DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 2, 4 – 13 and 15 – 22 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
With regard to the Non-Final Office Action from 26 November 2025, the Applicant has filed a response on 26 February 2026.
Claims 3 and 14 have been cancelled.
New claims — 21 and 22 have been added.
Response to Arguments
With regard to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection given to the claims, the Applicant indicates the presence of certain limitations of claim 1, which cannot be practically performed in the human mind (Remarks: page 9 par 2). These limitations are ‘obtaining audio via a microphone of a device’ which can be interpreted as a human receiving audio; ‘providing the audio to an automatic speech recognition system … configured to generate, in real-time, transcription of the audio’ which can be interpreted as a human receiving audio in real-time, and writing out the text of the audio; ‘acquiring in real-time, the transcription of the audio from the automatic speech recognition system’ which can be interpreted as a human receiving in real-time, the written transcript of an utterance; and ‘presenting, via a display of the device, the prediction to the user in real-time such that the display depicts the plurality of word sets at the same time, the presented prediction continuously changing in response to continuous updates to the transcription’ which can be interpreted as a human receiving a presentation of the prediction of next words being performed in real-time by another human, in a way such that, as a pause in encountered an utterance, the other human writes out suggestions on possible next words that can be uttered. By this, the Examiner shows that these limitations can be performed in the human mind, contrary to the Applicant’s notion.
The Applicant further indicates (Remarks: page 10 par 2) that the claims ‘recite a specific configuration of specific components that perform specific functions to provide speech-assistance to a user,’ stating that these would be suitable to have the claims integrated into a practical application. Obtaining audio through the use of a microphone is indicative a generic microphone that obtains audio. With regard to the continuous presentation of word predictions that continuously change in response to transcription updates, the Examiner has indicated above that this process by itself is also a mental process, one that can be performed in the human mind with paper and pen.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the independent claims have been considered but are moot due to the new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment to the claims. The claims will be addressed by their current presentation in the following section.
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, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more.
Claims 1, 11 and 12 provide recite the limitations of obtaining audio that includes user speech through a microphone, providing the audio to an ASR able to generate a transcript of the audio in real-time and continuously update the transcript as more audio is received by the microphone, obtaining the transcript in real-time from the ASR system, obtaining a prediction in real-time based on the transcript such that the prediction includes a plurality of word sets that include one or more words determined based on the last word in the transcript, presenting the prediction containing the plurality of word sets to the user in real-time on a display, in a way that the predictions are continuously updated to assist the user in determining one more words to speak next.
Nothing in the claims precludes the claims for being performed in the human mind. The entire process involves data gathering, data transformation, data analysis and data presentation. The process can be performed by having a human listen to a user’s speech, and typing or writing out the texts/words that are being spoken, and as the user speaks, the human makes a prediction of the possible next sets of words that can be spoken by the user also while receiving the new words that are spoken by the user, transcribing them, and continuously making predictions of the next possible words, these to keep being presented to the user in order to assist the user in determining the next words to speak. The mentioning of a microphone, a display, one or more computer-readable media and one or more processors simply serve as presenting hardware to be able to perform the claimed invention. The claims hereby recite a mental process.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application as the claims simply teach of collecting data through receiving audio and then speech, transforming data to obtain transcribed text of the received speech, analysing data to predict words that follow a current last word, and presenting data by presenting the predictions to the user.
The invention is not tied to any particular defining structure and simply provides instructions to apply the judicial exception. The techniques can be performed by a generic computer which would be presented as a tool to implement the abstract idea (classifiable as automation of a mental concept). The Specification in [0017] provides the use of several generic computers suitable to execute the claimed method. This is presented in generic terms, such that a general-purpose computer could be used to address the claim limitations. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the invention is not tied to a practical application.
The claims provide techniques that amount to no more than mere instructions that apply the judicial exception which can be performed by a generic device. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic device cannot provide an inventive concept. Claims 1, 11 and 12 are not eligible.
