DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-2, 5-12, 14-18, and 20 are pending in this Office Action.
Claims 1-2, 5-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the amendment filed 12/23/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The reasons are set forth below.
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 1-2, 5-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim(s) 1-2, 5-12, 14-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to observation and judgment, which is a mental process without significantly more. The claims recite “selecting a first version of a content for a first section of the webpage by the server computing device; dynamically selecting a first version for the second section of the webpage by the server computing device; Generating by the server computing device the webpage with a first configuration by configuring the webpage to have the first version of the content for the first section and the first version for the second section; transmitting the webpage with the first configuration from the server computing device to the client computing device; transmitting other webpages with different configurations that are different than the first configuration from the server computing device to other computing devices of other users that are different than the user; in real-time, monitoring effectiveness data by the server computing device for the first configuration and the different configurations, wherein the effectiveness data is based on corresponding responses by the user and the other users to the first configuration and the different configurations; generating a multivariate test results based on the effectiveness data; Identifying a most effective webpage configuration of the first configuration and the different configurations by the server computing device based on the multivariate test results; Identifying two or more users of the user and the other users that share one or more characteristics.” Specifically, what the claims are directed to is the act of generating different webpage configurations – an insignificant pre-solution step - to see what configurations are effective in, e.g., causing a user to make a purchase from a website, see Specification, paragraphs 0003-0004. The monitoring based on responses is an observation and the test results and identification of a most effective webpage are judgments.
The claims are not directed to a practical application because all the claims do is link the observation and judgment to a particular field of use – webpages over the internet. The claims do not improve a computer. The additional features of receiving a request to access a webpage and transmitting the most effective webpage configuration are insignificant conventional pre- and post-solution steps. The remainder of the features are features that simply place the abstract idea into a particular field of use by invoking conventional computer hardware and software such as webpage generation. Consequently, the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-7, 11-12, 14-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Minnis et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0201242), in view of Vasilik (U.S. Patent No. 8,296,643), and further in view of Imielinski et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0101332).
As per claim 1, Minnis teaches a method comprising:
receiving, by a server computing device, a request from a client computing device of a user to access a webpage (Minnis: paragraphs 0044 and 0079; client requests a web page...paragraphs 0091-0110 and 0115-0123; system tracks a user’s behavior on a website to profile a user), wherein the request includes an IP address of the client computing device (Minnis: paragraph 0006; content of page may be based on IP address of requesting device);
in response to the request, selecting a first version of a content for a first section of the webpage by the server computing device (A first version of content for a first section will be taught later. Minnis: paragraphs 0168-0184 and figs. D8-D19; system reconfigures multiple portions of webpage to fit the behavioral portrait of different users, including moving information around, expanding or collapsing it);
dynamically selecting a first version for the second section of the webpage by the server computing device (A first version of content for a second section will be taught later. Minnis: paragraphs 0168-0184 and figs. D8-D19; system reconfigures multiple portions of webpage to fit the behavioral portrait of different users, including moving information around, expanding or collapsing it);
generating by the server computing device the webpage with a first configuration by configuring the webpage to have the first version of the content for the first section and the first version for the second section (Minnis: paragraphs 0168-0184 and figs. D8-D19; system reconfigures multiple portions of webpage to fit the behavioral portrait of different users, including moving information around, expanding or collapsing it…paragraph 0069; Server generates web page with remashed content. See also Vasilik: col. 2, lines 51-63 and col. 5, lines 23-32; serving of web pages to visitors including serving different variations of the web page);
transmitting the webpage with the first configuration from the server computing device to the client computing device (Minnis: paragraph 0069; Server transmits web page with remashed content to client. See also Vasilik: col. 2, lines 51-63 and col. 5, lines 23-32; serving of web pages to visitors including serving different variations of the web page);
transmitting other webpages with different configurations that are different than the first configuration from the server computing device to other computing devices of other users that are different than the user (Minnis: Figs. D8-D17, paragraphs 00138, 0168-169, 0172-0182; Trish and Karl get different webpages with different content. Trish gets specification technical-based content while Karl gets review and award information);
generating multivariate test results based on the effectiveness data (Minnis: Figs. E5-12, paragraphs 0187-0200; system analyzes effectiveness of webpage by portrait type of user over a range of monitored data such as total visits, return visits and average time spent on site. See also Vasilik: col. 5, lines 44-51 and Claim 9: System measures effectiveness of default content and combinations of variable content items);
identifying two or more users of the user and the other users that share one or more characteristics (Minnis: paragraph 0050; system categorizes users into portrait types); and
transmitting by the server computing device the most effective webpage configuration to the two or more users (Minnis: paragraphs 0156-0157; system alters websites based on portrait type of user. See also Vasilik: col. 5, lines 44-51 and Claim 9: System determines effectiveness of webpages. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to transmit the most effective webpage configuration in order to convert more sales).
