DETAILED ACTION
1. 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 .
2. Status of Application and Claims
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-18 and 20-22 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 8-10 and 15-18 were amended and/or newly added in the Applicant’s filing(s) on 12/16/2025.
Claims 4, 11 and 19 were cancelled in the Applicant’s filing(s) on 12/16/2025.
This office action is being issued in response to the Applicant's filing(s) on 12/16/2025.
3. Claim Interpretation
The subject matter of a properly construed claim is defined by the terms that limit its scope when given their broadest reasonable interpretation. see MPEP §2013(I)(C). Specifically, the “broadest reasonable construction ‘in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.’” See MPEP §2111, citing Phillips v. AWH Corp., 75 USPQ2d 1321, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However, “[t]hough understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” See MPEP §2111.01, citing Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Construing claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant, because the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise claim coverage. See MPEP §2111, citing In re Yamamoto, 222 USPQ 934, 936 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
As a general matter, grammar and the plain meaning of terms as understood by one having ordinary skill in the art used in a claim will dictate whether, and to what extent, the language limits the claim scope. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
As such, claim limitations that contain statement(s) such as “if,” “may,” “might,” “can,” and “could” are treated as containing optional language. See MPEP §2013(I)(C). As matter of linguistic precision, optional claim elements do not narrow claim limitations, since they can always be omitted. See MPEP §2013(I)(C).
Similarly, a method step exercised or triggered upon the satisfaction of a condition, where there remains the possibility that the condition was not satisfied under the broadest reasonable interpretation, is an optional claim limitation. See MPEP §2111.04(II). As the Applicant does not address what happens should the optional claim limitations fail, Examiner assumes that nothing happens (i.e., the method stops). An alternate interpretation is that merely the claim limitations based upon the condition are not triggered or performed.
In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art. See MPEP §2143.03, citing Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter Int’l, Inc., 582 F.3d 1288, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
Language in a method or system claim that states only the intended use or intended result, but does not result in a manipulative difference in the steps of the method claim nor a structural difference between the system claim and the prior art, fails to distinguish the claims from the prior art.
The following types of claim language may raise a question as to its limiting effect (this list is not exhaustive):
Statements of intended use or field of use, including statements of purpose or intended use in the preamble. See MPEP §2111.02;
Clauses such as “adapted to”, “adapted for”, “wherein”, and “whereby.” See MPEP §2111.04;
Contingent limitations. See MPEP §2111.04(II);
Printed matter. See MPEP §2111.05; and
Functional language associated with a claim term. See MPEP §2181.
As such, while all claim limitations have been considered and all words in the claims have been considered in judging the patentability of the claimed invention, the following italicized, underlined and/or boldened language is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention.
Additionally, the following italicized, underlined and emboldened language is not necessarily an exhaustive list of claim language that is interpreted as not further limiting the scope of the claimed invention. Applicant should review all claims for additional claim interpretation issues.
Claim 1 recites a system configured with machine-readable instructions to:
export the composite imaqe to cause display of the composite imaqe on a computinq platform.
Claim 1 is for a system, a system that generates and exports a composite image. The computing platform is a system outside the claimed system performing the generation and exportation of the composite image. The functions performed by the computing platform, whether the computing platform displays or does not display, are outside the scope of the claimed system.
Additionally, the intended use or purpose of the data (i.e., to be displayed) must result in a structural and/or functional difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use or fulfilling said purpose (i.e., can be displayed), then it meets the claim. See MPEP §2114(II), citing Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (BPAI 1987).
Claim 8 has similar claim interpretation issues, as Claim 8 does not recite that the computing platform is displaying the composite image.
4. 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 1-3, 6-10, 13-18 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
STEP 1
The claimed invention falls within one of the four statutory categories of invention (i.e., process, machine, manufacture and composition of matter). See MPEP §2106.03.
