a combination of the plurality of identified services with use time frames of the plurality of identified services not overlapping each other based on the business operator information after receiving a selection of the combination of the plurality of identified services from … .
The limitations of Claim 19 recites:
acquiring, from a client for a plurality of reservable services in combination, client information including a purpose of the client, wherein the purpose of the client is acquired from the client …;
identifying the plurality of services associated with the purpose in the client information based on one or more service information tables stored …, wherein each of the service information tables stores the plurality of services associated with the purpose of the client, time required for each service, and a priority rank assigned for each service;
acquiring business operator information on business operators that provide the plurality of identified services, the business operator information including schedules of the business operators; and
making a collective reservation for a combination of the plurality of identified services with use time frames of the plurality of identified services not overlapping each other based on the business operator information after receiving a selection of the combination of the plurality of identified services from … .
The limitations of Claim 20 recites:
An information processing method comprising:
acquiring, from a client for a plurality of reservable services in combination, client information including a purpose of the client, wherein the purpose of the client is acquired from the client …;
identifying the plurality of services associated with the purpose in the client information based on one or more service information tables, wherein each of the service information tables stores the plurality of services associated with the purpose of the client, time required for each service, and a priority rank assigned for each service;
acquiring business operator information on business operators that provide the plurality of identified services, the business operator information including schedules of the business operators; and
making a collective reservation for a combination of the plurality of identified services with use time frames of the plurality of identified services not overlapping each other based on the business operator information after receiving a selection of the combination of the plurality of identified services from … .
The claim limitations as drafted, recite a concept, that, under broadest reasonable interpretation, is a certain method of organizing human activity. The limitations are analogous to managing personal behavior or interactions between people (interactions between people), or a commercial or legal interaction (sales activity) such as making reservations based on a desired service (Specification, par. 0004). The generic computer implementations (see below) do not change the character of the limitations. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 1:
An information processing system comprising: one or more processors configured to:
through a display screen with a purpose selection field on the display screen
a combination field on the display screen
Claim 19:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process comprising:
through a display screen with a purpose selection field on the display screen
a combination field on the display screen
Claim 20:
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process comprising:
through a display screen with a purpose selection field on the display screen
a combination field on the display screen
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Dependent Claims
Step 2A Prong One
Dependent claims 2-18 further narrow the same abstract ideas recited in Claim 1, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-18 are directed to an abstract idea for the reasons given above.
Step 2A Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the dependent claims recite the following additional elements:
Claim 3:
Terminal apparatus
These additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims do not amount to more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h))
Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements, amount to no more than generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The same analysis applies here in 2B. The additional elements, when considered separately and in combination, do not add significantly more to the exception. They are generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The 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 1-17 and 19-20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez (US20230068122A1) and in further view of Morisawa (US20080120293A1)
Claim 1: Gonzalez teaches An information processing system comprising: one or more processors configured to:
acquire, from a client for a plurality of reservable services in combination, client information including a purpose of the client, wherein the purpose of the client is acquired from the client through a display screen with a purpose selection field on the display screen; (Gonzalez, Par. 0039 and Fig. 1A)
Gonzalez, in par. 0039 and Fig. 1A teaches booking engine that is part of the web platform, as illustrated in FIGS. 1A-C, may be presented for searching for and reserving pet care services, such as training, grooming, veterinary, and holistic care (e.g., nutritionist, naturopathic). The booking engine may allow a user to search for and select from numerous external third party systems, such as: (1) grooming services, (2) training services, (3) veterinary services, and/or (4) holistic services. Service aggregation may provide for the consolidating of multiple pet care service types and providers into the web platform for utilization by the booking engine.
identify the plurality of services associated with the purpose in the client information based on one or more service information tables stored in the information processing system, wherein each of the service information tables stores the plurality of services associated with the purpose of the client, time required for each service, (Gonzalez, Par. 0043, Fig. 2B; Fig. 5C; Par. 0052 and Fig. 8)
Gonzalez, Par. 0043 and Fig. 2B teaches The booking engine may display general filters and/or advanced filters that allow the user to filter the one or more pet care services that resulted from the one or more search selections, as illustrated in FIGS. 2B-E, 3, and 4. General filters may include filters that enable users to sort the results by pet size, coat type, services, distance, ratings, and price. The general filters may allow a user to make one or several selections. The pet size may include four categories: (1) toy (up to 12 lbs), (2) small (12-25 lbs), (3) medium (25-50 lbs), and (4) large (greater than 50 lbs). The coat type may correspond to the type of pet coat and/or fur, where the coat type may include five categories: (1) smooth/short, (2) wire-haired, (3) long, (4) curly, and (5) double coated. The services may vary based on the type of service being filtered. For example, if a grooming service is selected, the types of services may include bath and brush-out, deshedding, full service groom, nail clipping, ear cleaning, teeth brushing, and/or anal gland expression. If a training service is selected, the types of services may include virtual, private, and/or group.
