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 a FINAL office action in response to the Applicant’s response filed 3 July 2025.
Claims 1-5 have been amended.
Claims 1-5 are currently pending and have been examined.
Specification
The Applicant’s amendment changing the title of the Application to “Server for payment provision of a vehicle” has been accepted and the previous objection has been removed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 16 April 2025 with regards to the 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the claims, the Applicant argues on pages 8 and 9 of their response, “Contrary to the Office Action’s position that the features of independent claim 1 recite limitations that cover certain methods of organizing human activity (Office Action at p. 18), independent claim 1 now affirmatively recites the steps of the integration between constituent components of the information processing system, and in particular, between the at least one processor and mobile terminal comprising an application including instructions for execution thereon and a second terminal, and more particularly, the at least one processor configured to transmit design information to the second terminal, the design information indicating a design rule relating to a certified product of the component; and the second terminal is configured to receive the design information from the at least one processor and produce the component in accordance with the design rule relating to the certified product of the component. Moreover, independent claim 1 has been amended to positively recite detachably fixing the component to the vehicle by fixing a section of the component to a fixable section of the vehicle. Such features do not reasonably the management of commercial activities, such as managing business relations and sales activities, as asserted by the Office Action at p. 18, which is an overgeneralization of the claims.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the grounds of the previous and current rejection, and the bounds of the claimed invention. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claims now recite the integration between constituent components of the information processing system, particularly, between the processor of a server, mobile terminal comprising, and a second terminal; the Examiner notes that this is merely using computers as tools to carry out the abstract idea. In this case, the Applicant has argued that the processor of the server is configured to transmit design information to the second terminal, and that the second terminal is configured to receive the design information from the server and produce the component in accordance with the design rule relating to the certified product of the component; which the Examiner notes is a merely the use of a computers to transmit an order to a producing entity, which receives the order and produces the ordered product. As such, the mere use of computers to act as parties, does not render an otherwise abstract idea, not abstract. It is noted that MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) states, “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping.” (Emphasis added). In addition, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B) additionally states, “An example of a claim reciting a commercial or legal interaction, where the interaction is an agreement in the form of contracts, is found in buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d. 1350, 112 USPQ2d 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The agreement at issue in buySAFE was a transaction performance guaranty, which is a contractual relationship. 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096. The patentee claimed a method in which a computer operated by the provider of a safe transaction service receives a request for a performance guarantee for an online commercial transaction, the computer processes the request by underwriting the requesting party in order to provide the transaction guarantee service, and the computer offers, via a computer network, a transaction guaranty that binds to the transaction upon the closing of the transaction. 765 F.3d at 1351-52, 112 USPQ2d at 1094. The Federal Circuit described the claims as directed to an abstract idea because they were "squarely about creating a contractual relationship--a ‘transaction performance guaranty’." 765 F.3d at 1355, 112 USPQ2d at 1096.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the mere use of computers interacting with each other to perform a commercial activity, does not prevent an otherwise abstract idea from reciting an abstract idea, and instead, it is irrelevant to the determination, as the MPEP shows multiple instances of computer implemented commercial activity as falling into this grouping. Additionally, it is noted that MPEP 2106.05(f) states, “A commonplace business method or mathematical algorithm being applied on a general purpose computer, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208, 223, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1983 (2014); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 64, 175 USPQ 673, 674 (1972); Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015),” (Emphasis added) as an example of where the courts have found the additional elements to be mere instructions to apply an exception, because they do no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. As such, merely invoking the use of a server to transmit to a computer an order, wherein the computer is the computer of a producer which produces an ordered item upon receiving the order, is merely invoking the computer as a tool to perform an existing process; therefore, the Examiner is not persuaded of error. Second, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claims have been amended to positively recite detachably fixing the component to the vehicle by fixing a section of the component to a fixable section of the vehicle, however the Examiner is not persuaded that this changes