However Minnis does not explicitly mention a first version of a content for a first section of the webpage; a first version for the second section of the webpage; in real-time, monitoring effectiveness data by the server computing device for the first configuration and the different configurations, wherein the effectiveness data is based on corresponding responses by the user and the other users to the first configuration and the different configurations; and identifying a most effective webpage configuration of the first configuration and the different configurations by the server computing device based on the multivariate test results.
However Vasilik teaches:
a first version of a content for a first section of the webpage (Vasilik: col. 2, line 52 to col. 3, line 22 and fig. 1; web server stores webpages containing content…col. 5, lines 32-51 and fig. 3; web pages can include variable content items including variations of header, image, and text. An image is a first section and text is a second section. Images 314A-B are a first and second version of content for the first section. See also Minnis: paragraph 0157; page template with page sections and specifying alternate images/text based on portrait type);
a first version for the second section of the webpage (Vasilik: col. 5, lines 32-51 and fig. 3; web pages can include variable content items including variations of header, image, and text. An image is a first section and text is a second section. Text 316A-B are a first and second version of content for the second section. See also Minnis: paragraph 0157; page template with page sections and specifying alternate images/text based on portrait type);
in real-time, monitoring effectiveness data by the server computing device for the first configuration and the different configurations, wherein the effectiveness data is based on corresponding responses by the user and the other users to the first configuration and the different configurations (Vasilik: col. 5, line 33- col. 6, line 35; system determines effectiveness through visits, signups, or conversions, which are clicks, enrollments and survey responses. See also Minnis: paragraph 0199; website analysis occurs in real time. Figs. E5-E12, paragraphs 0090-0123, and 0185-0195; System tracks users visits, return visits, close rates and time spent on the site. System monitors behavioral patterns of the user on the webpage and other pages in order to profile the user. For example, the system monitors navigation and icon selection, speed of navigation such as timed clicks, and focused and omitted selections. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the invention to monitor the effectiveness of two versions of content for a user in order to profile which version is a more effective style for that particular user);
identifying a most effective webpage configuration of the first configuration and the different configurations by the server computing device based on the multivariate test results (Vasilik: col. 5, lines 44-51 and Claim 9: System determines effectiveness of webpages. See also Minnis: paragraphs 0187-200; system measures close rates for a webpage).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the instant invention to combine the method of Minnis with the versions of content for sections in order to allow webpage creators to test the effectiveness of multiple alternate types of communication. (Vasilik: col. 3 lines 4-22).
However Minnis and Vasilik do not explicitly mention a version of content to be selected for a second section of the webpage is dependent on the first version of the content for the first section.
However Imielinski teaches:
identifying by the server computing device that a version of content to be selected for a second section of the webpage is dependent on the first version of the content for the first section (First see Minnis: Figs. D8-D19 and paragraphs 0168-0184; system reconfigures multiple portions of webpage to fit the behavioral portrait of different users, including moving information around, expanding or collapsing it. Then see Imielinski: Table 1 and paragraphs 0022, 0038-0040, 0046-0048, and 0051; tags are used to identify changes between original and modified versions of presentation of data, which are second contents that are dependent upon first content…paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user. If Table 3 was an original presentation and Table 5 was a modified presentation, a second section comprising the rightmost part of the display in Table 5 (“Body4”) would contain a tag referring to the bottom right content displayed in Table 3 (“Body4”), which is an interdependency tag).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the instant invention to combine the method of Minnis and Vasilik with the second section content being dependent on first section content in Imielinski in order to customize the web page layout (Imielinski: paragraphs 0011-0013).
