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 (IDS) submitted on 07/25/2025 was filed before the mailing of this action. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
Claims 1, 9, and 10 are amended. Claims 11-14 are canceled. Claims 1-10 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/25/2025 regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claim 1 is eligible under Step 2A Prong Two because the amended limitations integrate the alleged judicial exception into a practical application. Examiner disagrees. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: memory (claim 1) at least one processor (claim 1), a recording medium that is non-transient (claim 10), a computer (claim 10), a terminal (including a display) of the manager and participant, and planning assistance system. The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, these 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 directed to an abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that claim 1 recites significantly more than the abstract idea and claims that the features provide a specific improvement over conventional computer based electronic event planner technology by integrating an electronic message/.content sharing feature. Examiner disagrees. The claims do not include additional elements 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible. Further, the claims present no improvement to computers or technology. Electronic messaging or content sharing via computers (e.g. transmitting data) is not an improvement in computers or technology in the applicant’s invention. Instead, at best, the alleged improvement is an improvement in the abstract idea itself. Sharing/transmitting data may cause the planning process to be more convenient for users, which may be an improvement in the event planning business process, but not computers or technology. It is important to keep in mind that an improvement in the judicial exception itself (e.g., a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology. For example, in Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG LLC, the court determined that the claim simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology. Similarly, the Applicant’s claim recitations are an improvement in the judicial exception, not an improvement in technology. Lastly, applicant is reminded that whether the elements define only well-understood, routine, conventional (“WURC”) activity is only one consideration under step 2B. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, which is the case in the applicant’s claims. Additionally, if the Office Action indicated WURC activity, it would still be applicable to the applicant’s claims because the courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality).
The 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection is maintained.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-8 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the limitation “cause a display of a terminal of a manager of a travel plan and a terminal of a participant of the travel plan to display in events included the travel plan”. The underlined and bold portion of the limitation appears to be an error and should read “display events included in the travel plan” similar to claims 9 and 10. Appropriate correction is required.
Dependent claims 2-8 are also objected to due to their dependency on objected claim 1.
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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1-8 recite a system (i.e. machine), claim 9 recites a method (i.e. process), and claim 10 recites a recording medium that is non-transient (i.e. machine or article of manufacture). Therefore claims 1-10 fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 recites the limitations of displaying in events included the travel plan; allowing to edit the events and to transmit a comment for each of a plurality of the events to the [planning assistance system]; allowing the participant to transmit the comment to [the planning assistance system] and prevent the participant from editing the events; receiving the comment from each of the manager and the participant; in a case where the comment is received, display the received comment in association with each of the events (to the manager and manager), receive a registration request of the edited event from the manager; and in a case where the registration request is received, display the edited travel plan based on the registration request (to the manager and participant). The limitations are drawn to a travel planning method that incorporate the inputs of all users to generate an itinerary, and directly corresponds to certain methods of organizing human activity (managing personal interactions, behavior, or relationships; business relations, commercial interactions), as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving itinerary details e.g., edits, comments, etc.) from participants in a travel planning group and displaying itinerary details to the participants of the travel planning group. The claim limitations also correspond to mental processes (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), as evidenced by limitations detailing receiving comment(s) or edits(s) for events included in a travel plan; and a displaying the comment(s) or edits. The claims recite an abstract idea.
Note: the features or elements in brackets in the above section are inserted for reading clarity, but are analyzed as “additional elements” under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application simply because the claims recite the additional elements of: memory (claim 1) at least one processor (claim 1), a recording medium that is non-transient (claim 10), a computer (claim 10), a terminal (including a display) of the manager and participant, and planning assistance system. The additional elements are computer components recited at a high-level of generality performing the above-mentioned limitations. The combination of the additional elements are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception using a generic computer. Accordingly, in combination, these 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 directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements 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 elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, when viewed as an ordered combination, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 recite additional limitations that are further directed to the abstract idea analyzed in the rejected claims above. The claims also recite additional elements that have been analyzed in the rejected claims above. Thus, claims 2-8 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4-6, and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam (2014/0108066) in view of Burka (2014/0278676).
