Detailed Action
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Action is in reply to the Amendment filed on 2/2/2026. Claims 1-8, 10-13, 16-18, 20-25, 28-29, 36-39 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 9, 14-15, 19, 26-27, and 30-35 are cancelled. Claims 1, 13, 37, and 39, have been amended. The prior art rejection has been overcome by amendment.
Priority
Applicant’s claim of priority to US Application 18126271 is acknowledged. The claims are therefore afforded an effective filing date of 3/24/2023.
Claim Rejection - 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 1-8, 10-13, 16-18, 20-25, 28-29, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 1-8, 10-13, 16-18, 20-25, 28-29, and 36 are directed to a process. Therefore, claims 1-8, 10-13, 16-18, 20-25, 28-29, and 36 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as described in MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claim 1 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
causing a page to be presented;
receiving, via the page, a request for service to a particular asset at a particular facility, wherein the particular facility is associated with a geographic location, and wherein the particular asset is associated with an asset type;
causing the page to present selectable elements associated with the request for service, the selectable elements being selectable via the page to specify an urgency level associated with the request for service, the urgency level indicating an importance of the request for service and determining weighting of performance attributes when ranking service providers;
receiving, via the page, a selection of one of the selectable elements;
determining, based on the selection of one of the selectable elements, the urgency level associated with the request for service;
calculating a score for each of a plurality of service providers capable of handling the request for service, wherein calculating the score comprises:
calculating a speed attribute for each service provider, wherein calculating the speed attribute comprises:
querying a storage for response time data associated with the service provider and the particular facility:
determining whether a threshold amount of response time data exists for the service provider for the particular facility:
in response to determining that the threshold amount of response time data exists for the service provider for the particular facility, calculating the speed attribute using the response time data for the particular facility; and
in response to determining that the threshold amount of response time data does not exist for the service provider for the particular facility, calculating the speed attribute using response time data from a geographic area that includes the geographic location associated with the particular facility;
calculating a price attribute based on a rate associated with each service provider;
applying a first weight to the speed attribute and a second weight to the price attribute, wherein the first weight and the second weight are determined based on the urgency level; and
combining the speed attribute and the price attribute based on the first weight and the second weight to generate the score;
generating a ranked list of service providers based on the score calculated for each of the plurality of service providers, wherein generating the ranked list further comprises:
identifying at least one service provider from the ranked list that is associated with less than the threshold amount of the response time data,
determining whether the at least one service provider satisfies a rate-based constraint relative to other service providers, and
conditionally including the at least one service provider in the ranked list based on satisfaction of the rate-based constraint;
presenting, via the page, at least a portion of the ranked list of service providers;
receiving, via the page, a selection of a particular service provider of the service providers in the ranked list; and
transmitting, to the particular service provider using one or more encryption techniques, a request to perform the requested service.
The above limitations recite the concept of service provider recommendations. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 1-8, 10-18, 20-25, 28-29, and 36 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
The method being computer-implemented
A user interface
A user device
User interface elements
A database
A server
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. For example, claims 2-3, 5, 8, 10, 13, 16-18, 20-22, 24, and 36 are directed to the abstract idea itself and do not amount to an integration according to any one of the considerations above. As for claims 4, 6-7, 11-12, 23, 25, 28-29, these claims are similar to the independent claims except that they recite the further additional elements of databases, further UI elements, a machine learning model. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
The method being computer-implemented
A user interface
A user device
User interface elements
A database
A server
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 37-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 37-38 are directed to a machine. Therefore, claims 37-38 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as described in MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claim 37 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
cause a page to be presented;
receive, via the page, a request for service to a particular asset at a particular facility, wherein the particular facility is associated with a geographic location, and wherein the particular asset is associated with an asset type;
cause the page to present selectable elements associated with the request for service, the selectable elements being selectable via the page to specify an urgency level associated with the request for service, the urgency level indicating an importance of the request for service and determining weighting of performance attributes when ranking service providers;
receive, via the page, a selection of one of the selectable elements;
determine, based on the selection of one of the selectable elements, the urgency level associated with the request for service;
calculate a score for each of a plurality of service providers capable of handling the request for service, wherein calculating the score comprises:
calculating a speed attribute for each service provider, wherein calculating the speed attribute comprises:
querying a storage for response time data associated with the service provider and the particular facility determining whether a threshold amount of response time data exists for the service provider for the particular facility:
in response to determining that the threshold amount of response time data exists for the service provider for the particular facility, calculating the speed attribute using the response time data for the particular facility; and
in response to determining that the threshold amount of response time data does not exist for the service provider for the particular facility, calculating the speed attribute using response time data from a geographic area that includes the geographic location associated with the particular facility;
calculating a price attribute based on a rate associated with each service provider;
applying a first weight to the speed attribute and a second weight to the price attribute, wherein the first weight and the second weight are determined based on the urgency level; and
combining the speed attribute and the price attribute based on the first weight and the second weight to generate the score;
generate a ranked list of service providers based on the score calculated for each of the plurality of service providers;
present, via the page, at least a portion of the ranked list of service providers;
receive, via the page, a selection of a particular service provider of the service providers in the ranked list; and
transmit, to the particular service provider using one or more secure transmission techniques, a request to perform the requested service.