Claims 2 and 13 provide teaching for the prediction being presented to the used until the transcription includes another word that provides context to the user speech. A human may keep on presenting predictions until the user utters further speech that updates the context of the currently available transcript, to which the human makes and presents new predictions. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 4 and 15 provide teaching for the number of plurality of word sets including at least five. A human may make a presentation to include at least five suggestions. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 5 and 16 provide teaching for obtaining selection input from the user whereby one of the plurality of words is selected, and then presenting further data regarding the selected word. A human may present a set of predicted words to the user, the user selecting one of the predicted words, and then after the user has made the selection, having the human present more words based on the recent user selection. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 6 and 17 provide teaching for the prediction words likely to follow the last word being based on standard usage of a language of the speech. A human may make word prediction based on standard usage of a language of the speech. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 7 and 16 provide teaching for the one or more prediction words being semantically related to a word that likely follows the last word in the transcript based on standard usage of a language of the speech, these semantically related words being present to assist the user in determining a word that likely follows the last word in the transcript. A human may present word predictions based on semantic relations based on standard usage of a language of the speech. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 8 and 19 provide teaching for the prediction being generated based on data provided by a health practitioner assisting the user. A human may generate predictions based on words that would be useful to a health practitioner. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 9 and 20 provide teaching for presenting the transcription in real-time in addition to the presentation of the prediction. A human may, as a user speaks, in real-time transcribe the utterance, and as needed, present predictions of follow-up words to the user. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claim 10 provides teaching for obtaining a second audio that includes speech of a third person, generating a real-time transcript of the second audio, real-time acquisition of the second transcript from the ASR system, and presenting the second transcript and the prediction to the user. A human may, in addition to presenting the initial transcript and the suggestions to the user, also receive speech from another user, transcribe it in real-time, make prediction suggestions for this, other user, and present the transcript and prediction to the initial user. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claims 21 and 22 provide teaching for a display presentation of the word that likely follows the last word instead of the semantically related words, after a certain period has passed from the display of the semantically related words with the user not making any further utterance. A human may present semantically related words to the user, count the amount of time which has elapsed from the display of the semantically related words that the user has not made an utterance, and then present one suggested word in the place of the semantically related words. This does not integrate any practical application nor does it provide any additional element sufficient to amount to more than the mentioned judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 12, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JOST et al. (US 2020/0410991 A1: hereafter — Jost).
For claim 1, Jost discloses a method comprising:
obtaining audio via a microphone of a device, the audio including speech of a user of the device (Jost: [0031], [0037] — a microphone; [0026] — receiving speech from a user);
providing the audio to an automatic speech recognition system, the automatic speech recognition system configured to generate, in real-time, a transcription of the audio, the transcription including text of the speech in the audio and the automatic speech recognition system being further configured to continuously update the transcription as additional audio obtained by the microphone is provided to the automatic speech recognition system (Jost: [0030] — ASR being used in an instant messaging application (teaching of continuous updating of a transcription); [0054], FIG. 4 — drafting an e-mail whereby the user’s speech dictation is being presented as a transcript in real-time, this being continuously updated as the user speaks);
acquiring, in real-time, the transcription of the audio from the automatic speech recognition system (Jost: [0054] — speech-to-text being performed in real-time; [0030] — ASR);
obtaining a prediction based on the transcription of the audio in real-time, the prediction including a plurality of word sets, each of the plurality of word sets including one or more words determined based on at least a last word in the transcription, the prediction being continuously updated in response to continuous updates to the transcription (Jost: [0053] — a prediction process that may predict a next word following the current word in the speech from the user; [0057] — the speech from the user is processed to convert the speech to text, and prediction process may then include the accepted predicted next n-word(s) (e.g., “flight”) at the location in the speech/text where the prediction was previously displayed; [0055], FIG. 4 Part 402 — providing several prediction word sets); and
presenting, via a display of the device, the prediction to the user in real-time such that the display depicts the plurality of word sets at the same time, the presented prediction continuously changing in response to continuous updates to the transcription, the presented prediction configured to assist the user in determining one or more next words to speak (Jost: FIG. 4 Part 402 — a display presentation in real-time of the prediction of word set; [0041] — a display device; [0004] — displaying the predicted next word; [0057] — displaying the predicted next words such that the user may accept and make use of the prediction (indication of a next word to be spoken); [0004] — ‘[p]resenting to the user in real time the next word that is predicted following the current word in the speech may include displaying the next word differently than another word in the speech that is not predicted’ (indicating a continuous changing of the predicted word based on whatever the current recognised word is)).
For claim 6, claim 1 is incorporated and the reference of Jost discloses the method, wherein the one or more words of the prediction are words likely to follow the last word in the transcription based on standard usage of a language of the speech (Jost: [0057] — predicting words that may be most likely to follow the current word (which are words that likely follow the recently-transcribed word in standard usage)).
For claim 9, claim 1 is incorporated and the reference of Jost discloses the method, further comprising presenting, via the display, the transcription of the speech in real-time in addition to the presentation of the prediction (Jost: FIG. 4 — a display of the speech transcript as well as a display of the prediction; [0054] — speech-to-text being performed in real-time).