Claim 1: Lam discloses: A planning assistance system, comprising:
at least one memory configured to store instructions; and at least one processor configured to execute the instructions to: (Lam ¶0012 disclosing the system including a computing device; ¶0055 disclosing the computing device including a memory and one or more processors; functional components may be stored in memory and executed by the processors)
cause a display of a terminal of a manager of a travel plan and a terminal of a participant of the travel plan to display in events included the travel plan; (Lam Fig. 1 and ¶0012 disclosing the system including an example computing device 105 may host an instance of trip-planning collaboration tool 110, which may interact with one or more computing devices corresponding, respectively, to one or more of a trip-planning initiator 120, trip-planning participants 130, trip-planning assistants 140, and a travel marketplace 150; any reference herein to trip-planning initiator 120, one or more of trip-planning participants 130, trip-planning assistants 140, or travel marketplace 150 may be understood to apply to a corresponding computing device under the ownership and/or operating control thereof, on which another instance of trip-planning collaboration tool 110 may be hosted; ¶0015 disclosing the example trip-planning collaboration tool 110 hosted on device 105 may be configured to receive, store, and/or transmit data 112 regarding a proposed trip or event, feedback 134, and an itinerary 114 associated with the trip or event; data 112, feedback 124, and itinerary 114 may be described as information or data to be transmitted and received, such features may also be regarded as fields and/or button in a user interface (UI) by which a user of device 105 any other device on which an instance of trip-planning collaboration tool 110 may be hosted; trip-planning collaboration tool 110 may include a UI by which a user thereof may enter data, e.g., trip preferences, and/or receive data from other trip-planning participants, e.g., trip-planning participants 130. The UI may receive a user's input via a text input field, using voice input/recognition technologies, etc. Similarly, the UI may display or otherwise share received data in textual or audio form; ¶0016 disclosing the trip-planning initiator 120 may refer to a user who owns or otherwise exercises operating control over host device 105; ¶0020 trip-planning initiator 120, via trip-planning collaboration tool 110, may transmit an invitation to one or more trip-planning participants 130 to participate in the planning of the proposed trip and/or event)
allow the terminal of the manager to edit the events and to transmit a comment for each of a plurality of the events to the planning assistance system; (Lam ¶0015 disclosing the example trip-planning collaboration tool 110 hosted on device 105 may be configured to receive, store, and/or transmit data 112 regarding a proposed trip or event, feedback 134, and an itinerary 114 associated with the trip or event; the UI may receive a user's input via a text input field, using voice input/recognition technologies, etc.; ¶0016 trip--planning initiator 120 may refer to a user who owns or otherwise exercises operating control over host device 105; trip-planning initiator 120, trip-planning collaboration tool may select a proposed trip or event, and may select from a list of available, suggested, or desired destinations; ¶0020 disclosing the trip-planning initiator may also be a trip-planning participant himself; ¶0023 trip-planning collaboration tool 110 may receive feedback 134 from the one or more invited trip-planning participants 130, via feedback channel 132, regarding the proposed trip and/or event; ¶0024 feedback 134, e.g., relevant input may include, but not be limited to…comments; ¶0062 trip-planning coordinator may be further configured to serve as a customer care component; trip-planning coordinator may receive profile information for trip-planning initiator; as a customer-care component, trip-planning coordinator may facilitate changes and amendments or cancellations as part of the reservation process; via any one or more of the data transmitting and receiving technologies described in accordance with, e.g., FIG. 1 and/or FIG. 5, trip-planning coordinator may facilitate changes to itinerary)
receive the comment from each of the terminal of the manager and the terminal of the participant, in a case where the comment is received, cause the display of the terminal of the manager and the terminal of the participant to display the received comment in association with each of the events; (Lam ¶0020 disclosing the trip-planning initiator may also be a trip-planning participant himself; ¶0023 trip-planning collaboration tool 110 may receive feedback 134 from the one or more invited trip-planning participants 130, via feedback channel 132, regarding the proposed trip and/or event; ¶0024 feedback 134, e.g., relevant input may include, but not be limited to…comments; ¶0015 disclosing the example trip-planning collaboration tool 110 hosted on device 105 may be configured to receive, store, and/or transmit data 112 regarding a proposed trip or event, feedback 134, and an itinerary 114 associated with the trip or event; data 112, feedback 124, and itinerary 114 may be described as information or data to be transmitted and received, such features may also be regarded as fields and/or button in a user interface (UI) by which a user of device 105 any other device on which an instance of trip-planning collaboration tool 110 may be hosted; trip-planning collaboration tool 110 may include a UI by which a user thereof may enter data, e.g., trip preferences, and/or receive data from other trip-planning participants, e.g., trip-planning participants 130. The UI may receive a user's input via a text input field, using voice input/recognition technologies, etc. Similarly, the UI may display or otherwise share received data in textual or audio form)
Lam in view Burka discloses:
allow the terminal of the participant to transmit the comment to the planning assistance system and prevent the terminal of the participant from editing the events;