the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Notably, the claim has been amended to state, “An Information processing system comprising… detachably fixing the component to the vehicle by fixing a section of the component to a fixable section.” With regards to this, it is noted that the Applicant has directed the claim towards the statutory class of “a system,” however they then claimed a step, as if the claim was directed to a statutory class of a “method,” and thus this element is indefinite and unclear, as it’s unclear how the claimed system would incorporate a claimed step, and specifically, what component of the system would perform the step. With this indefinite element, it is noted that claim will additionally be rejected in view of 112(b). With regards to the analysis under 101, the Examiner notes that detachably fixing the component is deemed extrasolution activity, which would be an additional element beyond the scope of the recited abstract idea, and this, would not be analyzed under whether the claim recites “commercial activity.” Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 9 of their response, “Moreover, amended independent claim 1 recites more than just mere general linking the use of the alleged abstract idea to a particular technological environment (Office Action at pp. 18- 19). Rather, this claim has been amended to specifically recite patent-eligible details by imposing meaningful limits on practicing the alleged abstract idea by reciting not only the interaction between the at least one processor and the application including instructions for execution on a mobile terminal and the second terminal to carry out particular operations, but also taking into account affirmative and tangible actions including detachably fixing the component to the vehicle by fixing a section of the component to a fixable section of the vehicle, and the second terminal being configured to not only receive the design information from the at least one processor but act thereon and physically produce the component in accordance with the design rule relating to the certified product of the component.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the grounds of the previous and current rejection, and the bounds of the claimed invention. First, with respect to the Applicant’s argument that the claims have been amended to encompass more than just mere general linking the use of the alleged abstract idea to a particular technological environment, it is noted that the Applicant’s amendments with regards to interactions between a processor of a server, a mobile terminal, and the second terminal, as discussed above, are merely a further recitation of “apply it,” and thus would not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, which is separate the narrowing the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, as previously rejected. Second, with regards to the Applicant’s argument that the claims further have been amended to include detachably fixing the component to the vehicle, and the second terminal being configured to physically produce the component in accordance with the design rule relating to the certified product of the component, the Examiner notes that this is determined to be extrasolution activity. Particularly, the elements have been determined to be insignificant application, and thus would not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
The Applicant continues on page 9 of their response, “Still further, when the claims are viewed as an ordered combination and as a whole, they recite significantly more than the alleged abstract idea. In particular, as a consequence of transmitting, by the at least one processor, design information to the second terminal in which the design information indicates a design rule relating to a certified product of the component, the second terminal is configured to receive the design information from the at least one processor and produce the component in accordance with the design rule relating to the certified product of the component. Moreover, detachably fixing the component to the vehicle by fixing a section of the component to a fixable section of the vehicle allows for the component including a sofa to be arranged in the vehicle cabin space rearward of a driver seat and a passenger seat of the vehicle. The combination of these additional claim elements, when viewed in its entirety with the rest of the claimed elements, do not constitute well-understood, routine, or conventional activity in the field.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s interpretation of the requirements under 35 USC 101, the grounds of the previous and current rejection, and the bounds of the claimed invention. First, with regards to the Applicant’s assertion that the claim amendments, including the second terminal is configured to produce the component in accordance with the design rule and detachably fixing the component to the vehicle, add significantly more to the abstract idea because they are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity, the Examiner is not persuaded. Notably, the Applicant has provided no reasoning or evidence to support that these elements are not well-understood, routine, or conventional activity; and instead, merely made a conclusory statement that these elements are not. Second, with regards to these argued elements, the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s specification describes these elements as well-understood, routine, and conventional. Particularly, paragraph 23 states, “The supplier terminal 80 is a terminal managed by a supplier who is authorized to produce a certified product module 35 certified by a business that manages a module factory. As an example, when producing the certified product module 35, the supplier pays a predetermined registration fee to the business operator managing the server 20, whereby the production of the certified product is permitted. Moreover, the server 20 transmits design information indicating a design rule relating to a certified product of the module 35 to the supplier terminal 80 managed by the supplier authorized to produce the certified product, and provides the design rule relating to the certified product to the supplier. This enables the quality of the module 35 to be maintained at a predetermined standard consistent with the genuine module 35, even if the certified product of the module 35 is produced by the supplier.” (Emphasis added). The Applicant continues in paragraph 41, “Moreover, the provision section 21D transmits design information indicating a design rule relating to a certified product of the module 35 to the supplier terminal 80, and provides the design rule relating to the certified product to the supplier. Moreover, in a case in which the vehicle 30 in which the certified product is disposed in the vehicle cabin space, or the certified product, is provided to the user, the provision section 21D provides the remuneration set by the setting section 21C to the supplier. As an example, in a case in which the provision information transmitted from the store terminal 50 includes an indication that a certified product has been provided, the provision section 21 D remits the amount equivalent to the remuneration from the account of the business operator managing the server 20 to the account of the supplier.” (Emphasis added). The Applicant’s specification continues in paragraph 19, “The module 35 is standardized according to the vehicle 30, and is provided with a fixable section (not illustrated) that is fixable to a fixing section (not illustrated) provided in a vehicle cabin space of the vehicle 30. The module 35 can be disposed in the vehicle 30 by fixing the fixing section of the module 35 to the fixable section of the vehicle 30. Note that the module 35 is detachably fixed to the vehicle 30. The module 35 is an example of a "component".” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, the Applicant’s specification describes at a high level of generality the supplier producing the component with respect to a provided design rule, and that the component is fixed to a fixing module of the vehicle. This description is at such a high level of generality, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand it to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in order to satisfy 112a. Specifically, the Applicant’s disclosure does not set forth any details or steps about how a second terminal is to produce the component (such as the specific manufacturing process), nor does it describe any details or steps of how the component is fixed to the vehicle; and instead merely asserts that these elements are performed. As such, the Applicant’s disclosure supports the Examiner’s findings that these elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional; and that the Applicant has failed to show that these elements add significantly more to the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that this rejection is proper.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant claims, “the second terminal is configured to receive the design information from the at least one processor and produce the component in accordance with the design rule relating to the certified product of the component.” The Applicant has failed to provide a written description that would convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that they were in possession of the claimed invention at the time of filing. In particular, the Applicant has referred to the second terminal as the device that produces the component, which is not supported by the original written description. In particular, the specification states in paragraph 23 states, “The supplier terminal 80 is a terminal managed by a supplier who is authorized to produce a certified product module 35 certified by a business that manages a module factory. As an example, when producing the certified product module 35, the supplier pays a predetermined registration fee to the business operator managing the server 20, whereby the production of the certified product is permitted. Moreover, the server 20 transmits design information indicating a design rule relating to a certified product of the module 35 to the supplier terminal 80 managed by the supplier authorized to produce the certified product, and provides the design rule relating to the certified product to the supplier. This enables the quality of the module 35 to be maintained at a predetermined standard consistent with the genuine module 35, even if the certified product of the module 35 is produced by the supplier.” (Emphasis added). The Applicant continues in paragraph 41, “Moreover, the provision section 21D transmits design information indicating a design rule relating to a certified product of the module 35 to the supplier terminal 80, and provides the design rule relating to the certified product to the supplier. Moreover, in a case in which the vehicle 30 in which the certified product is disposed in the vehicle cabin space, or the certified product, is provided to the user, the provision section 21D provides the remuneration set by the setting section 21C to the supplier. As an example, in a case in which the provision information transmitted from the store terminal 50 includes an indication that a certified product has been provided, the provision section 21 D remits the amount equivalent to the remuneration from the account of the business operator managing the server 20 to the account of the supplier.” (Emphasis added). As shown and emphasized here, Applicant has described the supplier as producing the component, which is not the same as the supplier terminal (as claimed) producing the component. Claims 2-5 depend on claim 1, and therefore are rejected via dependency. Appropriate correction is required.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant claims, “An information processing system comprising: a mobile terminal comprising an application including instructions for execution thereon: a second terminal; and a server comprising: at least one processor, the at least one processor being configured to… detachably fixing the component to the vehicle by fixing a section of the component to a fixable section of the vehicle.” The Applicant has rendered this claim indefinite and unclear for failing to particularly define their invention. In this case, the Applicant has rendered the claim unclear for directing the claim towards a system that comprises components of a mobile terminal, a second terminal, and a server; however, the Applicant’s claim goes on to recite a method step of fixing the component to the vehicle, rendering it unclear as to what component of the claimed system is performing the step of fixing the component to the vehicle. For the purpose of examination, the Examiner will interpret equipment of an installer to install the equipment. Claims 2-5 depend on claim 1 and fail to remedy its deficiencies, and therefore are rejected via dependency.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite at least a mobile terminal comprising an application including instructions for execution thereon; a second terminal; and a server comprising at least one processor being configured to: acquire arrangement information related to a layout of a component disposed in a vehicle cabin space in a vehicle, the arrangement information being determined by a user wishing to use the vehicle by selective input to the application that is configured to customize an interior of the vehicle cabin space of the vehicle; transmit design information on the second terminal, the design information indicating a design rule relating to a certified product of the component; present display, to the user, a plurality of contract formats related to payment for provision of the vehicle in which the component is disposed in the customized interior of the vehicle cabin space in accordance with the arrangement information, or provision of the component according to the arrangement information, wherein: the at least one processor is in data communication with the mobile terminal, the arrangement information includes a type, a layout, dimensions, and a color of the component disposed in the interior of the vehicle cabin space, and the application is configured to stop selection of a desired contract format and transition, in response to a button configured to stop the selection, a screen of a display to a predetermined content; detachably fixing the component to the vehicle by fixing a section of the component to a fixable section of the vehicle, the second terminal is configured to receive the design information from the at least one processor and produce the component in accordance with the design rule relating to the certified product of the component, the component including a sofa that is arranged in the vehicle cabin space rearward of a driver seat and a passenger seat of the vehicle, the at least one processor being further configured to determine whether or not the mobile terminal has accepted selection of the desired contract format through interaction via the selective input with the application, and decide whether to end processing of the display of the desired contract format or wait until receipt of acceptance of the selection; and the at least one processor being further configured to determine whether provision information has been acquired from a store terminal and including an indication that a certified product has been provided, and set remuneration for a supplier in response to determining that the provision information has been acquired; and the application is further configured to select whether or not to use recycled materials in the component, and the arrangement information further including a usability of the recycled materials, identification information that identifies the user, and a usage date and time indicative of when the user decides to use the vehicle or the component.
The limitations of acquiring arrangement information related to a layout of a component disposed in a vehicle cabin space in a vehicle, the arrangement information being determined by a user wishing to use the vehicle by selective input; transmitting design information to a second terminal that indicates a design rule; presenting a plurality of contract formats related to payment for provision of the vehicle in which the component is disposed in the vehicle cabin space in accordance with the arrangement information, or provision of the component according to the arrangement information, wherein the arrangement information includes parameters of the component modified; determining whether or not the terminal has accepted selection of the desired contract format through interaction, and deciding whether to end processing of the display of the desired contract format or wait until receipt of acceptance of the selection, determining whether provision information has been acquired from a store terminal and including an indication that a certified product has been provided, and setting remuneration for a supplier in response to determining that the provision information has been acquired; and selecting whether or not to use recycled materials in the component; as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, encompasses the management of commercial activities (managing business relations and sales activities), with the use of generic computer elements as tools (mobile terminal, second terminal, server, application, processor, display). In particular, acquiring arrangement information related to a layout of a component disposed in a vehicle cabin space in a vehicle, and presenting a plurality of contract formats related to payment for provision of the vehicle or provision of the component according to the arrangement information; encompasses acquiring order information from a customer, and presenting them with contract information to the customer; which is the managing of commercial activity. In addition, transmitting design information to a supplier terminal, encompasses informing suppliers of job specifications/rules, which is the managing of commercial activity. In