STEP 2A – PRONG ONE
The claim(s) recite(s) a method and a system to confirmed to perform a method comprising:
accessing information stored on a … ledger, the information pertaining to a set of … assets recorded at one or more [locations] on the … ledger, wherein the one of more [locations] on the ledger correspond to a … wallet associated with the user, wherein the … assets are correlated with entities;
determining, based on the information, the entities;
determining that the user owns the entities by virtue of the … assets being recorded at the one or more [locations] on the … ledger corresponding with the … wallet associated with the user;
generating a composite image representing the representing the entities owned by the user, where the composite image includes a visual symbol that summarizes the entities and reflects an affinity toward the entities;
responsive to generating the composite image;
storing the composite image in … storage;
minting a composite … asset correlated with the composite image by creating the composite … asset, defining ownership of the composite … asset, defining a correlation with the composite image, and defining the appearance of the visual symbol; and
recording the composite … asset at a first [location] on the … ledger, wherein the first [location] corresponds with the … wallet associated with user ...
These limitations, as drafted, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a series of steps instructing how to generate a composite asset based upon a collection of assets which is a fundamental economic practice, a sub-category of certain method(s) of organizing human activity, an enumerated grouping of abstract ideas. See MPEP §2106.04(a)(2)(II)(A).
Accordingly, the claimed invention recites an abstract idea.
STEP 2A – PRONG TWO
The claimed invention recites additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a digital asset (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), a digital wallet (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), address(es) in a decentralized ledger (Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15), electronic storage (Claim(s) 1 and 8) and processor(s) (Claim(s) 1).
Examiner notes that Claims 8 and 15 (i.e., the method claims) do not recite that the method steps are being performed by a computer. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the method steps (e.g., accessing and determining) are being performed by a human being operating a computer and not the computer system itself.
The claimed invention does not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception because the claims do not provide improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; are not applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition; are not applying the judicial exception with or by use of a particular machine; are not effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and are not applying the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §2106.04(d).
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. See MPEP §2106.05(f). Alternately, the additional elements amount to no more than generally linking the exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP §2106.05(h). Accordingly, these additional element(s), when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without a practical application.
STEP 2B
Upon reconsideration of the indicia noted under Step 2A in concert with the Step 2B considerations, the additional claim element(s) amounts to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. See MPEP §2106.07(a)(II). The same analysis applies in Step 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. The claim does not provide an inventive concept significantly more than the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS
Dependent Claim(s) 2-4, 6, 7 and 9-11 and 13-22 recite claim limitations that further define the abstract idea recited in respective independent Claim(s) 1, 8 and 15. As such, the dependent claims are also grouped an abstract idea utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Dependent Claim(s) recite additional elements (i.e., computer elements) of a digital character (Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16), a digital media file (Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16), a digital tool (Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16), a digital vehicle (Claim(s) 2, 9 and 16) and an electronic storage (Claim(s) 6, 13 and 22).
In each case, the additional element(s) are recited at a high level of generality such that these additional element(s) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the judicial exception or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination utilizing the same rationale as previously asserted against the independent claims.
Accordingly, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible.
Appropriate correction is requested.
5. 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-18 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Lipton (US PG Pub. 2023/0216682) in view of Newberg (US PG Pub. 2023/0360280).
Regarding Claim 8, Lipton discloses a method to generate a composite image representing a user affinity toward entities associated with digital assets indicated by a digital wallet comprising:
accessing information stored on a decentralized ledger, the information pertaining to a set of digital assets (tokens, i.e., digital assets stored as tokens) recorded at one or more addresses on a decentralized ledger, wherein the digital assets are correlated with entities (physical objects of value, metaverse assets, person/organization creator of said asset, or metaverse). (see abstract; para. 32-33, 45-50 and 57-61);
determining, based on the information, the correlated entities (physical objects of value, metaverse assets, person/organization creator of said asset, or metaverse). (see para. 32-33);
determining that the user owns the entities (physical objects of value or metaverse assets) by virtue of then digital assets (tokens) being recorded at one or more addresses on the decentralized ledger. (see abstract; para. 57-61);
generating a composite image (object avatar image) representing the entities (pure metaverse asset and a real-world physical object), wherein the composite image includes a visual symbol (an image for human visual recognition) that summarizes the entities (pure metaverse asset and a real-world physical object) and reflects an affinity of the user toward the entities. (see para. 33, 54 and 55);
responsive to generating the composite image (object avatar image):
storing the composite image (object avatar image) in electronic storage (as an image file). (see para. 45-47); and
minting (creating) a composite digital asset (duality asset) correlated with the composite image (object avatar image) by creating the composite digital asset (duality asset), defining ownership of the composite digital asset (through a sale), defining a correlation with the composite image (object avatar image), and defining an appearance of the visual symbol (via an image for human visual recognition). (see para. 33, 54 and 55); and
export[ing] the composite image to cause display of the composite image on a computing platform. (see para. 147).
Lipton does not explicitly teach a method comprising recording the composite digital asset at a first address on the decentralized ledger, although Lipton does disclose a method comprising recording the digital asset at a first address on the decentralized (see abstract), and modifying information pertaining to the digital asset on the decentralized ledger. (see para. 43).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lipton by incorporating the ability to record composite digital assets on the decentralized ledger, as suggested by Lipton, thereby keeping information pertaining to the digital assets up-to-date and accurate.
Lipton does not teach a method wherein the one or more addresses correspond with a digital wallet associated with a user.
Newberg discloses a method wherein the one or more addresses correspond with a digital wallet associated with a user. (see para. 32, 33 and 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lipton by incorporating a wallet address, as disclosed by Newberg, thereby using a wallet address as a user identifier, as disclosed by Newberg. (see para. 32-33).
Regarding Claim 9, Lipton discloses a method wherein the entities include one or more of a digital tool (e.g., super sneakers, super socks, Gucci bag or Gucci hat), wherein individual ones of the entities are associated with values to entity identity parameters (Gucci, trademark logo or brand) parameters. (see fig. 3A-3B; para. 40, 57-61 and 110-111).
Regarding Claim 10, Lipton discloses a method wherein the visual symbol is determined based on the values to the one or more entity identity parameters (Gucci, trademark logo or brand). (see para. 131).
Regarding Claim 13, Lipton discloses a method further comprising storing, in the electronic storage (database, cloud, memory or distributed ledgers), wherein the determining the entities includes accessing the electronic storage (database, cloud, memory or distributed ledgers). (see para. 2, 43, 312 and 323).
Regarding Claim 14, Lipton does not explicitly teach a method wherein the accessing the information and determining the entities are performed periodically, and analyzing the correlated entities is performed periodically.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Lipton and Newberg by duplicating claim elements contained in Lipton (e.g., the first iteration of determining and analyzing) to create additional claim elements (e.g., a second iteration of determining and analyzing) wherein each additional claim element would serve the same function as the original claim element. In the combination each element, original element and additional element, would merely have performed the same function as it did previously, and one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. see MPEP §2144.04 (VI)(B).
Regarding Claims 1-3, 6 and 7, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims.
Regarding Claim 15, Lipton discloses a method comprising:
accessing information stored on a decentralized ledger, the information pertaining to a set of digital assets (tokens, i.e., digital assets stored as tokens) recorded at one or more addresses on the decentralized ledger, wherein the digital assets are correlated with entities (physical objects of value, metaverse assets, person/organization creator of said asset, or metaverse). (see abstract; para. 32-33, 45-50 and 57-61);
determining, based on the information, the entities (physical objects of value, metaverse assets, person/organization creator of said asset, or metaverse). (see para. 32-33); and
determining that the user owns the entities (physical objects of value or metaverse assets) by virtue of then digital assets (tokens) being recorded at one or more addresses on the decentralized ledger. (see abstract; para. 57-61); and
determining a composite image (object avatar image), wherein the composite image includes a visual symbol (an image for human visual recognition) that summarizes the entities (pure metaverse asset and a real-world physical object). (see para. 33, 54 and 55).
Lipton does not teach a method wherein the one or more addresses correspond with a digital wallet associated with a user; determining adjustments to a composite image; or responsive to the determining the adjustments to the composite image, updating the composite image in accordance with the adjustments to generate an updated composite image.