Lam discloses allowing the terminal of the participant to transmit the comment to the planning assistance system: (Lam ¶0023 trip-planning collaboration tool 110 may receive feedback 134 from the one or more invited trip-planning participants 130, via feedback channel 132, regarding the proposed trip and/or event; ¶0015 disclosing the example trip-planning collaboration tool 110 hosted on device 105 may be configured to receive, store, and/or transmit data 112 regarding a proposed trip or event, feedback 134, and an itinerary 114 associated with the trip or event; data 112, feedback 124, and itinerary 114 may be described as information or data to be transmitted and received, such features may also be regarded as fields and/or button in a user interface (UI) by which a user of device 105 any other device on which an instance of trip-planning collaboration tool 110 may be hosted; trip-planning collaboration tool 110 may include a UI by which a user thereof may enter data, e.g., trip preferences, and/or receive data from other trip-planning participants, e.g., trip-planning participants 130. The UI may receive a user's input via a text input field, using voice input/recognition technologies, etc. Similarly, the UI may display or otherwise share received data in textual or audio form). Lam does not explicitly disclose prevent[ing] the terminal of the participant from editing the events. Burks suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Burka ¶0040 disclosing a "host" (also referred to as "organizer user" and "planner") is the user who initiates an event; a "participant" (also referred to as "invitee" and "participant user") is a user who is invited by the host to view details of the events and contribute feedback in specifiable categories but does not have as many editing privileges as the host (also co-host may have same editing privileges); editing privileges are specific for an individual user instead of an entire category of users, enabling even participants who are non-hosts to contribute to the planning process in various degrees; ¶0006 disclosing details pertinent to the event, such as date, location, theme, activities, and lodging may be added, suggested and edited by the host and invited co-hosts; ¶0077 disclosing selection of an event detail enables the host and co-hosts to edit that aspect of the event; ¶0089 disclosing only the host and co-hosts may edit and/or delete suggested dates (outside of a specific situations)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lam to include allow the terminal of the participant to transmit the comment to the planning assistance system and prevent the terminal of the participant from editing the events as taught by Burka. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lam in order to simplify the planning and organizing method. (see ¶0003 of Burka).
receive a registration request of the edited event from the terminal of the manager;
Lam discloses a edit submission from the terminal of the manager, but does not explicitly disclose receive a registration request of the edited event from the terminal of the manager. Burka suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Burka ¶0050 disclosing GUI for providing registration information may appear on the current Web page or be available at another Web page to which the user is directed when button is clicked; ¶0051 disclosing when a user signs into an account, the server computer will retrieve the events in which the user is a host or participant, and enable him or her to edit details associated with those events, limited by user privileges; user may be prompted by the event planning server system to provide information associated with an account, such as an Email address and password; if there is no match, the user may be prompted to register, see ¶0066; ¶0101 disclosing creating a user account; user will then be redirected to a sign-up page in step 2009, unless the user selecting the RSVP link in the invitation has an account, in which case the user will be automatically logged into the account (box 2007) and may navigate the event planning system; see also ¶0112 if the current host assigns a future host in step 2414, a sign up may be created for that future event date). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lam to include receive a registration request of the edited event from the terminal of the manager as taught by Burka. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lam in order to simplify the planning and organizing method. (see ¶0003 of Burka).
and in a case where the registration request is received, cause the display of the terminal of the manager and the terminal of the participant to display the edited travel plan based on the registration request.
Lam discloses receiving and displaying the edited travel plan, but does not explicitly disclose in a case where the registration request is received, cause the display of the terminal of the manager and the terminal of the participant to display the edited travel plan based on the registration request. Burka suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Burka ¶0068 disclosing If the user wishes to edit an existing event, in step 722, the collaborative event planning system provides a GUI enabling the user to select an existing event, which was previously created by the user or another user who has indicated that the user may edit the event;. in step 724, the method reads in the user input indicating the event he or she wishes to view and/or edit, then displays a Web page for editing the event; ¶0098 disclosing editing details being presented to participants). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lam to include in a case where the registration request is received, cause the display of the terminal of the manager and the terminal of the participant to display the edited travel plan based on the registration request as taught by Burka. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lam in order to simplify the planning and organizing method. (see ¶0003 of Burka).
Claims 9 and 10: Claims 9 and 10 are directed to a method and non-transient recording medium, respectively. Claims 9 and 10 recite limitations that are parallel in nature as those addressed above for claim 1, which is directed towards a system. Claims 9 and 10 are therefore rejected for the same reasons as set forth above for claim 1. Furthermore, claims 9 and 10 recite:
(Claim 9): A planning assistance method, comprising: (Lam ¶0010 disclosing technologies that facilitate trip planning collaboration; ¶0104 discloses that the term “technology” may refer to one or more devices, apparatuses, systems, methods, articles of manufacture, and/or computer-readable instructions as indicated by the context described herein)
(Claim 10): A recording medium that non-transiently records a planning assistance program for causing a computer to execute processing comprising: (Lam ¶0010 disclosing technologies that facilitate trip planning collaboration; ¶0104 discloses that the term “technology” may refer to one or more devices, apparatuses, systems, methods, articles of manufacture, and/or computer-readable instructions as indicated by the context described herein; ¶0012 disclosing the system including a computing device; ¶0055 disclosing the computing device including a memory and one or more processors; functional components may be stored in memory and executed by the processors)
Claim 2: The planning assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the events include one or more of a movement during a travel, a visit to a place, and an experience. (Lam ¶0027 discloses the itinerary being generated based on participant feedback for a proposed trip or event, and ¶0028 disclosing the portions of the itinerary include flight information, local transportation information, travel tour information, tour meeting and ending points, suggestion for activities, sightseeing, local customs, shopping, scheduled events or activities, lodging, etc.)