Gonzalez, Fig. 5C, teaches that the plurality of services selected are in time increments (e.g. basic bath 30 mins, Trim 1 Hour, Nail Cutting 30 mins)
See also, instant application Fig. 8, where non overlapping services are listed in time increments just like in Fig. 5C of Gonzalez.
Gonzalez in par. 0052 and Fig. 8 teaches Estimated time of the combined reserved services for basic bath, trimming and nail cutting to be 2 hour (e.g. 30 min+30min+1hour) (i.e. plurality of non overlapping services)
acquire business operator information on business operators that provide the plurality of identified services, the business operator information including schedules of the business operators; and (Gonzalez, par. 0041 Fig.2A)
Gonzalez, Par. 0041 and Fig. 2A, teaches In response to the one or more search selections, the booking engine may display one or more pet care services that match the one or more search selections, as illustrated in FIG. 2A. The search results may be displayed via the web platform on a handheld mobile device, a desktop computer, or any other device. The booking engine may present open dates and time slots, which correspond to the selected service provider, to the user.
make a collective reservation for a combination of the plurality of identified services with use time frames of the plurality of identified services not overlapping each other based on the business operator information after receiving a selection of the combination of the plurality of identified services from a combination field on the display screen. (Gonzalez, Fig. 5C; Par. 0052 and Fig. 8)
Gonzalez, Fig. 5C, teaches that the plurality of services selected are in time increments (e.g. basic bath 30 mins, Trim 1 Hour, Nail Cutting 30 mins)
See also, instant application Fig. 8, where non overlapping services are listed in time increments just like in Fig. 5C of Gonzalez.
Gonzalez in par. 0052 and Fig. 8 teaches Estimated time of the combined reserved services for basic bath, trimming and nail cutting to be 2 hour (e.g. 30 min+30min+1hour) (i.e. plurality of non overlapping services)
While Gonzalez teaches the limitations as cite and described above, it does not teach but Morisawa, in Fig. 18 and 19, teaches a priority rank for reservations and timeslots.
Morisawa, in Fig. 18 and 19, teaches a scoring system for specific rooms/reservation areas as well as a scoring system for the closeness of a meeting time.
Morisawa in par. 0110, teaches The meeting locations of the visitor schedules are scored by assigning 5 points to the room in the closest position, 4 points to the room in the second-closest position, and so on, after performing rearrangement in the order of increasing distance from the installation site of the retrieval device 1101. Rooms located in position 6 and farther are assigned a score of "0".
Morisawa, in par. 0113, teaches Here, scoring is carried out by assigning a score of 6 points if the meeting time is within 30 minutes of the current moment, 5 points if the meeting time is more than 30 minutes away and within 60 minutes of the current moment, and so on, with visitor schedules more than 3 hours away assigned a score of "0".
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reservation system of Gonzalez to include ranking of services, as taught by Morisawa, in order to provide a scoring system based on the closest available meeting time or place (Morisawa, Par 0110 and 0113)
Claim 2: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
if the client information includes information indicating a rental place for use of the plurality of identified services, acquire place information on a schedule of the place; and (Gonzalez, Fig. 2A: multiple locations)
make a collective reservation for the place and the combination of the plurality of identified services with the use time frames not overlapping each other within a reservable time frame of the place based on the business operator information and the place information. (Gonzalez, Fig. 5C and Fig. 8)
Claim 3: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
if a terminal apparatus is used for the use of the plurality of identified services, make a collective reservation for the place where the terminal apparatus is disposed and the combination of the plurality of identified services with the use time frames not overlapping each other within the reservable time frame of the place. (Gonzalez, par. 0040: location determination)
Claim 4: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
if the business operator information includes information indicating expected periods of the plurality of identified services provided by the business operators, make a collective reservation for the combination of the plurality of identified services with the use time frames arranged in sequence. (Gonzalez, Fig. 5A and 5C and Fig. 8)
Claim 5: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
if a predetermined condition is satisfied for use of the plurality of identified services, provide a break in the reservation between one service out of the plurality of identified services and another service out of the plurality of identified services with the use time frame of the other service arranged in sequence with the use time frame of the one service. (Gonzalez, Par. 0049: Providers, via the provider profile page, may also be able to easily set future availability and/or capacity for appointments, including specific resources and/or employee availability, confirm/edit/cancel appointment requests, and/or maintain/update their business information and offerings. The providers may also include a particular capacity during the available times. For example, a groomer may have availability to groom four pets between 9 am and 11 am, but the same groomer may have availability to groom only two pets between 1 pm and 4 pm.)
