DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The following is a final office action in response to the request for continued examination filed 31 December 2025.
Applicant’s amendments to Claims 1, 4, 10, 13, and 19 have been received and are acknowledged.
The applicant's claim for benefit of provisional application US PRO 63/452,820 filed 03/17/2023; US PRO 63/488,848 filed 03/07/2023 and US PRO 63/486,692 filed 02/24/2023 have been received and acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 31 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Examiner withdraws the rejection under 35 USC 112, in view of Applicant’s amendments.
With regard to rejection under 35 USC 101, Applicant again argues: “…similar to claim 19 of DDR Holdings, patent eligible subject matter at least under Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility framework. For example, like the stored visually perceptible elements of DDR Holdings, the enterprise data includes style information associated with the style of the enterprise, such as logos and colors. Whereas the server of DDR Holdings generates a webpage having the look and feel of the host web page based upon the visually perceptible elements, the claimed MIL chatbot (e.g., implemented by a server) generates a customized presentation based upon the style information that includes components which emulate the style information associated with enterprise. The customized presentation is provided to the user device of a user, whereas the customized web page is served to a web page visitor….” (Applicant’s response, pgs.10-11)
Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted in the rejection below and previously. Applicant’s own arguments previously stated that the ‘improvements’ employ/use machine learning techniques to ‘present’ ‘ customized claim information.’ This is ‘apply it’ (See at least MPEP 2106.05 (f)) and is at most an improvement to the abstract idea by using generic technology. The instant claims are distinguishable from the patent eligible claims of DDR Holdings in that the instant claims are directed to a business problem rather than a technological one. As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues that the prior art of Feldman and Kleinberg do not disclose the newly amended claim language. Applicant also asserts that Salles and Scherpa do not cure the deficiencies of Feldman and Kleinberg. ( Applicant’s response, pg. 8-9).
Examiner respectfully disagrees as noted in the rejection below. Examiner notes that Feldman as cited includes both customization of the graphical presentation of the user interface [31] and an “artificial intelligence (AI) powered chatbot” [37] which render the limitation obvious.
As stated previously this case, as stated in the rejection, Feldman discloses a method and system of customized user interface that includes data related to risk relationships such as insurance and including a machine learning chatbot. Kleinberg discloses a method and apparatus of online retail of insurance products including a co-branding webpage/interface feature.
As such, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
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 non-statutory subject matter.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, (1) it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, (2a) it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so (2b), it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Examples of abstract ideas include fundamental economic practices; certain methods of organizing human activities; an idea itself; and mathematical relationships/formulas. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014).
The claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. In the instant case, the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea.
(1) In the instant case, the claims are directed towards a method, non-transitory computer readable medium, and the system of generating a customized presentation for filing an insurance claim. In the instant case, Claims 1-9 are directed to a process. Claims 10-18 are directed to a system. Claims 19-20- are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
(2a) Prong 1: Filing insurance claims and customizing said presentation for filing the insurance claim is categorized in/akin to the abstract idea subject matter grouping of:, methods of organizing human activity,) [organizing human activity (commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)]. As such, the claims include an abstract idea.
The specific limitations of the invention are (a) identified to encompass the abstract idea include:
1. A ..method for generating a customized presentation for filing an insurance claim …, the method comprising:
training,…. to learn color features of images by mapping text-image pairs to vector space, the vector space including features of images and features of text;
obtaining,…, insurance claim information;
generating, …, the customized presentation based upon the insurance claim information; including:
obtaining enterprise data including style information indicating a particular style to emulate when generating one or more customized presentation components of the customized presentation, the particular style associated with an enterprise providing the customized presentation, wherein the style information includes a color the enterprise, and
generating the one or more customized presentation components of the customized presentation based upon the style information causing at least one of the one or more customized presentation components to emulate one or more of a look, feel or style of the enterprise by including the color of the enterprise… ;
providing, …, the customized presentation to a user ….
