DETAILED ACTION
This is responsive to the amendment filed 24 September 2025.
Claims 1-15 are currently pending and considered below.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 24 September 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the 35 USC 101 rejections, Applicant argues:
Claim 1 recites additional limitations of "register, based on a probability value of
appropriateness of the word according to first statistical information of the word, the word in the dictionary data as a selected word, wherein the first statistical information comprises statistical information of word appearing in respective corpuses of a plurality of corpuses, the plurality of corpuses comprises a general corpus and a specialized corpus, and the specialized corpus comprises a plurality of specialized words of the predetermined topic, and the probability value of appropriateness of the word indicates a probability of the word as a candidate for registering in the dictionary data according to the first statistical information."
These limitations are not abstract idea grouping because it is impractical for the
human mind to register a word in a dictionary based on a probability value of appropriateness as described in such details in the limitations. The probability value of appropriateness is according to statistical information of the word appearing in respective corpuses of a general corpus and a specialized corpus. Specification, at para. [0039] - [0041]. These limitations are not insignificant extra-solution activities because these limitations are integral part of registering the extracted word in the dictionary. These limitations improve a technical field of extracting an unknown word from a corpus and registering the unknown word in dictionary data with accuracy. As such, these limitations integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application (Step 2A; Prong Two: Yes).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not impose any limits on how the word is registered based on the probability value of appropriateness. In other words, the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. These limitations therefore represent extra-solution activity because they are mere nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues:
Even if, without conceding, the judicial exception associated with the claimed invention is not integrated into a practical application, the claimed invention recites additional elements that amount to more of an inventive concept (i.e., "significantly more") than the recited judicial exception. Step 2B evaluates whether the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the exception itself by including an inventive concept in the claim.
Applicant submits that the claimed invention includes an inventive concept of
registering a word in dictionary data according to the limitations as described above. These limitations are more than well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known in the industry. Specification, at para. [0016], [0051] - [0052], [0060], [0075], and [0076].
However, the claims do not impose any limits on how the word is registered based on the probability value of appropriateness. In other words, the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. These limitations represent the extra-solution activity of storing and displaying data which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities. The claims are not patent eligible.
Regarding the 35 USC 102 rejections, Applicant argues:
In contrast, Wu describes numbers of appearances of a word in the training corpus and the development corpus. Wu generally relates to identifying a topic word in a document corpus to create a dictionary of words. Specifically, Wu is directed to identify a topic word as anew word to be inserted into a dictionary based on how a candidate topic word diverges from a reference topic word. Accordingly, Wu focuses on statistical information of a word in the training corpus and the development corpus. Wu, at para. [0059] and [0087] — [0088]. Wu does not and does not need to teach statistical information of the unknown word according to respective corpuses of the general corpus and the specialized corpus.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Wu explicitly teaches statistical information (topic word divergence value) of the unknown word according to respective corpuses of the general corpus (document corpus 710) and the specialized corpus (documents belonging to a topic document cluster of the selected topic) (“the divergence value module 732 can determine the topic word divergence value based on topic word distributions in the document corpus 710 and in documents belonging to a topic document cluster of the selected topic. For example, the topic word divergence value can be substantially proportional to a ratio of a probability distribution of the topic word in the topic documents for a topic and a probability distribution of the topic word for all the documents in the document corpus 710”, [0123]).
Therefore, all of Applicant’s arguments have been addressed and they are not persuasive.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 30 August 2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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 2 and 9-13 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.
Claim 2, in lines 8-10 recites the limitation “generate a presentation screen of, based on a probability value of appropriateness of the word according to first statistical information of the word, the word in the dictionary data as a selected word”. However, there is no disclosure in the original specification of generating a presentation screen of the word in the dictionary data as a selected word, let alone performing the generation based on a probability value of appropriateness of the word according to first statistical information of the word.
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Further, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
In claims 1-2, 7-8 and 13, the limitations extract a word from a target corpus, wherein the target corpus comprises a plurality of target words that are not registered in dictionary data, and the plurality of target words describes a predetermined topic; and determine, based on a probability value of appropriateness of the word according to first statistical information of the word, the word in the dictionary data as a selected word wherein the first statistical information comprises statistical information of the word appearing in respective corpuses of a plurality of corpuses, the plurality of corpuses comprises a general corpus and a specialized corpus, and the specialized corpus comprises a plurality of specialized words of the predetermined topic, and the probability value of appropriateness of the word indicates a probability of the word as a candidate for registering in the dictionary data according to the first statistical information, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitations in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components.
