DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Status of Claim
The following is a Final Office Action in response to communications filed on 6 of October 2025.
Claims 1, 5, and 9 have been amended.
Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 10 have been cancelled.
Claims 11-13 have been added.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11-13 are currently pending and are rejected as described below.
Response to Argument/Remarks
35 USC § 101
Applicant asserts that claim 1 is sufficiently integrated into a practical application as it improves currently existing shop management servers and customer service management systems. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Similarly, "claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer" does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). In contrast, a claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a) for a discussion of improvements to the functioning of a computer or to another technology or technical field.
Because the examiner determined that the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application, the examiner proceeds to Step 2B of the Eligibility Guidelines, which asks whether there is an inventive concept. There is no evidence in the record that the steps in the claims are accomplished in a non-conventional way. The Examiner therefore concluded that the claim used generic, conventional, technology to implement the abstract idea and that there is no improvement to an “existing technology.” Final Act. 4.
35 USC § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11-13 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The obviousness rejection has been updated to reflect said changes.
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, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
When considering subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, it must be determined whether the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., process, machines, article of manufacture, or composition of matter. If the claim does fall within one of the statutory categories, it must then be determined whether the claim is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., law of nature, natural phenomenon, and abstract idea), and if so, it must additionally be determined whether the claim is a patent-eligible application of the exception. If an abstract idea is present in the claim, any element or combination of elements in the claim must be sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea. Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., 573 U.S. ____ (2014). See MPEP 2106.03(II).
The claims are then analyzed to determine if the claims are directed to a judicial exception. MPEP §2106.04(a). In determining, whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception, the claims are analyzed to evaluate whether the claims recite a judicial exception (Prong One of Step 2A), and whether the claims recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application (Prong Two of Step 2A). See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (“PEG” 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50-57 (Jan. 7, 2019)).
With respect to 2A Prong 1, claim 1 recites “a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the processor performing operations, the operations comprising; acquiring, at a shop in which a customer consumes a product, an image of the shop that is an image showing at least one of an area for providing the product to the customer and an area in which the customer consumes the product; determining a type of an instruction to a customer service clerk who provides the product to the customer by applying the image of the shop to a determination model for determining the instruction; acquiring the instruction corresponding to the determined type of the instruction; outputting the acquired instruction to the customer service clerk; wherein the image of the shop is an image of a serving space including dishes for serving and an order slip, the instruction is a serving instruction, and the operation further comprise; determining the instruction based on a dish described in the order slip and a dish in the serving space by using the determination model, acquiring the instruction being voice information stored in a storage device, and outputting the acquired serving instruction to a headphone or an earphone worn by the customer service clerk via a wireless line”. Claims 5 and 9 disclose similar limitations as Claim 1, and therefore recites an abstract idea.
More specifically, claims 1, 5, and 9 are directed to “Mental Processes” in particular “concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)” and “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” in particular “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)” and “commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations)” as discussed in MPEP §2106.04(a)(2), and in the 2019-01-08 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4, 8, and 11-13 further recite abstract idea(s) contained within the independent claims, and do not contribute to significant more or enable practical application. Thus, the dependent claims are rejected under 101 based on the same rationale as the independent claims.
Under Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the examiner acknowledges that Claims 1, 5, and 9 recite additional elements yet the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In order for the judicial exception to be “integrated into a practical application”, an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim “will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 54 (Jan. 7, 2019). The courts have identified examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application when “an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.” PEG, 84 Fed. Reg. 55 (Jan. 7, 2019); MPEP § 2106.05(h). The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
In particular, claims 1, 5, and 9 recite additional elements underlined and boldened above. These are generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
With respect to step 2B, claims 1, 5, and 9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The claims recite the additional element described above. This is a generic computer component recited as performing generic computer functions that are mere instructions to apply an exception, because it does no more than merely invoke computers or machinery as a tool to perform an existing process, as evidenced by at least ¶92-94 (PG Pub) "The shop management server 11 includes an image acquisition unit 130, an instruction determination unit 140, an instruction acquisition unit 150, and an instruction output unit 160. At a shop where customers consume products, the image acquisition unit 130 acquires an image of the shop that shows at least one of an area for providing the products to the customers and an area in which the customers consume the products. The instruction determination unit 140 applies the image of the shop to a determination model for determining an instruction, and determines the type of instruction to a customer service clerk who provides a product to a customer. For example, the instruction determination unit 140 determines the type of the instruction by applying the image of the shop to the determination model stored in the storage device corresponding to the determination model storage unit 110. The instruction acquisition unit 150 acquires an instruction corresponding to the determined type of instruction. For example, the instruction acquisition unit 150 acquires an instruction stored in a storage device corresponding to the instruction storage unit 120. The instruction output unit 160 outputs the acquired instruction to the customer service clerk. In this manner, each component of the shop management server 11 operates similarly to the corresponding component of the shop management server 10, and implements the same function.
Next, a hardware configuration of the shop management servers 10 and 11 will be described using the shop management server 10. Each component of the shop management server 10 may be configured by a hardware circuit. Alternatively, each component of the shop management server 10 may be configured using a plurality of devices connected via a network. For example, the shop management server 10 may be configured using cloud computing. Alternatively, the plurality of components of the shop management server 10 may be configured by one piece of hardware. Alternatively, the shop management server 10 may be implemented as a computer device that includes a central processing unit (CPU), a read only memory (ROM), a random-access memory (RAM), and a network interface card (NIC). Fig. 4 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration of a computer device 600 that is an example of a hardware configuration of the shop management server 10. The computer device 600 includes a CPU 610, a ROM 620, a RAM 630, a storage device 640, and an NIC 650”.
As a result, claims 1, 5, and 9 do not include additional elements, when recited alone or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). 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.
Claims 4, 8, and 11-13 do not disclose additional elements, further narrowing the abstract ideas of the independent claims and thus not practically integrated under prong 2A as part of a practical application or under 2B not significantly more for the same reasons and rationale as above.
After considering all claim elements, both individually and in combination, Examiner has determined that the claims are directed to the above abstract ideas and do not amount to significantly more. See Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, No. 13–298.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 4, 5, 8, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of WO 2020145085 to Iwanaga et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Iwanaga”) in view of WO 2014033979 to Hiroi (hereinafter referred to as “Hiroi”) in further view of US 20210390635 to Hu et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Hu”) and in even further view of US 20190122665 to Chasney (hereinafter referred to as “Chasney”).
(A) As per Claims 1, 5, and 9:
Iwanaga expressly discloses:
a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory, the processor performing operations, the operations comprising; (Iwanaga Page 3 FIG. 1 is a block diagram showing an overall configuration of the business support system 1 and the image recognition device 100. The image recognition device 100 may be configured by a computer (including an information processing system) including a CPU (Central Processing Unit), a memory unit, a communication unit, and the like).
acquiring, at a shop in which a customer consumes a product, an image of the shop that is an image showing at least one of an area for providing the product to the customer and an area in which the customer consumes the product; (Iwanaga Page 3 the image acquisition unit 110 acquires the image of the eating and drinking space from the image pickup device 101 as image data in a one-dimensional array or a two-dimensional array via a wireless or wired cable or a network. In addition, the video acquisition unit 110 also acquires a video group of the eating and drinking space from an external video database or recording device 160).
acquiring the instruction corresponding to the determined type of the instruction; outputting the acquired instruction to the customer service clerk; (Iwanaga PAGE 4 the state transition unit 131 acquires customer information such as customer orders and settlements that are operated and input to the display / instruction terminal 102 via the data communication unit 140. The state transition unit 131 preferentially determines the progress state of the customer based on this customer information. The information group that has caused such a state transition is backed up in the history 160a in the recording device 160 via the recording control unit 150. The instruction output unit 132 notifies the display / instruction terminal 102 of the service instruction via the data communication unit 140 according to the progress status of the customer).
wherein the image of the shop is an image of a serving space including dishes for serving and…the instruction is a serving instruction, and the operation further comprise; (Iwanaga PAGE 5 FIG. 8 is a diagram showing how the detection areas 601 to 603 for each customer are determined. The pre-processing unit 122 detects the presence or absence of customers by image processing such as background subtraction method, face detection, and learning model. The preprocessing unit 122 determines the detection areas 601 to 603 so as to cover the detected area of the customer and the area of foods and drinks and menus provided to the customer. By dividing the detection areas 601 to 603 for each customer's action area in this way, image recognition for each customer becomes possible).
Although Iwanaga teaches an image recognition technology that makes it possible to provide a service with high customer satisfaction, it doesn’t expressly disclose using the image to determine what instruction to provide to worker, however Hiroi teaches:
determining a type of an instruction to a customer service clerk who provides the product to the customer by applying the image of the shop to a determination model for determining the instruction; (Hiroi PAGE 7 immediately after the arrangement is finished, the work can be instructed with the minimum movement of the line of sight of the employee 300 by displaying on the tray. Also, immediately after the end of the accounting process, you can call attention by displaying it in the empty part of the cash register or counter. If the employee 300 is back near the kitchen immediately after the end of the lowering rod, instructions may be displayed on the work table 400 (deshap counter) on which the dishes coming out of the kitchen are placed).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Iwanaga’s image acquisition unit acquires the image of the eating and drinking space from the image pickup device as image data and have the work can be instructed with the minimum movement of the line of sight of the employee by displaying on the tray of Hiroi as both are analogous art which teach solutions to having instruction output unit notifies the display / instruction terminal of the service instruction via the data communication unit according to the progress status of the customer as taught in Iwanaga and have instructions displayed on the work table on which the dishes coming out of the kitchen are placed as taught in Hiroi.