As per claim 2, the modified Minnis teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: identifying the user of the client computing device based on an IP address of the client computing device included in the request to access the webpage (Minnis: paragraph 0006; content of page may be based on IP address of requesting device).
As per claim 5, the modified Vasilik teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the effectiveness data comprises at least one of: a number of user clicks, a number of user enrollments, an amount of time spent on the webpage, or user survey responses (Vasilik: col. 5, lines 43-67; system determines effectiveness through visits, signups, or conversions, which are clicks, enrollments and survey responses. See also Minnis: paragraph 0118, 0121, and 0195; click and speed of navigation, which is clicks and time).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 6, the modified Minnis teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the identifying that the version of content to be selected for the second section of the webpage is dependent on the first version of the content for the first section comprises: identifying an interdependency tag (Imielinski: Table 1 and paragraphs 0022, 0038-0040, 0046-0048, and 0051; tags are used to identify changes between original and modified versions of presentation of data, which are second contents that are dependent upon first content…paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user. If Table 3 was an original presentation and Table 5 was a modified presentation, a second section comprising the rightmost part of the display in Table 5 (“Body4”) would contain a tag referring to the bottom right content displayed in Table 3 (“Body4”), which is an interdependency tag) that indicates that the content for the second section of the webpage depends on the content for the first section of the webpage (Imielinski: paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user, which is a dependency of content. See also Minnis: paragraphs 0127-0137; reorganization of information).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
As per claim 7, the modified Minnis teaches the method of claim 6, wherein the interdependency tag further indicates that a behavior of the second section of the webpage depends on the content for the first section of the webpage (Imielinski: paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user, which is a dependency of content. See also Minnis: paragraphs 0127-0137; reorganization of information. paragraphs 127-137; placing content in collapsible/expandible containers versus reorganizing or addition/deletion, which is behavior.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to claim 11, it is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Vasilik also teaches a system comprising: a processor of a server computing device; and non-transitory memory of the server computing device having instructions stored thereon that, in response to execution by the processor, causes the processor to perform: (Vasilik: col. 10, lines 62 to col. 11, line 20; processor, memory, and non-transitory media such as magnetic disks).
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claims 12, 14-15, they are substantially similar to claims 2, 6-7, respectively, and are rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to claim 17, it is substantially similar to claim 1 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying. Further, Vasilik also teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon that in response to execution by a server computing device, causes the server computing device to: (Vasilik: col. 10, lines 62 to col. 11, lines 20; processor, memory, and non-transitory media such as magnetic disks).
The same motivation to combine as Claim 1 applies here.
Regarding claim 18, it is substantially similar to claim 2, and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
With respect to claim 20, the modified Minnis teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein an interdependency tag at least one of: (Imielinski: Table 1 and paragraphs 0022, 0038-0040, 0046-0048, and 0051; tags are used to identify changes between original and modified versions of presentation of data, which are second contents that are dependent upon first content…paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user. If Table 3 was an original presentation and Table 5 was a modified presentation, a second section comprising the rightmost part of the display in Table 5 (“Body4”) would contain a tag referring to the bottom right content displayed in Table 3 (“Body4”), which is an interdependency tag)
indicates that the content for the second section of the webpage depends on the content for the first section of the webpage (Imielinski: paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user, which is a dependency of content. See also Minnis: paragraphs 0127-0137; reorganization of information), or indicates that a behavior of the second section of the webpage depends on the content for the first section of the webpage (Imielinski: paragraphs 0061-0069 and Tables 3-5; system reorders and transforms the presentation of data to the user, which is a dependency of content. See also Minnis: paragraphs 0127-0137; reorganization of information. paragraphs 127-137; placing content in collapsible/expandible containers versus reorganizing or addition/deletion, which is behavior).
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
Claims 8-10 and 16 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Minnis et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0201242), in view of Vasilik (U.S. Patent No. 8,296,643), in view of Imielinski et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2006/0101332), and further in view of Chandran et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0059317).
As per claim 8, the modified Minnis teaches the method of claim 6.