That is, other than reciting a “word selection support device comprising processing circuitry” (claims 1-2), a “presentation screen” (claim 2) and a “non-transitory computer readable recording medium recording a program for causing a computer to function as the word selection support device” (claims 8 and 13) nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example, a person may extract a word from a document (e.g. perceptually extracting by visually scanning the document and recognizing the word) and generate, based on a probability value of appropriateness of the word according to first statistical information of the word, the word in the dictionary data as a selected word (e.g. determining the word belongs to a particular dictionary based on word frequency).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements – a “word selection support device comprising processing circuitry” (claims 1-2), a “presentation screen” (claim 2) and a “non-transitory computer readable recording medium recording a program for causing a computer to function as the word selection support device” (claims 8 and 13) which are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic processors performing generic computer functions) such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components.
The claims also recite the additional elements “register, based on a probability value of appropriateness of the word according to first statistical information of the word, the word in the dictionary data as a selected word” and “generate a presentation screen of, based on a probability value of appropriateness of the word according to first statistical information of the word, the word in the dictionary data as a selected word”. The claims do not impose any limits on how the word is registered or the presentation generated based on the probability value of appropriateness. In other words, the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. These limitations therefore represent extra-solution activity because they are mere nominal or tangential addition to the claims. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are therefore directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As stated above, the claims recite the additional limitations of a “word selection support device comprising processing circuitry” (claims 1-2), a “presentation screen” (claim 2) and a “non-transitory computer readable recording medium recording a program for causing a computer to function as the word selection support device” (claims 8 and 13). However, these are recited at a high level of generality and are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications (see Applicant’s specification [0018]-[0025]). Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities amount to no more than implementing the abstract idea with a computerized system.
The claims also recite the additional elements ““register, based on a probability value of appropriateness of the word according to first statistical information of the word, the word in the dictionary data as a selected word” and “generate a presentation screen of, based on a probability value of appropriateness of the word according to first statistical information of the word, the word in the dictionary data as a selected word”. The claims do not impose any limits on how the word is registered or the presentation generated based on the probability value of appropriateness. In other words, the claims recite only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claims fail to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. These limitations represent the extra-solution activity of storing and displaying data which are well-understood, routine and conventional activities. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims recite:
exclude a predetermined word from the extracted unknown word; and derive the first statistical information regarding the extracted unknown word in the plurality of corpuses for each word obtained by excluding the predetermined word from the extracted unknown word;
wherein the plurality of corpuses includes, in addition to the target corpus, at least one of a general corpus that is a corpus including document data in a general field or a specialized corpus that is a corpus including document data in a specialized field related to the target corpus;
extract unknown words from the target corpus, extract registered unknown word possibilities as possibilities for registered unknown words from the extracted unknown words, and select registered unknown words to be registered in the dictionary data from the registered unknown word possibilities in a past, calculate, for extracted unknown word record, second statistical information that is statistical information regarding the extracted unknown word record in the plurality of corpuses, wherein the extracted unknown word record comprises a plurality of the extracted unknown words which was referred to in selection of the registered unknown word to be registered in the dictionary data in the past, and the second statistical information comprises statistical information of the extracted unknown words included in the extracted unknown word record appearing in respective corpuses of the plurality of corpuses; calculate, for registered unknown word record third statistical information that is statistical information regarding the registered unknown word record in the plurality of corpuses, wherein the registered unknown word record comprises a plurality of terms that were selected as the registered unknown word possibilities from the extracted unknown words referred to in the selection of registered unknown words performed, further selected as the registered unknown words from such registered unknown word possibilities, and registered in the dictionary data in the past, and the third statistical information comprises statistical information of the terms included in the registered unknown word record appearing in respective corpuses of the plurality of corpuses; in a case where an unknown word is extracted from the extracted unknown word record under a specific condition on a basis of the second statistical information, decide, for each of the unknown word that is extracted, determination condition for determining the registered unknown word possibility from the extracted unknown word, based on a similarity between fourth statistical information that is statistical information regarding the extracted unknown word in the plurality of corpuses and the third statistical information; and determine the registered unknown word possibility from the extracted unknown word according to the decided determination condition;
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the probability value of appropriateness of the word according to the first statistical information of the word such that recall or precision of the probability value of appropriateness of the word increases using an unknown word to be registered in the dictionary data manually selected from the extracted unknown word as a reference;
wherein the processing circuitry acquires a plurality of pieces of the fourth statistical information using a plurality of specific conditions, and uses a specific condition having the highest similarity between the fourth statistical information and the third statistical information as the determination condition; and
wherein the processing circuitry searches for a specific condition under which the similarity between the fourth statistical information and the third statistical information evaluated by a similarity evaluation method exceeds a predetermined standard, and decides such specific condition as a determination condition.
The additional recited limitations further narrow the steps of the independent claims without however providing “a practical application of” or "significantly more than" the underlying “Mental Processes” abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu et al. (US 2009/0055381).