Claim 6: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
present, to the client, candidates for the combination of the plurality of services with the use time frames not overlapping each other based on the business operator information; and (Gonzalez, Fig. 5A and Fig. 5C and Fig. 8)
make a collective reservation for the plurality of identified services based on a candidate selected by the client among the presented candidates. (Gonzalez, Fig. 5A and Fig. 5C and Fig. 8)
Claim 7: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 6, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
present the candidates to the client based on the priority levels. (Morisawa, Fig. 18 and 19)
See above rationale to combine.
Claim 8: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 7, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
assign the priority rank to the plurality of services based on at least one of a sequence, usage counts, or evaluations of the services in the combination expected to achieve the purpose. (Morisawa, Fig. 18 and 19)
See above rationale to combine.
Claim 9: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
if the client information includes information indicating a desired time frame for use of the plurality of identified services by the client, make a collective reservation for the combination of the plurality of identified services with the use time frames not overlapping each other within the desired time frame. (Gonzalez, Fig. 5A and 5C and Fig. 8)
Claim 10: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
if the client information includes information indicating a condition set by the client about details of the plurality of identified services, make a collective reservation for the plurality of identified services that satisfy the condition. (Gonzalez, Fig. 5A and 5C and Fig. 8)
Claim 11: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
if the plurality of identified services are provided by the business operators different from each other, make a collective reservation for a combination of the business operators with the use time frames not overlapping each other. (Gonzalez, Par. 0052: selecting specific employees for specific services)
Claim 12: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 11, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
if the business operators are in different businesses, make a collective reservation for the combination of the business operators with the use time frames not overlapping each other in a sequence in which the purpose is achievable based on details of the businesses. (Gonzalez, Fig. 3 and 5A and 5C and Fig. 8)
Claim 13: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
cause a display to display an operation image for receiving an operation of specifying the purpose from the client; and (Gonzalez, Fig. 1A-C, Fig. 5C and Fig. 8)
cause the display to display a selection image for receiving, from the client, an operation of selecting the use time frames from reservable time frames of the combination of the plurality of identified services associated with the purpose. (Gonzalez, Fig. 1A-C, Fig. 5C and Fig. 8)
Claim 14: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 1, Ellis teaches wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
present new combinations of the plurality of identified services in response to cancellation of reservation for one service in the reserved combination of the plurality of identified services by the business operator that provides the one service; and (Gonzalez, Par. 0053 and 0056-0057: Cancellation)
make a collective reservation again for the plurality of identified services based on the new combination selected by the client among the presented new combinations. (Gonzalez, Par. 0053 and 0056-0057: Cancellation)
Claim 15: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 14, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
present the new combinations with the one service replaced by another service equivalent to the one service and provided by another business operator different from the business operator that provides the ones service. (Gonzalez, Par. 0053 and 0056-0057: Cancellation and alternate appointments)
Claim 16: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 14, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
present the new combinations changed in terms of a sequence of the plurality of identified services in the reserved combination. (Gonzalez, Par. 0053 and 0056-0057: Cancellation and alternate appointments)
Claim 17: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 14, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
present the new combinations so that the use time frame of the reserved service subsequent to the one service out of the plurality of identified services excluding the one service in the reserved combination is made earlier. (Gonzalez, Par. 0053 and 0056-0057: Cancellation and alternate appointments)
Claims 19: Claim 19 is directed to a non-transitory CRM. Claim 19 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a system. Claim 19 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1, respectively. Gonzalez recites the CRM in par. 0106
Claims 20: Claim 20 is directed to a method. Claim 20 recites limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1 which is directed towards a system. Claim 20 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1, respectively.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gonzalez (US20230068122A1) and in view of Morisawa (US20080120293A1) and in further view of Johannson (US9858538B1)
Claim 18: Gonzalez and Morisawa teach The information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to:
While Gonzalez teaches cancellations, it does not teach but Johansson, in col. 11 lines 9-20 teaches replacing a reservation when one is cancelled based on a set itinerary.
in response to cancellation of reservation for one service out of the plurality of collectively reserved services by one business operator that provides the one service, notify other business operators in the same business as the one business operator about a call for a service reservable within the use time frame of the one service in the reservation; and (Johannson, Col. 11 lines 9-20)
make a reservation for another service provided by any one of the notified other business operators responding to the call in the use time frame of the one service in the reservation. (Johannson, Col. 11 lines 9-20)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the reservation system of Gonzalez to include replacing a cancelled reservation/activity as part of a set itinerary, as taught by Johannson, in order to notify and modify the itinerary appropriately based on any circumstances (Johansson, Col. 9 lines 15-25)
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 ISMAIL A MANEJWALA whose telephone number is (571)272-8904. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/ISMAIL A MANEJWALA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights