DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response received on 12 August 2025.
Claims 1 and 11 have been amended.
Claims 12 and 13 have been canceled.
Claim 14 is new and has been added.
Claims 1-11 and 14 are pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on 12 August 2025, has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
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 1-11 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because 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.
Under step 1, it is determined whether the claims are directed to a statutory category of invention (see MPEP 2106.03(II)). In the instant case, claims 1-10 and 14 are directed to a method, and claim 11 is directed to a system.
While the claims fall within statutory categories, under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis (MPEP 2106.04), the claimed invention recites an abstract idea of determining and recommending a hair coloration treatment product. Specifically, representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of:
- acquiring, one or more images of the hair of the user and processing the one or more images to determine the initial hair color of the user;
- obtaining the desired hair color of the user;
- obtaining a first model for predicting hair color lightening results for at least one hair color lightening treatment,
wherein the first model associates the at least one hair color lightening treatment with sets comprising each a first starting hair color and a corresponding lightened hair color achieved when applying the hair color lightening treatment onto hair having the first starting hair color,
wherein the hair color lightening treatment comprises application of at least one among:
a hair lightening product to hair having the first starting hair color and ultraviolet radiation to hair having the first starting hair color,
wherein the first model is built using hair colors measured on hair having first starting hair colors that have been exposed to the at least one hair color lightening treatment and
wherein to provide predictions even for combinations of hair lightening treatments and starting hair colors for which no experimental results are available;
- determining, using the first model:
- a lightened hair color achieved when applying the at least one hair color lightening treatment onto the hair of the user,
wherein the lightened hair color differs from the desired hair color by less than a first amount,
wherein the first amount is a first distance calculated in a color space; and
- when the lighted hair color differs from the desired hair color by less than the first amount, an intermediate hair color obtained when applying the at least one hair color lightening treatment onto the hair of the user,
wherein the intermediate hair color corresponds to a starting hair color for which there exists at least one first hair coloration composition adapted for changing the starting hair color into a dyed hair color differing from the desired hair color by less than a second amount,
wherein the second amount is a second distance calculated in the color space, and
– determining and outputting treatment parameters for application of the determined hair coloration treatment to the hair of the user, wherein the hair coloration treatment comprises one among:
a recommendation to apply the at least one hair color lightening treatment and
a recommendation to apply the at least one hair color lightening treatment combined with the at least one first hair coloration composition.
Under revised Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, it is necessary to evaluate whether the claim recites a judicial exception by referring to subject matter groupings articulated in 2106.04(a) of the MPEP. Even in consideration of the analysis, the claims recite an abstract idea. Representative claim 1 recites the abstract idea of determining and recommending a hair coloration treatment product as noted above. This concept is considered to be a method of organizing human activity. Certain methods of organizing human activity include “fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II). In this case, the abstract idea recited in representative claim 1 is a certain method of organizing human activity because it relates to sale activities since the claims rely on the steps to determine and recommend a hair coloration treatment product based on acquiring images of the user’s hair to determine the initial hair color of the user, obtaining the desired hair color of the user, predicting hair color lightening results for a hair color lightening treatment, where the hair color lightening treatment comprises an application of a hair lightening product to the hair having a starting hair color and ultraviolet radiation to the hair, providing predictions for hair lightening treatments and starting hair colors, determining a lightening hair color achieved by applying the hair color treatment on the hair, determining an intermediate hair color obtained when applying the at least one hair color lightening treatment on the hair, and determining and outputting treatment parameters for application of the determined hair coloration treatment [i.e., a coloration product] to the hair of the user, comprising of a recommendation to apply the at least one hair color lightening treatment and a recommendation to apply the at least one hair color lightening treatment combined with the at least one first hair coloration composition, thereby making this a sales activity or behavior.
Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea.
It is also noted that the abstract idea is also related to managing personal behavior, or interactions between people, as stated in MPEP 2106.04(c), as the claims are directly related to recommending a user to apply the at least one hair color lightening treatment and also recommending to a user to apply the at least one hair color lightening treatment combined with at least one first hair coloration composition. For instance, the step of a recommendation to apply the least one hair color lightening treatment and a recommendation to apply the at least on hair color lightening treatment combined with at least one first hair coloration composition, are steps that would be considered interactions between people or managing personal behaviors, such as recommending to apply a hair color lightening treatment. Therefore, the claims are related to managing personal behaviors or interactions between people.