Although Iwanaga in view of Hiroi teaches an image recognition technology that makes it possible to provide a service with high customer satisfaction, it doesn’t expressly disclose a model that determines instructions based on an order slip and dish, however Hu teaches:
…an order slip…; (Hu ¶25-26 for a given dish, its corresponding image feature captured in the ordering mode is compared with features of every newly detected customer. The customer whose feature has the least distance from original picture will be considered as the target, and the waiter/waitress will be informed to serve to the correct person).
determining the instruction based on a dish described in the order slip and a dish in the serving space by using the determination model; (Hu ¶26, 36 once the Caesar salad plate has been completed by the kitchen, the matching operation is performed, and it is determined that the person having an image that matches the customer who ordered the Caesar salad is highlighted in red. Thus, the server does not need to guess the identity of the person who ordered the Caesar salad. With respect to the customer matching aspects of the example implementations, a cloud-based service may be provided that determines and returns the “most similar person” image from all detected people for a query image. For example, but not by way of limitation, convolutional neural networks (CNNs) may be used. In one example implementation, the CNN includes feature extractors to process all input images into feature vectors.).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Iwanaga in view of Hiroi’s image acquisition unit acquires the image of the eating and drinking space from the image pickup device as image data and have a dish image feature captured in the ordering mode is compared with features of every newly detected customer of Hu as both are analogous art which teach solutions to having instruction output unit notifies the display / instruction terminal of the service instruction via the data communication unit according to the progress status of the customer as taught in Iwanaga in view of Hiroi and have an image that matches the customer who ordered the Caesar salad is highlighted in red as taught in Hu.
Although Iwanaga in view of Hiroi and in further view of Hu teaches an image recognition technology that makes it possible to provide a service with high customer satisfaction, it doesn’t expressly disclose acquiring voice instructions and outputting over a headphone, however Chasney teaches:
acquiring the instruction being voice information stored in a storage device; (Chasney ¶133 the disclosed technology includes a WAVE server that provides rapid information delivery via an http service software interface that can reside either on a locally hosted server or on a web server that is located on the internet and uses hardware that provides an interface with wireless voice facilities and user controls (e.g., buttons). Messages are delivered via verbal speech to a recipient through text-to-speech conversion that is performed by the WAVE server.).
outputting the acquired serving instruction to a headphone or an earphone worn by the customer service clerk via a wireless line; (Chasney ¶27 in another second implementation, a WAVE system 100 operates similarly to the implementation in FIG. 1, however, a restaurant wireless headset system previously installed in a restaurant for their drive-through operation may be used (e.g., HME Drive-through wireless headset system). This second implementation permits a two-channel communication (multi-user) WAVE system 100. One channel can be used to send verbal instructions to a kitchen cook while the other channel can be used to send verbal advice to a restaurant manager or anyone else. This HME-interfaced hardware configuration is more complex than the WAVE system 100 in FIG. 1. In this second implementation, the restaurant uses a communication “base” station to service other in-store needs. This hardware configuration can interface with the existing in-restaurant base unit via an HME transceiver integration. This provides a communication channel from the WAVE system 100 into the HME base unit for ultimate delivery to designated users).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Iwanaga in view of Hiroi and in further view of Hu’s image acquisition unit acquires the image of the eating and drinking space from the image pickup device as image data and have a WAVE server that provides rapid information delivery via an http service software interface that can reside either on a locally hosted server or on a web server that is located on the internet and uses hardware that provides an interface with wireless voice facilities and user controls of Chasney as both are analogous art which teach solutions to having instruction output unit notifies the display / instruction terminal of the service instruction via the data communication unit according to the progress status of the customer as taught in Iwanaga in view of Hiroi and in further view of Hu and have a restaurant wireless headset system previously installed in a restaurant for their drive-through operation that permits a two-channel communication (multi-user) WAVE system as taught in Chasney.
Iwanaga teaches a method and CRM (memory unit).