Claim 1:
Wu discloses a word selection support device comprising processing circuitry ([0027]) configured to:
extract a word from a target corpus, wherein the target corpus comprises a plurality of target words that are not registered in dictionary data, and the plurality of target words describes a predetermined topic (“identify topic words in the word corpus 204 and update the identified topic words to the topic dictionaries”, [0104], see also “identify one or more potential new words, e.g., candidate words that appear in the training corpus and that are not in the dictionary”, [0054]);
register, based on a probability value of appropriateness of the word according to first statistical information (topic divergence value) of the word, the word in the dictionary data as a selected word (“If the candidate topic word is determined to be a topic word for a topic, then dictionary updater module 706 updates a topic dictionary 708 for the topic to include the candidate topic word”, [0129], see also “determine whether a candidate topic word is a topic word based on the topic divergence value and the candidate word divergence value”, [0127]),
wherein the first statistical information comprises statistical information of the word appearing in respective corpuses of a plurality of corpuses, the plurality of corpuses comprises a general corpus (document corpus 710) and a specialized corpus (documents belonging to a topic document cluster of the selected topic), and the specialized corpus comprises a plurality of specialized words of the predetermined topic (“the topic word classification module 704 can determine a topic word divergence value for a selected topic and a topic word. For example, the topic word processing module 704 can select the topic word from the topic dictionary of the selected topic. In certain implementations, the divergence value module 732 can determine the topic word divergence value based on topic word distributions in the document corpus 710 and in documents belonging to a topic document cluster of the selected topic. For example, the topic word divergence value can be substantially proportional to a ratio of a probability distribution of the topic word in the topic documents for a topic and a probability distribution of the topic word for all the documents in the document corpus 710”, [0123]), and the probability value of appropriateness of the word indicates a probability of the word as a candidate for registering in the dictionary data according to the first statistical information (“determine whether a candidate topic word is a topic word based on the topic divergence value and the candidate word divergence value”, [0127]).
Claim 4:
Wu discloses the word selection support device according to claim 1, wherein the plurality of corpuses includes, in addition to the target corpus, at least one of a general corpus that is a corpus including document data in a general field or a specialized corpus that is a corpus including document data in a specialized field related to the target corpus ([0123], see also [0105]).
Claim 7:
Wu discloses a word selection support method comprising the steps performed by the processing circuitry of claim 1 as shown above.
Claim 8:
Wu discloses a non-transitory computer readable recording medium recording a program for causing a computer to function ([0046]) as the word selection support device according to claim 1 as shown above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2009/0055381) in view of Hosokawa et al. (US 2017/0371858).
Claim 2:
Wu discloses a word selection support device comprising processing circuitry configured to:
extract a word from a target corpus, wherein the target corpus comprises a plurality of target words that are not registered in dictionary data, and the plurality of target words describes a predetermined topic (“identify topic words in the word corpus 204 and update the identified topic words to the topic dictionaries”, [0104], see also “identify one or more potential new words, e.g., candidate words that appear in the training corpus and that are not in the dictionary”, [0054]);
register, based on a probability value of appropriateness of the word according to first statistical information (topic divergence value) of the word, the word in the dictionary data as a selected word (“If the candidate topic word is determined to be a topic word for a topic, then dictionary updater module 706 updates a topic dictionary 708 for the topic to include the candidate topic word”, [0129], see also “determine whether a candidate topic word is a topic word based on the topic divergence value and the candidate word divergence value”, [0127]),
wherein the first statistical information comprises statistical information of the word appearing in respective corpuses of a plurality of corpuses, the plurality of corpuses comprises a general corpus (document corpus 710) and a specialized corpus (documents belonging to a topic document cluster of the selected topic), and the specialized corpus comprises a plurality of specialized words of the predetermined topic (“the topic word classification module 704 can determine a topic word divergence value for a selected topic and a topic word. For example, the topic word processing module 704 can select the topic word from the topic dictionary of the selected topic. In certain implementations, the divergence value module 732 can determine the topic word divergence value based on topic word distributions in the document corpus 710 and in documents belonging to a topic document cluster of the selected topic. For example, the topic word divergence value can be substantially proportional to a ratio of a probability distribution of the topic word in the topic documents for a topic and a probability distribution of the topic word for all the documents in the document corpus 710”, [0123]), and the probability value of appropriateness of the word indicates a probability of the word as a candidate for registering in the dictionary data according to the first statistical information (“determine whether a candidate topic word is a topic word based on the topic divergence value and the candidate word divergence value”, [0127]).