Further, the steps of wherein the first amount is a distance calculated in a color space and wherein the second amount is a second distance calculated in the color space, would be considered a mathematical concepts. The MPEP defines “mathematical concepts” as mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)). The claim recites the steps of a first and second distance calculated in the color space, which would fall within the “mathematical concepts” grouping and directed to a mathematical calculations. For example, paragraph [0019] of the specification describes the calculations that are used to determine distances within a color space. Thus, representative claim 1 recites an abstract idea directed to a mathematical concept.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception, it is then necessary to evaluate whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of that exception. MPEP 2106.04(d). The courts have identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application include limitations merely reciting the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(f). MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, representative claim 1 includes additional elements: a processor and at least one optical sensor, the processor, via the at least one optical sensor, the first model is a continuous model built using predictive analytics, and a user interface.
Although reciting such additional elements, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. Similar to the limitations of Alice, representative claim 1 merely recites a commonplace business method (i.e., determining and recommending a hair coloration treatment product) being applied on a general-purpose computer using general purpose computer technology. MPEP 2106.05(f). While the claims recite using a continuous model that is built using predictive analytics, the recitations are results based in nature and do not include details as to how the model is functioning beyond known functions. Thus, the claimed additional elements are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. Since the additional elements merely include instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, the abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application.
Under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, if it is determined that the claims recite a judicial exception that is not integrated into a practical application of that exception, it is then necessary to evaluate the additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether they provide an inventive concept (i.e., whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the exception itself). MPEP 2106.05. In this case, as noted above, the additional elements of a processor, the processor, and the first model is a continuous model built using predictive analytics recited in independent claim 1 are recited and described in a generic manner merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer or merely use a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Even when considered as an ordered combination, the additional elements of representative claim 1 do not add anything that is not already present when they considered individually. In Alice, the court considered the additional elements “as an ordered combination,” and determined that “the computer components…‘ad[d] nothing…that is not already present when the steps are considered separately’… [and] [v]iewed as a whole…[the] claims simply recite intermediated settlement as performed by a generic computer.” Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, (2014) (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1972). Similarly, when viewed as a whole, representative claim 1 simply conveys the abstract idea itself facilitated by generic computing components. Therefore, under Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, there are no meaningful limitations in representative claim 1 that transforms the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As such, representative claim 1 is ineligible.
Independent claim 11 is similar in nature to representative claim 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1 analysis is the same as above for representative claim 1. It is noted that in independent claim 11 includes the additional elements of a user interface, a data processing unit configured to store and run a program. The Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements in claim 11, as being anything other than generic elements. Thus, the claimed additional elements of claim 11 are merely generic elements and the implementation of the elements merely amounts to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. As such, the additional elements of claim 11 do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 11, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer.
As such, claim 11 is ineligible.
Dependent claims 2-10 and 14, depending from claim 1, do not aid in the eligibility of the independent claim 1. The claims of 2-10 and 14 merely act to provide further limitations of the abstract idea and are ineligible subject matter.
It is noted that dependent claim 14 includes the additional elements of a non-transitory computer-readable medium instructions which, when executed by one or more processors in communication with at least one optical sensor and at least one treatment control interface, cause the one or more processors to execute the method. Applicant’s specification does not provide any discussion or description of the claimed additional elements in claim 14 as being anything other than a generic element. The claimed additional elements, individually and in combination do not integrate into a practical application and do not provide an inventive concept because they are merely being used to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer (see MPEP 2106.05(f)). Accordingly, claim 14 is directed towards the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional elements of claim 14, considered individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept because they merely amount to no more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer. It is further noted that the remaining dependent claims 2-10 do not recite any further additional elements to consider in the analysis, and therefore would not provide additional elements that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and would not provide an inventive concept.
As such, dependent claims 2-10 and 14 are ineligible.