(B) As per Claims 4 and 8:
Iwanaga expressly discloses:
determining the customer service clerk who is available using the image of the shop, and outputting the instruction to the available customer service clerk; (Iwanaga PAGE 8 in the embodiment, the free time is predicted based on the customer service schedule. Therefore, it is possible to instruct the employee not only the service instruction but also the free time. Therefore, by adopting the embodiment, it is possible to prevent an unnecessary free time from being created in the behavior of the employee, and to be aware of the free time and utilize it efficiently. Further, in the embodiment, it is possible to perform image recognition on the status of replenishment such as tea and drinking water, and to notify the replenishment instruction in a timely manner. Therefore, by adopting the embodiment, the employee does not have to visually check the shortage of replenisher many times, and the labor of the employee can be reduced).
(C) As per Claim 13:
Although Iwanaga in view of Hiroi in further view of Hu and in even further view of Chasney teaches an image recognition technology that makes it possible to provide a service with high customer satisfaction, it doesn’t expressly disclose acquiring voice instructions and outputting over a headphone, however Hu additionally teaches:
wherein the operations further comprise: determining the instruction, in the case that the dishes for serving are complete; (Hu ¶24 subsequently, the servers 107 are provided with an order that associates the dish with the customer. Once the dish has been completed, is matched to the right customer 105, during the serving process. Then, the dish is served to the customer 101).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Iwanaga in view of Hiroi in further view of Hu and in even further view of Chasney’s image acquisition unit acquires the image of the eating and drinking space from the image pickup device as image data and the servers are provided with an order that associates the dish with the customer of Hu as both are analogous art which teach solutions to having instruction output unit notifies the display/instruction terminal of the service instruction via the data communication unit according to the progress status of the customer as taught in Iwanaga in view of Hiroi in further view of Hu and in even further view of Chasney and once the dish has been completed, is matched to the right customer, during the serving process and it is served to the customer as additionally taught in Hu.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of WO 2020145085 to Iwanaga et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Iwanaga”) in view of WO 2014033979 to Hiroi (hereinafter referred to as “Hiroi”) in further view of US 20210390635 to Hu et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Hu”) in even further view of US 20190122665 to Chasney (hereinafter referred to as “Chasney”) and in even further view of US 20230021774 to Park et. al. hereinafter referred to as “Park”).
(A) As per Claim 11:
Although Iwanaga in view of Hiroi in further view of Hu and in even further view of Chasney teaches an image recognition technology that makes it possible to provide a service with high customer satisfaction, it doesn’t expressly disclose determining a dish on an order based on text recognition, however Park teaches:
wherein the determination model determines the dish described in the order slip using character recognition; (Park ¶58 the OSE module 323 may extract order information from the analyzed text data, and provide the extracted order information to the VOS module 310).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Iwanaga in view of Hiroi in further view of Hu and in even further view of Chasney’s image acquisition unit acquires the image of the eating and drinking space from the image pickup device as image data and have the OSE module extract order information from the analyzed text data of Park as both are analogous art which teach solutions to having instruction output unit notifies the display/instruction terminal of the service instruction via the data communication unit according to the progress status of the customer as taught in Iwanaga in view of Hiroi in further view of Hu and in even further view of Chasney and provide the extracted order information to the VOS module as taught in Park.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious by the combination of WO 2020145085 to Iwanaga et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Iwanaga”) in view of WO 2014033979 to Hiroi (hereinafter referred to as “Hiroi”) in further view of US 20210390635 to Hu et. al. (hereinafter referred to as “Hu”) in even further view of US 20190122665 to Chasney (hereinafter referred to as “Chasney”) and in even further view of US 20240029019 to Litzenberger et. al. hereinafter referred to as “Litzenberger”).
(A) As per Claim 12:
Although Iwanaga in view of Hiroi in further view of Hu and in even further view of Chasney teaches an image recognition technology that makes it possible to provide a service with high customer satisfaction, it doesn’t expressly disclose determining a dish placed in a serving space based on image recognition, however Litzenberger teaches:
wherein the determination model determines the dish placed in the serving space using image recognition; (Litzenberger ¶50 the kitchen management component 118 can receive image-depth including depth data and recognize and distinguish between different dishes and/or meal items in a restaurant).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was filed to have modified Iwanaga in view of Hiroi in further view of Hu and in even further view of Chasney’s image acquisition unit acquires the image of the eating and drinking space from the image pickup device as image data and have the kitchen management component receive image-depth including depth data of Litzenberger as both are analogous art which teach solutions to having instruction output unit notifies the display/instruction terminal of the service instruction via the data communication unit according to the progress status of the customer as taught in Iwanaga in view of Hiroi in further view of Hu and in even further view of Chasney and recognize and distinguish between different dishes and/or meal items in a restaurant as taught in Litzenberger.
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 extension fee 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 MATHEUS R STIVALETTI whose telephone number is (571)272-5758. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rutao (Rob) Wu can be reached on (571)272-7761. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-1822.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/MATHEUS RIBEIRO STIVALETTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3623 12/09/2025