Wu further discloses displaying data for user selection (“if more than one candidate character is identified, the candidate characters are displayed on an output device 110. Using the input device 108, the user can select from the candidate characters a Hanzi character that the user desires to input”, [0032], see also “To provide for interaction with a user, embodiments of the subject matter described in this specification can be implemented on a computer having a display device, e.g., a CRT (cathode ray tube) or LCD (liquid crystal display) monitor, for displaying information to the user and a keyboard and a pointing device, e.g., a mouse or a trackball, by which the user can provide input to the computer”, [0160]).
However, Wu does not explicitly disclose generating a presentation screen (i.e. displaying) of the word.
In an analogous dictionary generation art similarly generating a registered unknown word possibility that is a possibility of an unknown word to be registered in a dictionary data, Hosokawa discloses generating a presentation of a registered unknown word possibility to a user (“dictionary word recommendation component 114 provides the sorted list of recommended dictionary words to the user. The user selects a recommended dictionary word for inclusion in dictionary 110”, [0029]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of generating a presentation screen (i.e. displaying) of Wu’s registered unknown word possibility in order to give a user the ability to confirm a word before its inclusion in the dictionary (see Hosokawa, [0029]).
Claim 10:
Wu in view of Hosokawa discloses the word selection support device according to claim 2, wherein the plurality of corpuses includes, in addition to the target corpus, at least one of a general corpus that is a corpus including document data in a general field or a specialized corpus that is a corpus including document data in a specialized field related to the target corpus (Wu, [0123], see also [0105]).
Claim 13:
Wu in view of Hosokawa discloses a non-transitory computer readable recording medium recording a program for causing a computer to function (Wu, [0046]) as the word selection support device according to claim 2 as shown above.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2009/0055381) in view of Hosabettu (US 2018/0173696).
Claim 3:
Wu discloses the word selection support device according to claim 1 but does not explicitly discloses wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: exclude a predetermined word from the extracted unknown word; and derive the first statistical information regarding the extracted unknown word in the plurality of corpuses for each word obtained by excluding the predetermined word from the extracted unknown word.
In an analogous dictionary generation art similarly deriving first statistical information for each extracted unknown word, Hosabettu discloses excluding a predetermined word from the extracted unknown word; and deriving the first statistical information regarding the extracted unknown word in the plurality of corpuses for each word obtained by excluding the predetermined word from the extracted unknown word (“The data curation module 203 parses the input documents, extracts data from the input documents, and curates the extracted data during unsupervised operation phase. As will be appreciated, data curation involves pre-processing the extracted data corpus by stemming, removing stop words, standardizing, and so forth”, [0021], see also “The scoring module 204 receives the input keywords from the data curation module 203 and computes various similarity scores for each of the input keywords with respect to each of the words in existing domain dictionary”, [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of excluding a predetermined word from Wu’s extracted unknown word; and deriving the first statistical information regarding the extracted unknown word in the plurality of corpuses for each word obtained by excluding the predetermined word from the extracted unknown word in order to remove “stop words (e.g., commonly occurring words like a, an, the, is, was, etc.) as they add little or no value to domain specific dictionary” (see Hosabettu, [0021]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2009/0055381) in view of Hosokawa et al. (US 2017/0371858) and Hosabettu (US 2018/0173696).
Claim 9:
Wu in view of Hosokawa discloses the word selection support device according to claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to: exclude a predetermined word from the extracted unknown word; and derive the first statistical information regarding the extracted unknown word in the plurality of corpuses for each word obtained by excluding the predetermined word from the extracted unknown word.
In an analogous dictionary generation art similarly deriving first statistical information for each extracted unknown word, Hosabettu discloses excluding a predetermined word from the extracted unknown word; and deriving the first statistical information regarding the extracted unknown word in the plurality of corpuses for each word obtained by excluding the predetermined word from the extracted unknown word (“The data curation module 203 parses the input documents, extracts data from the input documents, and curates the extracted data during unsupervised operation phase. As will be appreciated, data curation involves pre-processing the extracted data corpus by stemming, removing stop words, standardizing, and so forth”, [0021], see also “The scoring module 204 receives the input keywords from the data curation module 203 and computes various similarity scores for each of the input keywords with respect to each of the words in existing domain dictionary”, [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the references to yield the predictable result of excluding a predetermined word from Wu’s extracted unknown word; and deriving the first statistical information regarding the extracted unknown word in the plurality of corpuses for each word obtained by excluding the predetermined word from the extracted unknown word in order to remove “stop words (e.g., commonly occurring words like a, an, the, is, was, etc.) as they add little or no value to domain specific dictionary” (see Hosabettu, [0021]).
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 SAMUEL G NEWAY whose telephone number is (571)270-1058. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm EST.
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, Daniel Washburn can be reached at 571-272-5551. 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.
/SAMUEL G NEWAY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2657