Reasons for Allowable Subject Matter
Prior Art Considerations:
Upon review of the evidence at hand, it is concluded that the totality of evidence in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of the Applicant’s invention.
Regarding the independent claims, the features are as follows:
when the lightened hair color differs from the desired hair color by less than the first amount, an intermediate hair color obtained when applying the at least one hair color lightening treatment onto the hair of the user, wherein the intermediate hair color corresponds to a starting hair color for which there exists at least one first hair coloration composition adapted for changing the starting hair color into a dyed hair color differing from the desired hair color by less than a second amount, wherein the second amount is a second distance calculated in the color space,
The most apposite prior art of record includes Marapane, S., et al. (PGP No. US 2002/0010556 A1), in view of Grossinger, N., et al. (PGP No. US 2006/0195300 A1), and Luo, J., et al. (Patent No. US 12,062,141 B2), to teach a method for hair coloration treatment for a user.
Marapane discloses a method for identifying a coloring agent based on a first hair condition of a user (Marapane, paragraph [0029]), which involves measuring colors of the user hair with values that are stored, and where the user is prompted to further provide a color that most resembles their hair color (Marapane, see: paragraph [0031]). Further, Marapane describes that the user is also prompted to choose a color from an achievable end colors that are displayed for the user (Marapane, paragraph [0032]).The method also describes that color values are averaged and stored for later predictions in a color prediction model, where the color prediction model may accurately represent the post results of the coloring or dying of the user’s hair (Marapane, see: paragraphs [0031]-[0032]). Once the selection of the desired achievable hair color has been determined, the color prediction model indicates the most accurate post-dying color for the user (Marapane, paragraph [0032]), and using the Lab color readings, outputs the specific achievable color combination (Marapane, paragraphs [0073]-[0074]). The model of Marapane also considers when the user inputs they would like a lightening color for their hair (Marapane, paragraphs [0032] and [0040] and [0041]), Once the achievable hair colors have been determined by the model, the recommendations of the color treatments are outputted to the user (Marapane, see: paragraph [0032] and FIG. 12). Although Marapane describes generating models to predict hair lightening treatments with starting hair colors, and built from experiment data, Marapane does not disclose that the models are continuous, and does not disclose that the data is from when no experiment results are available, and further, does not disclose or describe the allowable features indicated above.
The reference of Grossinger does describe features of an iterative model that indicates a total reflectance of the hair and the bleaching time to lighten the hair, where the model can predict a final reflectance spectrum of a hair sample in order to view the spectral changes that occur from the treatment to the hair (Grossinger, see: paragraphs [0123]-[0124]). Although Grossinger describes an iterative model, the reference does not describe the allowable features as indicated above.
Next, the reference of Luo describes products that can be applied to a user’s body, such as to the face, to convey or achieve the visual representation of a particular look or a style chosen, where the steps include just two smooth steps that can be utilized by the user to create the achievable look (Luo, see: paragraphs [0025] and [0194]). Although Luo describes this feature of minimizing the amount of steps to achieve a look, Luo does not mention or describe the allowable features as indicated. None of the references disclose or teach the allowable subject matter of when the lightened hair color differs from the desired hair color by less than the first amount, an intermediate hair color obtained when applying the at least one hair color lightening treatment onto the hair of the user, wherein the intermediate hair color corresponds to a starting hair color for which there exists at least one first hair coloration composition adapted for changing the starting hair color into a dyed hair color differing from the desired hair color by less than a second amount, wherein the second amount is a second distance calculated in the color space,
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. Moreover, the combination of features of independent claims, would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art because any combination of evidence at hand to reach the combination of features as claimed would require substantial reconstruction of Applicant’s claimed invention relying on improper hindsight bias and resulting in an inappropriate combination.
It is hereby asserted by the Examiner, that in light of the above and in further deliberation over all of the evidence at hand, that the claims recite allowable subject matter, 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.