10. A … for generating a customized presentation for filing an insurance claim … comprising:
….:
train….t to learn color features of images by mapping text-image pairs to vector space, the vector space including features of images and features of text;
obtain insurance claim information;
generate, … the customized presentation based upon the insurance claim information; including:
obtaining enterprise data including style information indicating a particular style to emulate when generating at least some of one or more customized presentation components of the customized presentation, the particular style associated with an enterprise providing the customized presentation, wherein the style information includes a color the enterprise and
generating the one or more customized presentation components of the customized presentation based upon the style information causing ….of the one or more customized presentation components to emulate one or more of a look, feel or style of the enterprise by including the color of the enterprise … ;
provide, …, the customized presentation to a user ….
19. A… to:
train ….to learn color features of images by mapping text-image pairs to vector space, the vector space including features of images and features of text;
obtain insurance claim information;
generate, … the customized presentation based upon the insurance claim information; including:
obtaining enterprise data including style information indicating a particular style to emulate when generating at least some of one or more customized presentation components of the customized presentation, the particular style associated with an enterprise providing the customized presentation, wherein the style information includes a color the enterprise and
generating the one or more customized presentation components of the customized presentation based upon the style information causing at least one of the one or more customized presentation components to emulate one or more of a look, feel or style of the enterprise by including the color of the enterprise … ;
provide, …, the customized presentation to a user ….
As stated above, this abstract idea falls into the (b) subject matter grouping of: (methods of organizing human activity) .
Prong 2: When considered individually and in combination, the instant claims are do not integrate the exception into a practical application because the steps of training… obtaining…generating…obtaining… generating…. providing… do not apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception (i.e. the abstract idea).
The instant recited claims including additional elements (i.e. providing (i.e. displaying…)…)do not improve the functioning of the computer or improve another technology or technical field nor do they recite meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) and (g)))
(2b) In the instant case, Claims 1-9 are directed to a process. Claims 10-18 are directed to a system. Claims 19-20- are directed to a non-transitory computer readable medium.
Additionally, the claims (independent and dependent) do not include additional elements that individually or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception of abstract idea (i.e. provide an inventive concept). As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element(s) of: (computer, machine learning, processor, chatbot, voicebot, computer system, non-transitory computer readable medium ) merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [25-32] user device.. any suitable device…memory .. processor…network… memory… processor…non-transitory computer readable medium)
The dependent claims have also been examined and do not correct the deficiencies of the independent claims.
It is noted that claim (2-9, 11-18 and 20) introduce the additional elements wherein clauses further defining steps and/or elements including defining claim information (Claims 2 and 11) further steps: generating… components.. (Claims 3, 12 and 20) generating… information….. (Claim 5 and 14); generating… information… (Claim 6 and 15); further defining the help information …receiving… initiating… (Claims 7 and 16); wherein.. (Claim 4 and 13); providing (i.e. displaying) …(Claims 8 and 17) and further defining the ML chatbot… (Claim 9 and 18)… These elements are not a practical application of the judicial exception because the limitations merely recite: “apply it” (or an equivalent) or merely include instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) Further these limitations taken alone or in combination with the abstract do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea alone because the elements amount to mere use of a computer a as tool to perform an abstract idea or merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception or merely uses generic computing elements to perform well known, routine, and conventional functions. (See MPEP 2106.05 (d), (f) and (g)) (Specification, [25-32] user device.. any suitable device…memory .. processor…network… memory… processor…non-transitory computer readable medium) Therefore, claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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 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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 9-11, 13-15, 18 and 19 re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2023/0017739 A1 Feldman et al. hereinafter referred to as Feldman further in view of US 2001/0037265 Al, Kleinberg hereinafter referred to as Kleinberg.
Claims 1, 10 and 19
Feldman discloses computer-implemented method for generating a customized presentation for filing an insurance claim using machine learning (ML), the method comprising:
training, by one or more processors, a ML chatbot to learn color features of images by mapping text-image pairs to vector space, the vector space including features of images and features of text; (See at least Feldman, Fig. 1-25, Fig. 9 chatbot…Fig. 26-27 [31] customize via machine learning algorithm… ..user interface …a workflow might be customized with respect to a graphical presentation of the interface to the customer (e.g., including drawings, animations, video clips, a color scheme, etc.)
obtaining, by the one or more processors, insurance claim information; (See at least Feldman, Fig. 1-25, [32] collect information.. insurance claim event)
generating, by the one or more processors via the ML chatbot (or voice bot), the customized presentation based upon the insurance claim information including:
obtaining enterprise data including style information indicating a particular style ..,. of one or more customized presentation components of the customized presentation, the particular style associated with an enterprise providing the customized presentation, wherein the style information includes a color the enterprise, and (See at least Feldman, Fig. 9-10 [31] customize via machine learning algorithm… ..user interface …a workflow might be customized with respect to a graphical presentation of the interface to the customer (e.g., including drawings, animations, video clips, a color scheme, etc.) workflow…dynamically tailor…. machine learning….[37] chatbot..)
generating the one or more customized presentation components of the customized presentation based upon the style information… by including the color of the enterprise ….and (See at least Feldman, Fig. 9-10 [31] customize ..user interface workflow…dynamically tailor…. machine learning…. (e.g., including drawings, animations, video clips, a color scheme, etc.) …[37] chatbot..)
providing, by the one or more processors via the ML chatbot, the customized presentation to a user device. (See at least Feldman, Fig. 3 Fig. 9-10 Fig. 1-29; [23] customize user interface… [31] customize ..user interface workflow… machine learning….[37] chatbot..)
Feldman does not directly disclose the following; however Kleinberg teaches/suggests:
… to emulate when generating…(See at least Kleinberg, [31]… co-branded web page with transactional web site…appears to user as it is part of or associate with the referring web site.. )
… causing at least one of the one or more customized presentation components to emulate one or more of a look, feel or style of the enterprise…(See at least Kleinberg, [31]… co-branded web page with transactional web site…appears to user as it is part of or associate with the referring web site.. replicates or resembles the appearance of the co-branded site…Claim 8)
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Feldman discloses a method and system of customized user interface that includes data related to risk relationships such as insurance and including a machine learning chatbot. Kleinberg discloses a method and apparatus of online retail of insurance products including a co-branding webpage/interface feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a customized user interface including a co-branded interface feature). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Feldman/ Kleinberg.
As a general matter, the grammar and intended meaning of terms used in a claim will dictate whether the language limits the claim scope. Language that suggests or makes optional but does not require steps to be performed or does not limit a claim to a particular structure does not limit the scope of a claim or claim limitation. The following are examples of language that may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim:
(A) statements of intended use or field of use,
(B) “adapted to” or “adapted for” clauses,
(C) “wherein” clauses, or
(D) “whereby” clauses.
This list of examples is not intended to be exhaustive. See also MPEP § 2111.04
Claims 2 and 11
Feldman and Kleinberg disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 10.
Feldman further discloses:
wherein the insurance claim information includes information for customizing the customized presentation including one or more of: (i) a type of insurance claim, (ii) a user profile, and/or (iii) state requirements. (See at least Feldman, Fig. 1-25, user information data store [25] user information data store [32] collect information.. insurance claim event)
Claims 4 and 13
Feldman and Kleinberg disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 3 and 12.
Feldman further discloses:
wherein the one or more customized presentation components generated based upon the style information include one or more of: a font associated with the enterprise, a logo associated with the enterprise, or an emblem associated with the enterprise, (See at least Feldman, Fig. 1-25,Fig. 26-27 [31] customize via machine learning algorithm… ..user interface …a workflow might be customized with respect to a graphical presentation of the interface to the customer (e.g., including drawings, animations, video clips, a color scheme, etc.) workflow…dynamically tailor…. machine learning… [66-67] types of enterprises… parameters…wherein drawings reads on emblem… )
Claims 5 and 14
Feldman and Kleinberg disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 10.
Feldman further discloses:
wherein generating the customized presentation comprises:
generating, by the one or more processors via the ML chatbot, customized insurance claim submission information indicating one or more of: (i) required insurance generating, by the one or more processors via the ML chatbot, customized insurance claim submission information indicating one or more of: (i) required insurance information, (ii) sources of insurance claim information, (iii) how to submit the insurance claim, and/or (iv) steps of an insurance claims experience. (See at least Feldman, Fig. 1-27, [32] collect information about insurance claim event [37]chatbot… request help via the display; [38] Fig. 11 … insurance claim routing… insurance claim resolution…[44] prior insurance claim… [64] visual treatments.. simplified language… proactively help the user to provide relevant information; Claim 4…wherein the user interface workflow is associated with at least one of: (i) a policy renewal, (ii) a potential insurance claim event, and (iii) insurance claims processing.)
Claims 6 and 15
Feldman and Kleinberg disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 10.
Feldman further discloses:
wherein generating the customized presentation comprises:
generating, by the one or more processors via the ML chatbot, help information. (See at least Feldman, [37]chatbot… request help via the display; [64] visual treatments.. simplified language… proactively help the user to provide relevant information)
Claims 9 and 18
Feldman and Kleinberg disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 10.
Feldman further discloses:
wherein the ML chatbot includes one or more of: (i) supervised learning, (ii) unsupervised learning, and/or (iii) reinforcement learning. (See at least Feldman, [31] the phrase "machine learning algorithm" might be associated with, for example, artificial intelligence, data mining, optimization, generalization,
supervised learning, unsupervised learning, semi-supervised learning, reinforcement learning, dimensionality reduction; Claim 11 and Claim17….machine learning algorithm is associated with at least one of: (i) artificial intelligence, (ii) data mining, (iii) optimization, (iv) generalization, (v) supervised learning, (vi) unsupervised learning, (vii) semi-supervised learning, (viii) reinforcement learning, and (ix) dimensionality reduction)
Claims 3, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman further in view of Kleinberg further in view of US 10,769,953 B1, Salles et al. hereinafter referred to as Salles.
Claims 3, 12, and 20
Feldman and Kleinberg disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1, 10 and 19.
Feldman further discloses two-way interaction including text or voice. (See at least Feldman, Fig. 1-25, [67] customized two way voice interaction….[71-73] intermediate data…text …speech…)
Feldman does not directly disclose the following; however, Salles teaches:
wherein generating the customized presentation comprises: generating, by the one or more processors via the ML chatbot, a blockchain entry associated with adding the customized presentation to a blockchain, and/or a metaverse component associated with experiencing the customized presentation in a metaverse.. ( See at least Salles, C9L40-C10L61, insurance information blockchain architecture…plug in…application programming interface… customized…. blockchain nodes)
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Feldman discloses a method and system of customized user interface that includes data related to risk relationships such as insurance and including a machine learning chatbot. Kleinberg discloses a method and apparatus of online retail of insurance products including a co-branding webpage/interface feature. Salles is another method and system of vehicle data sharing including using a blockchain plugin and a smart contract feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a customized user interface including an co-branded interface feature and using a blockchain plugin and a smart contract feature). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Feldman/ Kleinberg / Salles.
Claims 7-8 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feldman in view Kleinberg and further in view of US 2012/0124485 A1, Scherpa et al. hereinafter referred to as Scherpa.
Claims 7 and 16
Feldman and Kleinberg disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 6 and 15.
Feldman discloses an ML chatbot. (See at least Feldman, [31] machine learning….[37]chatbot…)
Feldman does not directly disclose the following; however, Scherpa teaches:
wherein the help information includes one or more links to initiate …session and the method further comprises:
receiving, by the one or more processors via … from the user device, a request to initiate…session based upon a user interaction with the one or more links via the user device; and (See at least Scherpa, Fig. 4-5, [26] insurance claims… associated agent …clicking an action associated with agent… chat window opens…)
initiating, by the one or more processors via the …, the…session with the user device in response to the request to initiate the … session. (See at least Scherpa, [26] insurance claims… associated agent …clicking an action associated with agent… chat window opens…)
The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Feldman discloses a method and system of customized user interface that includes data related to risk relationships such as insurance and including a machine learning chatbot. Kleinberg discloses a method and apparatus of online retail of insurance products including a co-branding webpage/interface feature. Scherpa is another method and system of embedding a collaboration window including a link to open a chat/collaboration window. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a customized user interface including a co-branded interface feature and initiating a collaboration/chat window). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Feldman/Kleinberg Scherpa.
Claims 8 and 17
Feldman and Kleinberg disclose the invention as claimed above in Claims 1 and 10.
Feldman discloses the customer representative/agent collecting/reviewing data with the customer as collected and the representative/agent being prompted as to how to collect the information through a workflow window. (See at least Feldman, Fig. 3 Fig. 9-10 Fig. 1-29; [23] customize user interface…[24]enterprise may want to collect information….about user… insurance…Typically … customer service representative…talk about these details…the workflow window tends to focus on the customer service representative….)
Feldman does not directly disclose the following; however, Sherpa teaches:
providing, by the one or more processors, the customized presentation to an enterprise device for review by a representative. (See at least Scherpa, Fig. 3 Broker Y reviewing Client data; Fig. 4, Chat with Bill, agent… chat window…opens; Fig. 5 determine… context… supporting information… displaying… [30-36] Bill… agent… chat… starting context)
In other words, the agent/representative of Scherpa reviews customer records as the interaction is occurring. (See at least Scherpa, Fig. 3). The Supreme Court has supported in KSR International Co. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550US___, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007), that merely applying a known technique to a known method, yield predictable results, render the claimed invention obvious over such combination. In the instant case, Feldman discloses a method and system of customized user interface that includes data related to risk relationships such as insurance. Kleinberg discloses a method and apparatus of online retail of insurance products including a co-branding webpage/interface feature. Scherpa is another method and system of embedding a collaboration window including a chat/records access which allows for agent/representative review of customer. One of ordinary skill in the art would clearly recognize that this combination would lead to a predictable result (i.e. a customized user interface including a co-branded interface feature and in which a customer service agent/representative review data/insurance data). As such the claimed invention is obvious over Feldman/ Kleinberg/Scherpa.
The Examiner notes that these limitations are not functionally involved in the steps of the recited method. Therefore these limitations are deemed to be nonfunctional descriptive material. The steps of the method would be performed the same regardless of what customer information was reviewed by the customer service agent/representative during the customer/representative interaction. The differences between the content of the Applicant’s invention and the prior art are merely subjective. Thus this nonfunctional descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability, see In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385, 217 USPQ 401, 404 (Fed. Cir. 1983); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 32 USPQ2d 1031 (Fed. Cir. 1994) also see MPEP 2106.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the agent/representative to review any type of information as taught in the prior art of Feldman in view of Kleinberg further in view of Scherpa because such information type does not functionally relate to the elements of the steps of the claimed method and because the subjective interpretation of information does not patentably distinguish the claimed invention.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20190043106 A1 Talmor- [103] train chatbot to customize an input based on information.. including images
US 7818399 B1 Ross – e- commerce system provides support pages to a host website that mimics the look and feel of an online store (i.e. website/webpage) including logos, color, page layout etc. (See generally and C13L3-16)
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 ASHA PUTTAIA H whose telephone number is (571)270-1352. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am to 5:30 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, Abhishek Vyas can be reached at 571-270-1836. 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.
/ASHA PUTTAIA H/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3691
Prosecution Insights