Newberg discloses a method wherein the one or more addresses correspond with a digital wallet associated with a user. (see para. 32, 33 and 36).
Newberg discloses a method comprising:
determining adjustments (changes) to a composite image (appearance of the digital asset). (see para. 19); and
responsive to the determining the adjustments (changes) to the composite image (appearance of the digital asset), updating (changing) the composite image (appearance of the digital asset) in accordance with the adjustments (changes) to generate an updated composite image (post-change appearance of the digital asset). (see para. 19).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lipton by incorporating a wallet address, as disclosed by Newberg, thereby using a wallet address as a user identifier, as disclosed by Newberg. (see para. 32-33).
Regarding Claims 16-18 and 20-22, such claims recite substantially similar limitations as claimed in previously rejected claims and, therefore, would have been obvious based upon previously rejected claims.
5. Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
§101 Rejection
Step 2A Prong One
Applicant argues that the claimed invention does not recite a judicial exception and, as such, satisfies Step 2A Prong One of the §101 Guidelines. See Arguments, pp. 11-13.
Specifically, the Applicant argues:
For example, the Step 2A, Prong One analysis is deficient because the Office Action does not demonstrate that the identified abstract idea is, in fact, "abstract." The characterization of the purported concept as "a series of steps instructing how to-generate a composite asset based upon a collection of assets" is an overly narrow reading of the claim limitations. [Office Action, p. 3]. The focus on composite asset generation overlooks that this concept includes an operation of a composite image generation (or image modification, as in claim 15). The image generation language places the subject matter outside any "fundamental" economic practice. Computer- based image generation or modification is a technological operation and is not an "economic practice," let alone a fundamental economic practice, even when applied to a series of steps instructing how to generate a composite asset based upon a collection of assets. See Arguments, pp. 11-12 – emphasis added.
Here, at least paragraphs 4, 5, 17-19, 34, and/or 35 of the Specification as filed make it clear that the focus of at least the amended claims is Applicant's asserted concept. The generation of the composite asset, while a feature of the claims, is not the sole focus of the claims. See Arguments, pp. 13 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The claimed invention recites generation of a composite asset based upon a collection of assets which is a fundamental economic practice.
Admittedly, the claimed invention does recite performance of a composite image generation operation. However, recitation of a composite image generation operation does not negate the fact that the claimed invention also recites a fundamental economic practice. Recitation of a “technological operation” does not negate the fact that the claimed invention also recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong One.
§103 Rejection
Applicant argues that the previously asserted prior art (Lipton and Newberg) fails to teach or suggest the claimed invention. See Arguments, pp. 18-21.
Specifically, Applicant argues:
None of the cited references, alone or in combination, teach or suggest these features. In pertinent part, amended claim 8 recites:
determining that the user owns the entities by virtue of the digital assets being recorded at the one or more addresses on the decentralized ledger corresponding with the digital wallet associated with the user;
generating a composite image representing the entities owned by the user, wherein the composite image includes a visual symbol that summarizes the entities and reflects an affinity of the user toward the entities. See Arguments, p. 14 – emphasis original.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Lipton recites:
An example is shown in FIG. 3A, where a composite singularity asset consists of two (2) singularity assets represented by the object avatar 300 (e.g., “Super Sneakers”) and object avatar 302 (e.g., “Super Socks”). The owner of the composite singularity asset has chosen to show one item with user avatar 304 while the other item with user avatar 306, both of which are under the control of the owner in one or more metaverses. As shown, each of the object avatars is associated with an object state token 308 and an object state token 310, respectively, which together can be associated with a composite singularity asset instance 312. The ownership of the composite singularity asset instance 312 can be evidenced by an ownership token 314. See para. 59 – emphasis added.