However the modified Minnis does not explicitly mention a drop down menu.
However Chandran teaches:
wherein the interdependency tag indicates that drop-down menu is to be used to display the content of the second section when the first version of the first section of the webpage is selected (Chandran: Fig. 8, paragraph 0087: User uses drop down boxes which causes the display of credit card offers matching the filtered attributes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the instant invention to combine the method of the modified Minnis with the drop down menu of Chandran in order to allow for the selection of filters to provide targeted data.
As per claim 9, the modified Minnis teaches the method of claim 1.
However the modified Minnis does not explicitly mention features and benefits of a transaction account.
However Chandran teaches:
wherein the webpage comprises: a transaction account webpage, and wherein one of the first section or the second section provides information associated with features of a transaction account (Examiner asserts that the content here is content directed at a viewer of a website and therefore constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material not entitled to patentable weight. Regardless, see Chandran: paragraph 0005: Credit account. Figs. 9-11, paragraphs 0089-0091: Invitation for a user to select a credit card that they are prescreened for. The page may include one or multiple cards that includes features, such as name or interest rate), and the other one of the first section or the second section provides information associated with benefits of the features (Examiner asserts that the content here is content directed at a viewer of a website and therefore constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material not entitled to patentable weight. Regardless, see Chandran: Figs. 9-11, paragraphs 0089-0091: Invitation for a user to select a credit card that they are prescreened for. The page may include one or multiple cards that includes benefits, such as 0% on balance transfers or an intro rate of 0%).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the instant invention to combine the method of modified Minnis with the features and benefits of a transaction account in order to allow a user to decide which account to open.
As per claim 10, the modified Minnis teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the server computing device comprises: a server of a transaction account issuer (The owner of a server is nonstructural and therefore is not entitled to patentable weight. Regardless, see Chandran: paragraph 0041; modules may be run by the offeror or may be run by a third party. Paragraph 0031; device may be implemented by an array of servers).
The same motivation to combine as claim 9 applies here.
As per claim 16, it is substantially similar to Claim 9 and is rejected in the same manner, the same art and reasoning applying.
REMARKS
Applicant submitted arguments to overturn the rejection on 12/23/2025. The examiner maintains the rejections, see remarks below.
The applicant Argues:
Argument 1: Applicant argues at Remarks, pages 9-11 that the claims are like Example 40 and that the claims are a practical application.
In response, the examiner respectfully submits: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 40 dealt with the collection of traffic data to determine abnormal performance in network transmission. Here, the claims are directed toward trying out different webpage configurations to determine which are “most effective” on a human user. The claim does not limit effectiveness to some metric of computer functionality. To the contrary, the claims require “identifying two or more users of the user and the other users that share one or more characteristics; and transmitting by the server computing device the most effective webpage configuration to the two or more users” which suggests that “most effective” is a standard relative to the human end user, not the system that they use. Further, the specification immediately makes clear that “most effective” is broad enough to constitute marketing, see specification, paragraph 0003 “Website operators face challenges in maximizing the conversion rates and the effectiveness of the website, such as the number of consumers that make a purchase from a website, the number of people converting into card members with an organization, or the number that signup for newsletters, etc.”
One embodiment of the claim is providing information such as marketing information in different formats to see which is “most effective” at causing the user to complete a purchase. This is no different than providing alternate versions of advertisements in a newspaper, simply doing it “on a computer” over the internet. That is not a practical application.
Applicant further argues at page 13 that “many of these limitations cannot be practically performed in the mind” but the limitations Applicant points to are conventional features of networked computer implementation, such as “transmitting a webpage.” One can easily create “different configurations” of an advertisement to a human using pen and paper, and can similarly “monitor, in real time” the effectiveness of it as an observation.
At page 14, Applicant points to limitations like the content of a second section being dependent upon a first section and argues that these do not merely link to idea to field of use, but clearly they do, as the reason the content is being linked is for the benefit of the human reader. Applicant is discussing versions and sections whose function is to be consumed by a human reader, not a computer. The computer is merely the mechanism by which the sections are displayed to the human. It is not significantly different than the content of a second section of a newspaper being dependent upon what content appeared in a first section of the newspaper.