Claim 4: The planning assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: generate recommendation information related to the comment. (Lam ¶0023 disclosing the trip-planning collaboration tool receiving feedback from the one or more invited trip-planning participants regarding the proposed trip or event; ¶0024 disclosing feedback including recommended locations, activities, events, and suggested locations, activities, events; ¶0030 disclosing trip-planning assistants may provide information regarding some or all of the suggested destinations and/or events, and/or provide guidance to the trip-planning participants)
Claim 5: The planning assistance system according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: generate promotion information related to the comment, the promotion information being the recommendation information regarding a product, a service, or a place. (Lam ¶0046 disclosing a recommendation may refer to feedback that is customized for the trip-planning participant who proposes the recommendation for the trip, e.g., a person may suggest or advise one or more of the following for the trip being planned: food and beverage (F&B) outlets--restaurants and eateries, attractions/places of interests--such as buildings, monuments, etc., shopping items, promotions, and other activity-related attractions)
Claim 6: The planning assistance system according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: generate the recommendation information that proposes editing of the events related to the comment. (Lam ¶0053 disclosing one or more of trip-planning initiator, trip-planning participants, or trip-planning assistants may be able to make changes and amendments or cancellations as part of the reservation process; see also ¶0062; ¶0083 disclosing the system selecting a proposed trip from a group of pre-generated trips or events; ¶0087-¶0088 disclosing the system receiving input or feedback on the proposed trip or event; and ¶0089 disclosing generating the itinerary for the proposed trip or event based at least in at on the relevant input or feedback obtained)
Claim 8: The planning assistance system according to claim 4, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to: generate recommendation information related to a reaction of the users received for the comment. (Lam ¶0025 disclosing users may vote on activities and other aspects of the trip; ¶0038- ¶0043 disclosing the polls in which the users may vote; ¶0049 and ¶0063 disclosing the users may view the poll or voting results)
Claim(s) 3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lam (2014/0108066) in view of Burka (2014/0278676) further in view of Whitsett (2009/0216633).
Claim 3: The planning assistance system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
cause any one of a start time, an end time, and a duration of each of the events to be displayed in association with each of the events and the comment.
Lam discloses causing anu one of a start time and a duration of the events to be displayed in association with each of the events and the comment: (Lam ¶0015 disclosing the trip-planning collaboration tool configured to transmit data, features including a user interface that may display the data/feedback; ¶0026 disclosing participants determining traveling time (duration); ¶0028 disclosing the itinerary containing information on tour times, start times of scheduled events). Although strongly suggested, Lam does not explicitly disclose the displaying of an end time. Whitsett suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Whitsett Fig. 5 disclosing on the comment from the host on the various itinerary events, the start and end times, with the comment that the user may adjust their itinerary to meet their preformed and adjust times; this is a suggested travel product see also ¶0068). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lam in view Burka to include cause any one of a start time, an end time, and a duration of each of the events to be displayed in association with each of the events and the comment as taught by Whitsett. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lam in view of Burka in order to display a travel itinerary comprising several available products and/or services so that a user can build and modify a themed travel itinerary in real-time around a skeleton itinerary including selected and recommended travel products (see ¶0002 of Whitsett).
Claim 7: The planning assistance system according to claim 6, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the instructions to:
stop display of the comment when the events are edited based on the recommendation information.
Lam discloses that the events are edited based on the recommendation information, but does not explicitly disclose stop display of the comment when the events are edited based on the recommendation information. Whitsett suggests or discloses this limitation/concept: (Whitsett ¶0020 disclosing receiving a revising user input for revising at least a portion of the interactive itinerary and displaying a revised interactive itinerary in response to the received revising user input, such that a user may remove and/or add specific travel products to the itinerary and view the pricing and scheduling results of such revisions; ¶0069 disclosing the interactive itinerary including a “remove activity” button such that a user may input a revising user input to remove a travel product from the itinerary). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lam in view of Burka to include stop display of the comment when the events are edited based on the recommendation information as taught by Whitsett. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Lam in view of Burka in order to display a travel itinerary comprising several available products and/or services so that a user can build and modify a themed travel itinerary in real-time around a skeleton itinerary including selected and recommended travel products (see ¶0002 of Whitsett).
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 DIONE N SIMPSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5513. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 7:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
DIONE N. SIMPSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3628
/DIONE N. SIMPSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628