The above limitations recite the concept of service provider recommendations. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 37-38 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
A computer system comprising memory comprising machine-readable instructions; and processing circuitry configured to execute the machine-readable instructions
A user interface
A user device
User interface elements
A database
A server
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. As for claim 38, this claim is similar to the independent claims except that they recite the further additional elements of further UI elements. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
A computer system comprising memory comprising machine-readable instructions; and processing circuitry configured to execute the machine-readable instructions
A user interface
A user device
User interface elements
A database
A server
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
First, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention. In the instant case, claims 39-40 are directed to an article of manufacture. Therefore, claims 39-40 are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 as described in MPEP 2106 (Step 1: YES).
The claims are then analyzed to determine whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception. In determining whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), as well as analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the judicial exception (Prong Two of Step 2A).
Claim 39 recites at least the following limitations that are believed to recite an abstract idea:
cause a page to be presented;
receive, via the page, a request for service to a particular asset at a particular facility, wherein the particular facility is associated with a geographic location, and wherein the particular asset is associated with an asset type;
cause the page to present selectable elements associated with the request for service, the selectable elements being selectable via the page to specify an urgency level associated with the request for service, the urgency level indicating an importance of the request for service and determining weighting of performance attributes when ranking service providers;
receive, via the page, a selection of one of the selectable elements;
determine, based on the selection of one of the selectable elements, the urgency level associated with the request for service;
calculate a score for each of a plurality of service providers capable of handling the request for service, wherein calculating the score comprises:
calculating a speed attribute for each service provider, wherein calculating the speed attribute comprises:
querying a storage for response time data associated with the service provider and the particular facility;
determining whether a threshold amount of response time data exists for the service provider for the particular facility;
in response to determining that the threshold amount of response time data exists for the service provider for the particular facility, calculating the speed attribute using the response time data for the particular facility; and
in response to determining that the threshold amount of response time data does not exist for the service provider for the particular facility, calculating the speed attribute using response time data from a geographic area that includes the geographic location associated with the particular facility;
calculate a price attribute based on a rate associated with each service provider;
apply a first weight to the speed attribute and a second weight to the price attribute, wherein the first weight and the second weight are determined based on the urgency level; and
combine the speed attribute and the price attribute based on the first weight and the second weight to generate the score;
generate a ranked list of service providers capable of handling the request for service based on the urgency level associated with the request for service, wherein a ranking of the ranked list is based on performance attributes associated with the service providers;
present, via the page, at least a portion of the ranked list of service providers;
receive, via the page, a selection of a particular service provider of the service providers in the ranked list; and
transmit, to the particular service provider using one or more transmission techniques, a request to perform the requested service.
The above limitations recite the concept of service provider recommendations. These limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions. Accordingly, under Prong One of Step 2A, claims 39-40 are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Prong Two of Step 2A is the next step in the eligibility analyses and looks at whether the abstract idea is integrated into a practical application. This requires an additional element or combination of additional elements in the claims to apply, rely on, or user the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
In this instance, the claims recite the additional elements of:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by processing circuity, cause the processing circuitry to perform steps
A user interface
A user device
User interface elements
A database
A server
However, these elements do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
In addition, the recitations are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception.
The dependent claims also fail to recite elements which amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. As for claim 40, this claim is similar to the independent claims except that they recite the further additional elements of further UI elements. These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and also do not amount to an improvement in the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field; apply the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine; or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort to monopolize the exception. Therefore, the dependent claims do not create an integration for the same reasons.
Step 2B is the next step in the eligibility analyses and evaluates whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept (i.e., “significantly more”) than the recited judicial exception. According to Office procedure, revised Step 2A overlaps with Step 2B, and thus, many of the considerations need not be re-evaluated in Step 2B because the answer will be the same.
In Step 2A, several additional elements were identified as additional limitations:
One or more non-transitory computer-readable storage media having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by processing circuity, cause the processing circuitry to perform steps
A user interface
A user device
User interface elements
A database
A server
These additional limitations, including the limitations in the dependent claims, do not amount to an inventive concept because they were already analyzed under Step 2A and did not amount to a practical application of the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims lack one or more limitations which amount to an inventive concept in the claims.
For these reasons, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Allowable over Prior Art of Record
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 16-18, 20-25, 28-29, 36-39 are allowable over prior art though rejected on other grounds [e.g. 35 USC §101] as discussed above. The combination of elements of the claim as a whole are not found in the prior art.
Claims 1-8, 10-13, 16-18, 20-25, 28-29, 36-39 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 USC §101 as set forth in this Office Action, and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is hereby concluded that the totality of the evidence, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
In the present application, claims 1-8, 10-13, 16-18, 20-25, 28-29, 36-39 are allowable over prior art. The most related prior art patent of record is Anderson et al (US 20210216979 A1), hereinafter Anderson, Catino et al (US 20160335694 A1), hereinafter Catino, and Reference U (NPL – see attached).
Anderson teaches a system and method for service requests [0055] in which a user inputs a type of service and a service location [0055] and a service time [0015]. The user can specify particular dates and times or time ranges when the service can be performed [0149], including specifying that a service is needed immediately for an emergency repair [0056]. Based on this information, the system determines service providers who can perform the task at the time and place of the user’s choosing [0028], and presents a ranked list of service providers to the user based on a plurality of criteria [0157-0160]. The user selects a service provider from the list [0183] and the service provider is notified that they have been selected to perform the service, along with information about the exact address and confirmation of the time and date [0187]. Anderson further teaches that criteria such as bid response time, price deviation [0082-0083] and other constraints [0070] may be used to determine matching service providers, with the bid price constituting an hourly rate [0147].
Catino teaches a labor marketplace system [Abstract] in which response time data of a service provider can be determined based on their arrival time at a requested facility [0078], and that this information can be used in determining metrics on the service provider [0075].
Reference U discusses service provider marketplaces where location-based information is used to determine timeliness and pricing is considered in making real-time recommendation, including for emergency repairs.
However, each of these references fail to disclose or render obvious at least the limitations of: calculating a score for each of a plurality of service providers capable of handling the request for service, wherein calculating the score comprises: calculating a speed attribute for each service provider, wherein calculating the speed attribute comprises: querying a database for response time data associated with the service provider and the particular facility: determining whether a threshold amount of response time data exists for the service provider for the particular facility: in response to determining that the threshold amount of response time data exists for the service provider for the particular facility, calculating the speed attribute using the response time data for the particular facility; and in response to determining that the threshold amount of response time data does not exist for the service provider for the particular facility, calculating the speed attribute using response time data from a geographic area that includes the geographic location associated with the particular facility calculating a price attribute based on a rate associated with each service provider applying a first weight to the speed attribute and a second weight to the price attribute, wherein the first weight and the second weight are determined based on the urgency level: and combining the speed attribute and the price attribute based on the first weight and the second weight to generate the score; identifying at least one service provider from the ranked list that is associated with less than the threshold amount of the response time data, determining whether the at least one service provider satisfies a rate-based constraint relative to other service providers, and conditionally including the at least one service provider in the ranked list based on satisfaction of the rate-based constraint.
Ultimately, the particular combination of limitations as claimed, is not anticipated nor rendered obvious in view of the cited references, and the totality of the prior art. While certain references may disclose more general concepts and parts of the claim, the prior art available does not specifically disclose the particular combination of these limitations.
The references, however, do not teach or suggest, alone or in combination the claimed invention. Examiner emphasizes that the prior art/additional art would only be combined and deemed obvious based on knowledge gleaned from the applicant’s disclosure. Such a reconstruction is improper (i.e. hindsight reasoning). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
The Examiner further emphasizes the claims as a whole and hereby asserts that the totality of the evidence fails to set forth, either explicitly or implicitly, an appropriate rationale for further modification of the evidence at hand to arrive at the claimed invention. The combination of features as claimed would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art as combining various references from the totality of evidence to reach the combination of features as claimed would be a substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias.
It is thereby asserted by Examiner that, in light of the above and further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims are allowable over prior art (though rejected under 35 USC §101) as the evidence at hand does not anticipate the claims and does not render obvious any further modification of the references to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/2/2026have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant argues with respect to Step 2A, Prong One that the claims recite “specific computational algorithms that are computer-oriented rather than reflecting how humans process data,” and that “these elements do not…recite any of the abstract ideas enumerated.”
Examiner disagrees. With reference to the rejection above, the claims recite steps, including those argued limitations for calculating speed attributes and scores, which amount to a concept for service provider recommendations that falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106, in that they recite commercial interactions, e.g. sales activities/behaviors, and managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, e.g., following rules or instructions.
Applicant argues with respect to Step 2A, Prong Two that the claims “address recognized technical problems in data-driven ranking systems: cold-start and sparse-data bias,” arguing that “the claimed invention solves this technical problem through a localized data hierarchy that conditionally expands data queries from facility-specific to broader geographic areas when data is insufficient.” Applicant further argues that claims improve “system robustness by preventing automatic exclusion of providers while maintain scoring accuracy through technical constraints.”
Examiner disagrees. With reference to the rejection above, the argued limitations are part of the abstract idea itself, such that the alleged improvement from considering different data sets based on the amount of available data is at best a business improvement rather than a technological one. Rather than improving “the functioning of computer database and scoring systems” as alleged, the claims merely invoke the additional elements at a high level of generality as mere instructions to apply the abstract idea to a technological environment, creating only a general linking to computer technology [MPEP 2106.05(f)].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee 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 THOMAS JOSEPH SULLIVAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9736. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri 8-5 PT.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/T.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3689
/MARISSA THEIN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3689