Examiner’s Comment
The Examiner notes that the non-patent literature (NPL) document, titled Virtual Hair Color Try On Tool, published on www.redken.com in 2017, documented on PTO-892 form as reference U, and hereinafter referred to as Virtual Hair, renders and an online user interface that allows a user to use a specific tool for trying on different hair colors using either the user’s photograph, a model existing in the system, or can live access an image of the user in a “selfie mode”, where the results will vary with the user’s current hair condition and color. Although Virtual Hair describes such features, the NPL does not disclose or teach the allowable features that are stated above, and Virtual Hair does not remedy the deficiencies of the noted prior art.
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 101, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 12 August 2025, have been fully considered but are not considered persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on pages 7-8 of the remarks stating that “The Examiner’s characterization of the invention as a ‘method of organizing human activity’ or ‘mathematical concept’ does not reflect the amended claim language,” and “These are technical operations in a technical field, not abstract mental processes,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under Step 2A, Prong 1 of the eligibility analysis, the claims recite and are directed to an abstract idea of determining and recommending a hair coloration treatment product. The abstract idea in this case falls into the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity because the claims are related to sales activities or behaviors. The claims rely on the steps in order to determine and recommend a hair coloration treatment product based on acquiring images of the user’s hair to determine the initial hair color of the user, obtaining the desired hair color of the user, predicting hair color lightening results for a hair color lightening treatment, where the hair color lightening treatment comprises an application of a hair lightening product to the hair having a starting hair color and ultraviolet radiation to the hair, providing predictions for hair lightening treatments and starting hair colors, determining a lightening hair color achieved by applying the hair color treatment on the hair, determining an intermediate hair color obtained when applying the at least one hair color lightening treatment on the hair, and determining and outputting treatment parameters for application of the determined hair coloration treatment [i.e., a coloration product] to the hair of the user, comprising of a recommendation to apply the at least one hair color lightening treatment and a recommendation to apply the at least one hair color lightening treatment combined with the at least one first hair coloration composition, which are activities of sales activities or behaviors. Further, the abstract idea is considered to be managing personal behavior or interactions between people because the claims are specifically related to recommending that a user apply the at least one hair color lightening treatment and also recommending to a user to apply the at least one hair color lightening treatment combined with at least one first hair coloration composition, in the claimed steps of a recommendation to apply the least one hair color lightening treatment and a recommendation to apply the at least on hair color lightening treatment combined with at least one first hair coloration composition. The abstract idea also recites steps that are considered to be mathematical concepts, such as wherein the first amount is a distance calculated in a color space and wherein the second amount is a second distance calculated in the color space, would be considered a mathematical concepts. The claimed steps of a first and a second distance calculated in the color are considered to be mathematical calculations, which is further explained in the Applicant’s specification (see paragraph [0019] of the specification), describing calculations that are used to determine distances within a color space. Therefore, even when considering the amended claim language, the claims are still directed to and recite an abstract idea that falls into the enumerated grouping of a certain method of organizing human activity, related to sales activities or behaviors, and managing personal interactions between people, and further falls into a mathematical concept.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments on page 8 of the remarks stating “Even if a judicial exception were present, the claims are integrated into a practical application because:
The optical sensor grounds the method in a physical, real-world measurement process” and
The predictive model produces outputs that are directed to control a physical transformation of hair color”, and
The continuous model solves the technical problem of predicting results for untested treatment/starting-color combinations, paralleling the technical improvement reasoning in Enfish v. Microsoft,”.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The amended claims do not integrate into a practical application. Under Step 2A, Prong 2 of the eligibility analysis, the claims do not recite additional elements in combination nor individually that would integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional elements are still recited in a generic manner and are being used to apply the abstract idea with the generic processor and computing components. Further, the claims do not reflect any type of technological improvement or solution or improvement to the technical field. The MPEP (2106.05(a)) provides further guidance on how to evaluate whether claims recite an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to other technology or technical field. For example, as indicated in 2106.05(d)(1) of the MPEP “the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement,” and that “[t]he specification need not explicitly set forth the improvement, but it must describe the invention such that the improvement would be apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art.” Looking to the specification is a standard that the courts have employed when analyzing claims as it relates to improvements in technology. For example, in Enfish, the specification provided teaching that the claimed invention achieves benefits over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Enfish LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Additionally, in Core Wireless the specification noted deficiencies in prior art interfaces relating to efficient functioning of the computer. Core Wireless Licensing v. LG Elecs. Inc., 880 F.3d 1356 (Fed Cir. 2018). With respect to McRO, the claimed improvement, as confirmed by the originally filed specification, was “…allowing computers to produce ‘accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters…’” and it was “…the incorporation of the claimed rules, not the use of the computer, that “improved [the] existing technological process” by allowing the automation of further tasks”. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, (Fed. Cir. 2016).
In this case, Applicant’s specification provides no explanation of an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, the claims focus “on a process that qualifies as an ‘abstract idea’ for which computers are invoked merely as a tool”. Id citing Enfish at 1327, 1336. This is reflected in paragraph [0020] of Applicant’s specification, which describe Applicant’s claimed invention is directed toward solving problems such as overcoming “the challenge of finding suitable hair ‘coloration journeys’ by enhancing the recommendation of hair coloration treatments with hair lightening steps”. Although the claims include computer technology such as a processor and at least one optical sensor, the processor, via the at least one optical sensor, the first model is a continuous model built using predictive analytics, and a user interface, such elements are merely peripherally incorporated in order to implement the abstract idea. This is unlike the improvements recognized by the courts in cases such as Enfish, Core Wireless, and McRO. Unlike precedential cases, neither the specification nor the claims of the instant invention identify such a specific improvement to computer capabilities. The instant claims are not directed to improving the existing technological process but are directed to improving the commercial task of determining and recommending hair coloration treatments. The claimed process, while arguably resulting in improvements to the recommendations of hair coloration treatment, is not providing any improvement to another technology or technical field as the claimed process is not, for example, improving the processor and computer components that operate the system. Rather, the claimed process is utilizing different data while still employing the same processor and computer components used in conventional systems to improve recommendations of hair coloration treatments, e.g. commercial process. As such, the claims do not recite specific technological improvements and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
In response to the Applicant’s arguments found on page 8 of the remarks stating that the claims recite “Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea,” and “the amended claims now recite a non-conventional arrangement” and “This combination, like BASCOM v. AT&T” and “is a specific, inventive arrangement that yields a result previously unattainable—accurate prediction and execution of hair treatments without destructive testing,” the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Even when considering the amendments to the claims, under Step 2B of the eligibility analysis, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and do not provide an inventive concept. As stated above, the claims when considered as a whole do amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements are still recited in a generic manner which are used to apply the abstract idea with generic computing components, and do not reflect any type of technical improvement. The claims are not similar to those eligible in BASCOM. For instance, In BASCOM, the court found that, although individually the additional elements were a generic computer, network, and Internet components that did not amount to significantly more, the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the various computer components for filtering internet content did amount to significantly more. BASCOM Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, in making such a determination, the court noted that “the claims do not merely recite the abstract idea of filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet or to perform it on a set of generic computer components". Id. Furthermore, the court noted that the "patent describes how its particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement over prior art ways of filtering such content". Id.
In contrast, Applicant's claims do not describe how the particular arrangement of elements is a technical improvement and the claims, in fact, only merely recite the abstract idea of recommending hair coloration treatments, along with the requirement to perform it on a set of generic computer components (i.e., a processor). While a processor and at least one optical sensor, the processor, via the at least one optical sensor, the first model is a continuous model built using predictive analytics, and a user interface, are included within the claims, they are claimed in a generic manner. Applicant’s disclosure does not articulate or suggest how these additional elements function, individually or in combination, in any manner other than using them in a generic manner, nor does the disclosure articulate how the elements are particularly arranged in order to provide a technical improvement. As such, the comparison of Applicant's claims to BASCOM is in inapposite and therefore the Examiner maintains the 101 rejection.
With respect to the rejections made under 35 USC § 103, the Applicant’s arguments filed on 12 August 2025 have been fully considered. In light of the Applicant’s amendments to the claims, the claims now recite allowable subject matter and therefore the 103 rejection has been withdrawn.
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 ASHLEY PRESTON whose telephone number is (571)272-4399. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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 Smith can be reached at 571-272-6763. 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.
/ASHLEY D PRESTON/Examiner, Art Unit 3688