Applicant further argues at page 15 that the claim includes features which are significantly more than the abstract idea, and Applicant argues that these are non conventional features. But the prior art suggests it is conventional and Applicant relies upon the conventionality of the functions because Applicant does not provide a technical teaching as to how to achieve the functionality. Rather, Applicant’s specification merely mentions the functionality and relies upon the ordinary skill in the art to perform it. For example, Applicant argues “generates multivariate test results from [effectiveness data]” is unconventional (page 15) but a simple review of the specification shows no teaching as to how to code multivariate testing or even a teaching as to how multivariate testing is performed. Consequently, Applicant relies upon the fact that the art conventionally knows how to code multivariate testing in order to enable this limitation of the claim. See 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…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.”
Finally, Applicant argues that “the claims do not simply state a business outcome or instruct a human to perform ‘observation and judgment.’” Examiner agrees, but ineligibility does not require a claim to essentially state “this claim is ineligible.” Rather, it is sufficient that the claims are directed to ineligible subject matter without being significantly more. That is the case here – the claims as originally filed dealt with the conventional and basic computer act of referential linking. The amended claims now apply that referential linking in the context of creating multiple different versions of a webpage to find the “most effective” one for human consumption. That is a claim that is directed to observing human responses to stimuli and making judgments based upon them. That does not improve a computer, it merely uses a computer to perform, e.g., market research. Even if one ignored the “market” part of the disclosure (i.e., ignoring Specification, paragraphs 0003-0004 as the argument suggests) it still is not eligible to perform research and then present the “most effective” result to similar user.
Argument 2: Applicant argues at Remarks, pages 16-22 that neither reference teaches sending the most effective webpage to the users.
In response, the examiner respectfully submits: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant appears to agree that Minnis teaches “types” of users and presents different webpages to the users. Applicant appears to agree that Vasilik can use different webpage configurations and records user responses to measure performance.
If the art can present different webpages to users and track which is most effective (Vasilik) and can determine that certain users are similar and prefer certain types of data (Minnis), it would have been obvious to test which webpages are most effective on a user and present users of the same type that webpage. A most effective webpage for a user was discoverable via Vasilik, a link between users was performed in Minnis, and a motivation to use the most effective webpage for other users existed because it increased the chance of conversion. Applicant’s argument to the contrary largely relies upon considering Minnis and Vasilik individually in a sequential fashion, and further makes some questionable leaps in logic. For example, Applicant states “In Minnis, the portrait type determines who sees a given configuration, but Minnis does not disclose or suggest determining which configuration is ‘most effective’ for a group of users and then transmitting that configuration to those users.” This argument belies common sense. The purpose of the Minnis system is to make sales, the suggestion that a person of ordinary skill would present differently configured data to different people by presenting suboptimal configurations to users is extremely questionable. Further, the statement that “Minnis does not disclose or suggest determining which configuration is ‘most effective’” completely ignores the Vasilik citations for doing just that. Similarly, Applicant’s discussion of Vasilik points to “Claim 9 [of Vasilik]” and the argument states that “Claim 9 ends with ‘identifying the most effective website content’ and does not disclose or suggest that the most effective website content is transmitted to users…” This argument essentially conflates obviousness with anticipation and then conflates anticipation with some sort of Interference/Double Patenting test – Rather than asking if a person of ordinary skill reading Vasilik would have found it obvious to transmit the most effective website content (which would be the relevant test for obviousness here), Applicant advances the argument that the instant claim feature is nonobvious because a prior reference’s legal claim does not textually anticipate the instant claim feature. Applicant cites to no authority suggesting that should be persuasive of nonobviousness. Anyone reading the Vasilik disclosure would immediately understand that the utility in “identifying the most effective website content” (which is itself a meaningless act) would be to then apply that knowledge to make effective websites, which would be transmitting the version of the webpage that was determined to be the most effective.
All claims remain rejected.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 KARINA J. GARCIA-CHING whose telephone number is (571)270-7159. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Wednesday (9:00 AM - 5:00 PM).
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached at (571) 272-7304. 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.
/KARINA J GARCIA-CHING/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
/VIVEK SRIVASTAVA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2449