Asset trading ledger (or “trading ledger”): In some examples, an asset trading ledger 1020 is a decentralized ledger subsystem of the asset consistency management system 100 used to carry out the exchange of ownership of singularity assets and duality assets in such a manner that double-spends (within one metaverse or across multiple metaverses) can be detected and prevented. As shown, an asset trading ledger 1020 can manage such transactions via tokens or other data structures including, e.g., singularity asset instances (e.g., such as singularity asset instance 1022 token), singularity asset ownership tokens (e.g., such as singularity asset ownership token 1024), duality asset instances (e.g., such as a duality asset instance 1026), duality asset ownership tokens (e.g., such as a duality asset ownership token 1028), venue access tokens (e.g., such as a venue access token 1030), and the like. See para. 103 – emphasis added.
FIG. 12 is a diagram illustrating an overview of the asset ownership token data structure for a given asset instance on an asset trading ledger according to some examples. As shown, an asset ownership token 1200 created by an asset consistency management system 100 can include data fields including, for example, a serial number of the asset instance 1202, a hash of the asset instance registration 1204, and a hash or the record/block containing the asset instance registration 1206. The asset ownership token 1200 can further include a public key of the current owner 1208 (e.g., initially the public key of the asset issuer) and, optionally, a legal name/identifier of the current owner 1210. The asset ownership token 1200 can further include a public key of the previous owner 1212, a hash of the record/block containing a previous ownership token 1214, a timestamp 1216, and a digital signature of a previous owner (or issuance authority) 1218. See para. 138 – emphasis added.
Lipton discloses a method comprising determining that the user owns the entities (i.e., assets) by virtue of the digital assets being recorded at the one or more addresses on the decentralized ledger (i.e. asset trading ledger) corresponding with the user. See para. 59, 103 and 138.
Lipton recites:
As indicated, in some examples, a metaverse tracking ledger 1000 is used to register and track the avatars employed in different metaverses to ensure that claims of ownership of object avatars (including e.g., luxury branded goods) in the metaverse can be validated. It is noted that users are generally free to create their own avatars and to participate in any metaverse. Furthermore, users can display (or “wield,” or “show off”) the metaverse assets which they own. This is typically performed by the user (asset owner) displaying in a linked manner the object avatars that visually represent the asset in question (either digital singularity assets or duality assets). This may be particularly relevant for branded object avatars—that is, object avatars created by brand owners and manufacturers—because some unauthenticated users in a metaverse may attempt to wield counterfeit branded object avatars, thereby negatively the economic-value of the brand. See para. 131 – emphasis added.
Lipton discloses a method comprising generating a composite image representing the entities (i.e. assets) owned by the user. See para. 131. If an object avatar is displayed then an image has been generated. If the object avatar represents a duality asset (i.e., two assets) then the object avatar is a composite image, an image representing two assets owned by the user.
Any image of a duality asset is a visual symbol that summarizes the entities (i.e., assets). Ownership of an entity (i.e., asset) reflects an affinity of the user toward the entities (i.e., assets).
Examiner notes that the claim limitation appears to be focusing on the message or meaning as interpreted by a human observer rather than the functions being performed by the computer system.
Applicant further argues:
Lipton fails to described the claims "composite image" at least because the "object avatar image" does not represent entities owned by a user. Instead, as expressly stated in Lipton, it represents a real world object created by a brand or manufacture, or a virtual object which can be purchased or traded in the metaverse. [Lipton, 34 and/or 64]. Indeed, the generation of the "object avatar image" is unrelated to any personal ownership of entities by a user; it is generated by the owner/manufacturer of the real-world counterpart. [Id.]. At least for this reason, Lipton fails to describe the claimed "composite image." See Arguments, p. 15 – emphasis added.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Assuming that Applicant’s interpretation of the prior art is correct, a brand owner or manufacturer that creates a virtual object (i.e., entity) is the owner of the virtual object (i.e., entity) until they sell the virtual object (i.e., entity) to another user. The brand owner or manufacturer is the user (i.e., the owner of the entities). If the owner/manufacturer creates the object avatar image (i.e., the composite image), the user that owns the entity has created the object avatar image (i.e., the composite image).
8. Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 JASON M. BORLINGHAUS whose telephone number is (571)272-6924. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, RYAN D. DONLON can be reached on (571)270-3602. 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.
/Jason M. Borlinghaus/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692 May 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights