DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to papers filed on 7/28/2025.
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 .
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 and 4-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because, while the claims herein are directed to a method and/or system, which could be classified under one of the listed statutory classifications (i.e., 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (hereinafter “PEG”) “PEG” Step 1=Yes), the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1, 23, 24, the claims recite, in part, accessing a library of short-form videos; associating one or more short-form videos within the library with a product for sale; receiving a short-form video request, wherein the request is in response to a search, by a user, for the product for sale; selecting, from the library of short-form videos, at least one related short-form video, wherein the selecting is based on the associating and wherein the selecting includes the one or more short-form videos; inserting a container unit; populating the at least one related short-form video, wherein the populating is accomplished dynamically, optimizing the selecting of the at least one related short-form video, wherein the optimizing is based on metadata, wherein the metadata includes user attributes and actions, wherein the user actions include a repost velocity indicative of a frequency with which the short- form video has been posted within a predetermined time window, and wherein the optimizing determines an order of the populating in the container unit, generating, by the container unit, and based on the optimizing, a user search to view the short-form videos, and presenting the container unit that includes dynamic video population on a display.
The limitations, as drafted and detailed above, is directed towards returning advertising videos for a product based on a search for a product, which falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, and specifically advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong One=Yes).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite the additional elements of server (claims 1, 23, 24), website (claims 1, 23, 24, not structural and merely hints at technology), computer-implemented (claim 1), computer program product (claim 23), non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 23)¸one or more processors (claims 23, 24), memory (claim 24), computer system (claim 24), and electronic device (claims 1, 23, 24). The additional technical elements above are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e. as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of accessing, associating, receiving, selecting, inserting, populating, optimizing, generating, and presenting) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. There are no additional functional limitations to be considered under prong two.
Accordingly, the additional technical elements above do not integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. More specifically, the additional elements fail to include (1) improvements to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)), (2) applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda memo), (3) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)), (4) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)), or (5) applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda memo).
Rather, the limitations merely add the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)), or generally link the use of the
judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Thus, the claim is “directed to” an abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Revised Step 2A Prong Two=Yes).
When considering Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
More specifically, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using server (claims 1, 23, 24), website (claims 1, 23, 24, not structural and merely hints at technology), computer-implemented (claim 1), computer program product (claim 23), non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 23)¸one or more processors (claims 23, 24), memory (claim 24), computer system (claim 24), and electronic device (claims 1, 23, 24) to perform the claimed functions amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component.
“Generic computer implementation” is insufficient to transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2352, 2357) and more generally, “simply appending conventional steps specified at a high level of generality” to an abstract idea does not make that idea patentable (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1300). Moreover, “the use of generic computer elements like a microprocessor or user interface do not alone transform an otherwise abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter (See FairWarning, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1293, citing DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). As such, the additional elements of the claim do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be generic computer functions in any computer implementation. 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 the computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation.
The Examiner notes simply implementing an abstract concept on a computer, without meaningful limitations to that concept, does not transform a patent-ineligible claim into a patent- eligible one (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bancorp, 687 F.3d at 1280), limiting the application of an abstract idea to one field of use does not necessarily guard against preempting all uses of the abstract idea (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3231), and further the prohibition against patenting an abstract principle “cannot be circumvented by attempting to limit the use of the [principle] to a particular technological environment” (See Accenture, 728 F.3d 1336, 108 U.S.P.Q.2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Flook, 437 U.S. at 584), and finally merely limiting the field of use of the abstract idea to a particular existing technological environment does not render the claims any less abstract (See Affinity Labs, _F.3d_, 120 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2016), citing Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2358; Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294; Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 593, 612 (2010); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, Nat' l Ass' n, 776 F.3d 1343, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicant herein only requires a general purpose computer (see Applicant specification Paragraph 0063); therefore, there does not appear to be any alteration or modification to the generic activities indicated, and they are also therefore recognized as insignificant activity with respect to eligibility.
The dependent claims 4-22 and 25-27 appear to merely limit a bid in order from highest to lowest, celebrity participation, or machine learning, a search for an unassociated product, the machine learning being based on user data or a conversion rate, generation of a microsite, enabling of an e-commerce purchase including a product card and a virtual shopping cart, ways of displaying the virtual shopping cart, detecting highlighting of a product for sale in a video, introduction of hashtags, associating of a second product with a video, population of a second container unit based on a search for the second product, detecting via a K-Nearest Neighbor algorithm, the type of short-form video, a floating player, a grid display structure, and a definition of conversion rate, and therefore only limit the application of the idea, and not add significantly more than the idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
The server (claims 1, 23, 24), website (claims 1, 23, 24, not structural and merely hints at technology), computer-implemented (claim 1), computer program product (claim 23), non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 23)¸one or more processors (claims 23, 24), memory (claim 24), computer system (claim 24), and electronic device (claims 1, 23, 24) are each functional generic computer components that perform the generic functions of accessing, associating, receiving, selecting, inserting, populating, optimizing, generating, and presenting, all common to electronics and computer systems.
Applicant's specification does not provide any indication that the server (claims 1, 23, 24), website (claims 1, 23, 24, not structural and merely hints at technology), computer-implemented (claim 1), computer program product (claim 23), non-transitory computer readable medium (claim 23)¸one or more processors (claims 23, 24), memory (claim 24), computer system (claim 24), and electronic device (claims 1, 23, 24) are anything other than generic, off-the-shelf computer components. Therefore, the claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea (i.e. “PEG” Step 2B=No).
Thus, based on the detailed analysis above, claims 1 and 4-29 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim 1, 7, 8, 12, 18-24, 26, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elmi (U.S. Pub No. 2007/0043713) in view of Looney (WO 2006/029681), and further in view of Cashmore (U.S. Pub No. 2016/0269352).
Regarding claims 1, 23, 24, Elmi teaches accessing, from a server, a library of short-form videos (Paragraph 0041); associating one or more short-form videos within the library with a product for sale (Paragraphs 0031, 0034); receiving, from a website, a short-form video request, wherein the request is in response to a search, by a user, for the product for sale (Paragraph 0037); selecting, from the library of short-form videos, at least one related short-form video, wherein the selecting is based on the associating and wherein the selecting includes the one or more short-form videos (Paragraph 0034); inserting a container unit into the website (Figure 3, Paragraph 0034); populating, in the container unit, the at least one related short-form video, wherein the populating is accomplished dynamically (Figure 3, Paragraph 0034), generating, by the container unit, a user search to view the short form videos (Paragraphs 0037-0039), and presenting the container unit that includes dynamic video population on a display of an electronic device (Figure 3, Paragraph 0039).
Elmi does not appear to specify optimizing the selecting of the at least one related short-form video, wherein the optimizing is based on metadata, wherein the metadata includes user attributes and user actions, and wherein the optimizing determines an order of the populating in the container unit. However, Looney teaches optimizing the selecting of the at least one related short-form video, wherein the optimizing is based on metadata, wherein the metadata includes user attributes and user actions, and wherein the optimizing determines an order of the populating in the container unit (Paragraphs 0051, 0057-0059, Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines “metadata” as “data that provides information about other data”, and therefore the selection rules qualify as metadata, the selection rules including “a greatest likelihood of a customer responding to an advertisement” represents user attributes and user actions). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to optimize the selections of video in order to ensure the best videos are populated at the best time for optimal targeting.
Elmi and Looney do not appear to specify wherein the user actions include a repost velocity indicative of a frequency with which the short- form video has been posted within a predetermined time window. However, Cashmore teaches wherein the user actions include a repost velocity indicative of a frequency with which the short- form video has been posted within a predetermined time window (Paragraph 0015). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to pay attention to user actions such as repost velocity since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and the combination of each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately and a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
EXAMINER’S NOTE: The invention Elmi does not place any restriction on the length of the videos, and therefore any of the videos are considered “short-form”, which meets the claim language.
Regarding claim 7, Elmi does not appear to specify the short-form video request is in response to a search for an unassociated product for sale. However, having default search results to present in a scenario where no search results match a query has been old and well known long before the filing of Applicant’s invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include default videos in case a person searches for a product that has no associated video. This would lead to the default advertisement getting viewed, which would result in more revenue.
Regarding claim 8, Elmi teaches the optimizing is based on metadata, a bid from an advertiser, celebrity participation, or machine learning (Paragraph 0034, Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines “metadata” as “data that provides information about other data”, and therefore the used search criteria qualifies as metadata).
Regarding claim 12, Elmi teaches generating a microsite, wherein the generating is based on the selecting (Paragraph 0039).
Regarding claim 18, Elmi teaches detecting that a product, service, or category is highlighted in the related short-form video (Paragraphs 0015, 0032, the video is associated with a product which means the video “highlights” that product).
Regarding claim 19, Elmi teaches the product, service, or category is related to the product for sale (Paragraphs 0015, 0032, the product is related to the product for sale by being the product for sale).
Regarding claim 20, Elmi does not appear to specify the associating is based on one or more hashtags. However, hashtags have been old and well known long before the filing of Applicant’s invention. Hashtags are typically used to link content on search engines as well as social networks such as Instagram and Facebook. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use hashtags in order to add another level of association between products and videos and provide more search functionality.
Regarding claim 21, Elmi teaches associating the one or more short-form videos with a second product for sale (Abstract, “advertiser's product and/or service offerings” means that multiple product offerings are associated with a video).
Regarding claim 22, Elmi teaches populating a second container unit with the one or more short-form videos, wherein the second container unit is included in a second website that received a short-form video request based on a search for the second product for sale (Figure 3, Paragraphs 0034, 0037, 0039, multiple searches can be performed and the video will pop up each time in a new website frame).
Regarding claim 26, Elmi teaches the at least one related short-form video is selected from a group consisting of organic videos, sponsored videos, and promotional videos (Paragraph 0034, promotional videos).
Regarding claim 27, Elmi does not appear to specify the container unit comprises a floating player. However, A pop up webpage having the container unit embedded thereon would meet the requirement of a “floating player”. Pop up advertising pages have been old and well known long before the filing of Applicant’s invention. Pop up advertising pages originated in the 1990s and have been in use ever since. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to embed the container unit within a pop up page in order to preserve the appearance of an earlier site.
Regarding claim 28, Elmi teaches the container unit comprises a grid container unit, wherein the grid container unit enables one or more elements to be placed in specific locations using standardized row and column references (Figure 2, videos Club Bobo, English Theater, Park Blvd together represent a row while videos Club Bobo, Steven Cafe, Beach Pizza represent a column, all together the display is arranged as a “grid”).
Claims 4-6, 9-11, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elmi (U.S. Pub No. 2007/0043713) in view of Looney (WO 2006/029681), and further in view of Cashmore (U.S. Pub No. 2016/0269352), and further in view of Madden (WO 2019/212843).
Regarding claim 4, Elmi does not appear to specify the optimizing is based on a bid from an advertiser. However, Madden teaches the optimizing is based on a bid from an advertiser (Paragraph 0037). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to return search results according to bids in order to earn revenue from the providing of advertising.
Regarding claim 5, Elmi does not appear to specify the optimizing occurs in order of highest bid to lowest bid. However, Madden teaches the optimizing occurs in order of highest bid to lowest bid (Paragraph 0037). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to return search results according to bids in order to earn revenue from the providing of advertising.
Regarding claim 6, Elmi does not appear to specify the optimizing is based on video metadata. However, Looney teaches the optimizing is based on video metadata (Paragraphs 0051, 0057-0059, Merriam Webster Online Dictionary defines “metadata” as “data that provides information about other data”, and therefore the selection rules qualify as metadata, the selection rules including “a greatest likelihood of a customer responding to an advertisement” which represents metadata about a video ad which is “video metadata”). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the selections of video in order to ensure the best videos are populated at the best time for optimal targeting.
Elmi and Looney do not appear to specify the optimizing is based on celebrity participation in the at least one related short-form video. However, celebrity endorsements and guest appearances in commercials have been old and well known long before the filing of Applicant’s invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have celebrity participation in a video advertisement since endorsements are known to lift sales of products.
Elmi and Looney do not appear to specify the optimizing is based on a bid from an advertiser. However, Madden teaches the optimizing is based on a bid from an advertiser (Paragraph 0037). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to return search results according to bids in order to earn revenue from the providing of advertising.
Elmi, Looney, and Madden do not appear to specify the optimizing is based on conversion rate. However, Madden does teach the optimizing is based on machine learning (Paragraph 0007), and that the machine learning is based on past purchases (conversions, Paragraph 0031). Further, conversion rates have been an old and well known tool that are used as a basis of how to better select and target advertising since long before the filing of Applicant’s invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use machine learning and conversion rates to return search results in order to better ensure that the best advertising is returned.
Regarding claim 9, Elmi does not appear to specify the optimizing is based on machine learning. However, Madden teaches the optimizing is based on machine learning (Paragraph 0007). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use machine learning to return search results in order to better ensure the search results are better targeted.
Regarding claim 10, Elmi does not appear to specify the machine learning is based on user data. However, Madden teaches the machine learning is based on user data (Paragraph 0007). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use machine learning to return search results in order to better ensure the search results are better targeted.
Regarding claim 11, Elmi and Madden do not appear to specify the machine learning is based on conversion rate. However, Madden does teach the machine learning is based on past purchases (conversions, Paragraph 0031). Further, conversion rates have been an old and well known tool that are used as a basis of how to better select and target advertising since long before the filing of Applicant’s invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use machine learning and conversion rates to return search results in order to better ensure that the best advertising is returned.
Regarding claim 29, Elmi and Madden do not appear to specify the conversion rate is based on a percentage of total views resulting in a sale of the product for sale. However, Madden does teach the machine learning is based on past purchases (conversions, Paragraph 0031). Further, conversion rates have been an old and well known tool that are known to represent a number of users who take a desired action (purchase) out of a total number of an audience (views) expressed as a percentage since long before the filing of Applicant’s invention. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use machine learning and conversion rates to return search results in order to better ensure that the best advertising is returned.
Claims 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elmi (U.S. Pub No. 2007/0043713) in view of Looney (WO 2006/029681), and further in view of Cashmore (U.S. Pub No. 2016/0269352), and further in view of Baxter (U.S. Pub No. 2022/0053233).
Regarding claim 13, Elmi does not appear to specify enabling an ecommerce purchase within the at least one related short-form video. However, Baxter teaches enabling an ecommerce purchase within at least one video (Paragraphs 0026-0033). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow sales within a video in order to sell advertised products and make easier sales.
Regarding claim 14, Elmi does not appear to specify enabling includes a product card. However, Baxter teaches enabling includes a product card (Paragraphs 0026-0033). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow sales within a video in order to sell advertised products and make easier sales.
Regarding claim 15, Elmi does not appear to specify enabling includes a virtual purchase cart. However, Baxter teaches enabling includes a virtual purchase cart (Paragraphs 0026-0033). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow sales within a video in order to sell advertised products and make easier sales.
Regarding claim 16, Elmi does not appear to specify the at least one related short-form video is displayed along with the virtual purchase cart while the at least one related short-form video plays. However, Baxter teaches the at least one related short-form video is displayed along with the virtual purchase cart while the at least one related short-form video plays (Paragraphs 0026-0033, Figures 2A-2G). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow sales within a video in order to sell advertised products and make easier sales.
Regarding claim 17, Elmi does not appear to specify the virtual purchase cart covers a portion of the at least one related short-form video. However, Baxter teaches the virtual purchase cart covers a portion of the at least one related short-form video (Paragraphs 0026-0033, Figures 2A-2G). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow sales within a video in order to sell advertised products and make easier sales.
Claim 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elmi (U.S. Pub No. 2007/0043713) in view of Looney (WO 2006/029681), and further in view of Cashmore (U.S. Pub No. 2016/0269352), and further in view of Avegliano (U.S. Pub No. 2018/0308126).
Regarding claim 25, Elmi does not appear to specify the detecting is accomplished using a K-Nearest Neighbor algorithm. However, Avegliano teaches the detecting is accomplished using a K-Nearest Neighbor algorithm (Paragraph 0050). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a K-Nearest Neighbor algorithm to detect a product within an image file since K-Nearest Neighbor algorithm is a well-known accurate way to detect such data.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues “the amended claim further clarifies that the optimization of short-form video selection is not merely an abstract idea, but rather an improved technical process that causes the container unit to generate a user search, which is then used to view the videos. This adds a concrete technological effect and ties the optimization step to active system behavior, not just data filtering or ordering. As supported throughout the application-as-filed, including in paragraph [0021], this feature enables the container unit to dynamically participate in delivering optimized content to the user, improving system responsiveness and engagement. Thus, the currently amended claim represents an improvement in computer-based video processing, distinguishing the claimed method from mere abstract concepts”. However, according to the specification, it appears that the step of generating a user search is merely implementing a search using the user’s earlier received search request. This is absolutely a standard step of filtering data according to search criteria. The specification does not discuss technical improvements to responsiveness and engagement in computer-based video processing. Rather, the specification, at Paragraph 0021, states “These and other features of disclosed embodiments improve the technical field of ecommerce“. The field of e-commerce, however, not a technical field and is directed to commercial interactions, which falls within the category of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity as an abstract idea. In the SAP decision (See SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC, 898 F.3d 1161, 1163, 127 USPQ2d 1597, 1599 (Fed. Cir. 2018)), the courts found that an improvement made to the abstract idea is not patent eligible. SAP v. Investpic: Page 2, line 22 through Page 3, line 13 - Even assuming that the algorithms claimed are groundbreaking, innovative or even brilliant, the claims are ineligible because their innovation is an innovation in ineligible subject matter because there are nothing but a series of mathematical algorithms based on selected information and the presentation of the results of those algorithms. Thus, the advance lies entirely in the realm of abstract ideas, with no plausible alleged innovation in the non-abstract application realm. An advance of this nature is ineligible for patenting; and Page 10, lines 18-24 - Even if a process of collecting and analyzing information is limited to particular content, or a particular source, that limitations does not make the collection and analysis other than abstract. Therefore, this argument is unpersuasive.
All other arguments are believed to have been addressed by the new grounds of rejection above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL BEKERMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3256. The examiner can normally be reached 9PM-3PM EST M, T, TH, F.
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, WASEEM ASHRAF can be reached on (571) 270-3948. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL BEKERMAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682