addition, the claims recite determining whether or not the terminal has accepted selection of the desired contract format through interaction, and deciding whether to end processing of the display of the desired contract format or wait until receipt of acceptance of the selection; encompasses presenting contract offers and determining what selection, if any, has been chosen, and deciding to keep presenting or stopping the offers, which is the managing of commercial activity. In addition, the claims recite determining whether provision information has been acquired from a store terminal and including an indication that a certified product has been provided, and setting remuneration for a supplier in response to determining that the provision information has been acquired; which encompasses determining whether an order has been placed by a seller and that a certified product will be provided, and setting the payment in response to the product being provided; which is confirming the source of an order and a product, and setting the payment, which is managing of commercial activity. In addition, the claims further recite selecting whether to use recycled materials or not in the component; which encompasses selecting specifications for an order, which is managing of commercial activity. As such, the claims elements that fall onto the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not recite additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that improve the functioning of a computer, another technology, or technical field. The claims do not recite the use of, or apply the abstract idea with, a particular machine, the claims do not recite the transformation of an article from one state or thing into another. Finally, the claims do not recite additional elements that apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Instead, the claims recite the use of generic computer elements (mobile terminal, second terminal, server, application, processor, display) as tools to carry out the abstract idea. In addition, the presentation of content (predetermined content) after selecting options (stop selection option) on a display is deemed extrasolution activity. In addition, the claims further recite the type of component (detachably fixed to a fixable section of the vehicle, standardized, a sofa) which merely narrows the field of use by defining the product that is requested and purchased. In addition, the claims further recite detachably fixing the component to the vehicle by fixing a section of the component to a fixable section of the vehicle, and producing the component; which are deemed extra solution activity. In addition, further defining the arrangement information, is deemed to narrow the field of use by defining the information provided in an order. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using generic computer elements and machines to perform the steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. In addition, the presentation of content after selecting options on a display is deemed well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See at least paragraph 51 of the Applicant’s original specification that describes the process at a high level of generality, which one would understand to be conventional in order to satisfy 112a). In addition, the claims additionally recite detachably fixing the component to the vehicle by fixing a section of the component to a fixable section of the vehicle, and producing the component, which are deemed well-understood, routine, and conventional activity (See paragraphs 19, 23, and 41 of the Applicant’s original specification that describes the process at a high level of generality, which one would understand to be conventional in order to satisfy 112a). The claims are directed to non-patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-5, when taken individually and in an ordered combination with the abstract idea, do not recite additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, or add significantly more to the abstract idea. In particular, the claims further recite the type of contract formats presented (i.e. a purchase contract, a subscription contract or a lease contract, and a car rental contract or a car sharing contract for the vehicle), which merely further recites the abstract idea of managing commercial activity (presenting contracts), and thus falls onto the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 2). In addition, the claims further recite setting remuneration for a provider commissioned to provide the vehicle and, transferring the remuneration to a provider; which further encompasses setting the price of services/products, and having a customer pay them to a provider; which is managing commercial activity, and thus falls onto the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 3). In addition, the claims further recite adjusting the remuneration based on an amount of work performed; which encompasses setting a price based on the amount of work that needs to be done, which is managing commercial activity, and thus falls onto the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 4). In addition, the claims further recite transferring the renumeration of the supplier; which encompasses setting a price and paying parties, which is managing commercial activity, and thus falls onto the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas (claim 5).
Novelty/Non-Obviousness
Claims 1-5 are allowed over the prior art of record, however remain rejected under other statutes. In particular, the specific ordered combination of elements of claim 1 are determined to be novel and non-obvious.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL P HARRINGTON whose telephone number is (571)270-1365. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey can be reached on (571) 272-4602. 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.
Michael Harrington
Primary Patent Examiner
8 September 2025
Art Unit 3628
/MICHAEL P HARRINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628