As for claim 11, computer program product claim 11 and method claim 1 are related as computer program product storing executable instructions required for performing the claimed method steps on a computer. Jost in [0007] provides teaching for a computer readable storage medium, suitable to read upon the limitations of this claim. Accordingly, claim 11 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 1.
As for claim 12, device claim 12 and method claim 1 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Jost in [0005] provides a processor and memory, a touch screen display in [0059], a microphone in [0031], all these being suitable to read upon the limitations of this claim. Accordingly, claim 12 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 1.
As for claim 17, device claim 17 and method claim 6 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 17 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 6.
As for claim 20, device claim 20 and method claim 9 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 20 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 9.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jost (US 2020/0410991 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12, in view of Sapoznik et al. (US 2018/0012231 A1: hereafter — Sapoznik).
For claim 7, claim 1 is incorporated but the reference of Jost fails to disclose the limitation of this claim, for which the reference of Sapoznik is now introduced to teach as the method, wherein the one or more words of the prediction are words semantically related to a word that likely follows the last word in the transcription based on standard usage of a language of the speech, the semantically related words configured to assist the user in determining that the word that likely follows the last word in the transcription is a next word of the one or more next words (Sapoznik: [0539] — using semantic processing to provide suggestions for completing of the text; [0037] — auto-complete being provided to assist a user by providing suggested completions to text that have been typed after performing semantic processing (indicating a provision of completions to text that have been recognised, thereby assisting the user in determining the word that likely follows the last word)).
The reference of Jost provides teaching for obtaining predictions of words sets for transcripts of audio in real-time, but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for the predictions being words that are semantically related to the last word in the transcription. This isn’t new to the art as the reference of Sapoznik is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the known teaching of Sapoznik which provides as a suggestion, a semantically related word to the last received word, into the teaching of Jost which teaches of making prediction suggestions of words sets for transcripts of audio in real-time, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of making suggestions of words that are reasonable for continuing a phrase and completing a sentence, instead of just random words being presented for the purpose of continuing a phrase. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
For claim 10, claim 9 is incorporated and the reference of Jost discloses the method, further comprising:
obtaining second audio that includes speech of a third person (Jost: [0034] — a situation where more than one user can make use of the system (indicating the receipt of second audio speech from a third person));
providing the second audio to the automatic speech recognition system, the automatic speech recognition system configured to generate, in real-time, a second transcription of the audio, the second transcription including text of the speech in the audio (Jost: [0030] — ASR being used in an instant messaging application (teaching of continuous updating of a transcription); [0054], FIG. 4 — drafting an e-mail whereby the user’s speech dictation is being presented as a transcript in real-time, this being continuously updated as the user speaks);
acquiring, in real-time, the second transcription of the second audio from the automatic speech recognition system (Jost: [0054] — speech-to-text being performed in real-time; [0030] — ASR).
The reference of Jost provides teaching for receiving speech from a different speaker, this speech also getting transcribed into text. This reference however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further provides teaching for displaying the second transcript, the initial transcript, along with the prediction, to the user.
The reference of Sapoznik is now introduced to teach this as:
presenting, via the display, the second transcription, the transcription, and the prediction to the user (Sapoznik: [0444] — the suggestion of “been my pleasure” may be suggested and displayed to the CSR after typing “You’re very welcome! It’s” (note also that the CSR’s communication can be received by speech recognition transcribed into text as provided in [0164]–[0165]); FIG. 18A, [0167] — a communication between two different parties, where the texts of both parties can be presented (noting that the communication can be performed by speech)).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the teaching of Sapoznik which teaches of presenting the text input of different participants on a single display along with the prediction to the user, with the teaching of the presenting transcribed speeches from users as taught by Jost, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of applying this prediction system to an instant messaging situation suitable for a user to engage in communication with a separate user. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 18, device claim 18 and method claim 7 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 18 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 7.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 13, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jost (US 2020/0410991 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12, in view of Assadollahi (US 2009/0192786 A1).
For claim 2, claim 1 is incorporated but the reference of Jost fails to disclose the limitation of this claim, for which the reference of Assadollahi is now introduced to teach as the method, wherein the prediction is presented to the user until the transcription includes another word that provides context to the speech of the user (Assadollahi: [0014] — updating candidate words based on updated text context and applying text prediction algorithm to the updated context (teaching of updating the context as new words are input to then predict more new words)).
The reference of Jost provides teaching for predicting a next word when an utterance has been made, but fails to teach precisely of presenting the prediction to the user until the transcription includes another word that provides further context to the speech. This is however not new to the art as the reference of Assadollahi is seen to teach of updating the context used for prediction after a new word has been selected, such that a new predicted word would get suggested to the user in such a situation.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the teaching of Assadollahi which provides teaches updating context based on received new words to present new predictions from a previous prediction, into improving the technique provided by Jost which provides next word prediction suggestion for received speech transcribed into speech, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of continuously ensuring that updated predictions are always available to the user as the user keeps making utterances. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
For claim 4, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Jost in view of Assadollahi provides teaching for the method, wherein a number of the plurality of word sets includes at least five (Assadollahi: FIGURE 3 — presenting suggestions of words which includes 5 suggestions).
For claim 5, claim 1 is incorporated and the combination of Jost in view of Assadollahi discloses the method, further comprising:
obtaining input from the user that selects one of the plurality of word sets (Assadollahi: [0014] — selecting a candidate word); and
in response to the input, presenting further data regarding the selected one of the plurality of word sets (Assadollahi: [0014] — selecting a candidate word and that leads to an updated context so that more predictions can be presented).
As for claim 13, device claim 13 and method claim 2 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 13 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 2.
As for claim 15, device claim 15 and method claim 4 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 15 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 4.
As for claim 16, device claim 16 and method claim 5 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 16 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 5.
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jost (US 2020/0410991 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 12, in view of Sontag et al. (US 2023/0071217 A1: hereafter — Sontag).
For claim 8, claim 1 is incorporated but the reference of Jost fails to disclose the limitation of this claim, for which the reference of Sontag is now introduced to teach as the method, wherein the prediction is generated based on data provided by a health practitioner assisting the user (Sontag: [0045] — assisting a clinician including in documenting a medical condition; [0057] — providing auto-completion functions for the purpose of medical terminologies).
The reference of Jost provides teaching for predicting a next word when an utterance has been made in order to provide assistance to a user (Sapoznik: [0031]), but differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention now further provides that the prediction is for assisting a medical practitioner. This is however not new to the art as the reference of Sontag is seen to teach above.
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the known teaching of Sontag which provides that the prediction is provided based on assisting in a health practitioner environment, into improving the technique provided by Jost which provides next word prediction suggestion for assisting a user, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of dedicating the prediction process to a particular domain in order to assist practitioners of that domain, with the further purpose of assisting in note-taking. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 19, device claim 19 and method claim 8 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 19 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 8.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jost (US 2020/0410991 A1) in view of Sapoznik (US 2018/0012231 A1) as applied to claims 7 and 18, further in view of Hansson et al. (US 2012/0047135 A1: hereafter — Hansson).
For claim 21, claim 7 is incorporated and the combination of Jost in view of Sapoznik provides teaching for presenting predictions as semantically related words, presenting words that likely follow the last word in the transcription. This however differs from the claimed invention in that the claimed invention further teaches of presenting the word that likely follows the last word in response to audio not including speech for a predetermined time period after the initial presentation of the semantically related words.
This is however not new to the art as the reference of Hansson is introduced to teach the method, further comprising presenting, via the display, the word that likely follows the last word in the transcription in place of the semantically related words in response to the audio not including speech for a period of time that satisfies a threshold after the semantically related words are presented (Hansson: FIG. 5E — a display screen for presenting suggestions; [0111] — after presenting suggestions to a user, a presentation timeout is detected for which no activity from the user is determined to occur, after which, the system automatically selects a query suggestion (choosing an autocomplete word to the user’s initial query) and presents results based on this selected suggestion).
Hence, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate the known teaching of Hannsson automatically selects and presents a next suggested word from a received user input after a predetermined time period of user inactivity has elapsed, into improving upon the technique provided by the combination of Jost in view of Saponzki which provides teaching for presenting predictions as semantically related words, presenting words that likely follow the last word in the transcription, to thereby come up with the claimed invention. The combination of both prior art elements would have provided the predictable result of encouraging a user to continue with a conversation by making a selection and displaying that to the user, in the event of a determined inactivity period. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
As for claim 22, device claim 22 and method claim 21 are related as apparatus and the method of using same, with each claimed element’s function corresponding to the claimed method step. Accordingly, claim 22 is similarly rejected under the same rationale as applied above with respect to method claim 21.
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 OLUWADAMILOLA M. OGUNBIYI whose telephone number is (571)272-4708. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday – Thursday (8:00 AM – 5:30 PM Eastern Standard Time).
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, PARAS D SHAH can be reached at (571) 270-1650. 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.
/OLUWADAMILOLA M OGUNBIYI/
Examiner, Art Unit 2653
/Paras D Shah/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2653
05/07/2026
Prosecution Insights