DETAILED CORRESPONDANCE
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 claims
This final office action on merits is in response to the communication received on 07/07/2026. Claims 7, 14, and 20 are cancelled. Amendments to claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 are acknowledged and have been carefully considered. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-19 and 21-23 are pending and considered below.
Subject Matter Free of Art
Claims 11-6, 8-13, 15-19 and 21-23 include subject matter that is free of prior art. The cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the features found within independent claims 1, 8, and 15.
For claims 1, 8, and 15, the cited prior art of record fails to expressly teach or suggest, either alone or in combination, the specific ordered combination of identifying a first path for transmitting a message having a payload comprising particular clinical information corresponding to a first size as a preferred path; determining that the first path is unavailable; and, in response to determining that the first path is unavailable, refraining from transmitting the message with the particular clinical information, determining that a notification corresponding to the message and without the particular clinical information is to be transmitted to preserve confidentiality of the particular clinical information when transmitted across separate domains, identifying a second path different from the first path, and transmitting the notification via the second path without the particular clinical information corresponding to the first size.
The closest prior art of record includes 1) Rybkin (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0004836 A1), referred to hereinafter as Rybkin, 2) Gangadharan et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2014/0222930 A1), referred to hereinafter as Gangadharan, 3) Kim et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,467,970 B1), referred to hereinafter as Kim, 4) Underwood et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2010/0325470 A1), referred to hereinafter as Underwood, and 5) Bless et al. (EP Publication No. EP1597877B1), referred to hereinafter as Bless.
Rybkin teaches a computer implemented healthcare messaging system in which an aggregator routes messages between healthcare providers, including messages associated with patient care and electronic medical records, and determines appropriate recipients based on provider, team, and availability information. Rybkin further teaches transmitting messages and notifications through different communication mechanisms and that communications sent through a non secure paging system may include a notification that a message is available to be viewed through a secure portal. However, Rybkin fails to teach or suggest the claimed ordered combination of identifying a first path for transmitting a message having a payload comprising particular clinical information corresponding to a first size as a preferred path; determining that the first path is unavailable; and, in response to determining that the first path is unavailable, refraining from transmitting the message with the particular clinical information, determining that a notification corresponding to the message and without the particular clinical information is to be transmitted to preserve confidentiality of the particular clinical information across separate domains, identifying a second path different from the first path, and transmitting the notification via the second path without the particular clinical information corresponding to the first size. Specifically, although Rybkin distinguishes between providing a notification through a non secure paging system and accessing the underlying message through a secure portal, Rybkin does not disclose that this distinction is made in response to determining that a preferred first path for transmitting the message containing the particular clinical information is unavailable, or that a different second path is identified and used for transmitting the notification based on that determination.
Gangadharan teaches a JSON communications protocol that specifies a message format, data exchange protocol, and reliability protocol, utilizes WebSocket, and permits a network side controller to mediate communications between endpoints. Gangadharan further teaches messages having payloads, message notifications, reliability and error handling, and recovery when a WebSocket connection is broken. However, Gangadharan fails to teach or suggest the identifying a first path for transmitting a message having a payload comprising particular clinical information corresponding to a first size as a preferred path; determining that the first path is unavailable; and, in response to determining that the first path is unavailable, refraining from transmitting the message with the particular clinical information, determining that a notification corresponding to the message and without the particular clinical information is to be transmitted to preserve confidentiality of the particular clinical information across separate domains, identifying a second path different from the first path, and transmitting the notification via the second path without the particular clinical information corresponding to the first size. Specifically, although Gangadharan addresses message notifications, connection failures, and connection recovery, Gangadharan does not teach that unavailability of a preferred first path causes the underlying message containing clinical information to be withheld and a corresponding notification without that clinical information to instead be transmitted over a different second path to preserve confidentiality across separate domains.
Kim teaches a robust notification routing system where message providers may be ranked or selected based on preference, reliability, quality of service, cost, geographic region, and other provider characteristics. Kim further teaches excluding message providers that are down or unreliable and, when a selected message provider fails to deliver a notification message, selecting another message provider to deliver the notification message. Kim also discusses differences between event messages received by the notification system and notification messages generated for delivery to responsible resources. However, Kim fails to teach or suggest identifying a first path for transmitting a message having a payload comprising particular clinical information corresponding to a first size as a preferred path; determining that the first path is unavailable; and, in response to determining that the first path is unavailable, refraining from transmitting the message with the particular clinical information, determining that a notification corresponding to the message and without the particular clinical information is to be transmitted to preserve confidentiality of the particular clinical information across separate domains, identifying a second path different from the first path, and transmitting the notification via the second path without the particular clinical information corresponding to the first size. Specifically, although Kim teaches selecting another message provider when a selected message provider fails to deliver a notification message, Kim's fallback mechanism concerns rerouting the notification message through another provider and does not teach that unavailability of a preferred path for transmitting an underlying message containing clinical information causes the system to withhold the clinical message and instead transmit a corresponding notification without the particular clinical information over the second path to preserve confidentiality across separate domains.
Underwood teaches an extended messaging system in which a message is transmitted to a recipient device through a preferred or primary delivery channel and, when delivery through the primary delivery channel cannot be affected, an alternate delivery channel is selected. Underwood further teaches determining whether a recipient device is available to receive a message through a preferred delivery channel and, when the recipient device is unavailable to receive the message through that channel, attempting delivery through an alternate delivery channel, such as SMS or email. However, Underwood fails to teach or suggest identifying a first path for transmitting a message having a payload comprising particular clinical information corresponding to a first size as a preferred path; determining that the first path is unavailable; and, in response to determining that the first path is unavailable, refraining from transmitting the message with the particular clinical information, determining that a notification corresponding to the message and without the particular clinical information is to be transmitted to preserve confidentiality of the particular clinical information across separate domains, identifying a second path different from the first path, and transmitting the notification via the second path without the particular clinical information corresponding to the first size. Underwood also does not teach substituting a notification without the clinical information for the underlying message when the preferred path is unavailable in order to preserve confidentiality across separate domains.
Bless teaches inter domain routing where one or more replacement paths are identified and used to route data packets that would have traversed the failed link. Bless further teaches selecting alternative routes that avoid the failed link, discussing optimal alternative route according to a routing metric, and selecting among alternative routes based on routing policies, which include security considerations that may prevent traffic from traversing a particular routing domain. However, Bless fails to teach or suggest identifying a first path for transmitting a message having a payload comprising particular clinical information corresponding to a first size as a preferred path; determining that the first path is unavailable; and, in response to determining that the first path is unavailable, refraining from transmitting the message with the particular clinical information, determining that a notification corresponding to the message and without the particular clinical information is to be transmitted to preserve confidentiality of the particular clinical information across separate domains, identifying a second path different from the first path, and transmitting the notification via the second path without the particular clinical information corresponding to the first size. Bless does not teach withholding the message containing the clinical information and substituting a corresponding notification without that clinical information for transmission over the second path in response to unavailability of the preferred first path.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites that “the message includes a payload comprising particular clinical information corresponding to a first size, identified from one or more electronic medical records.” The specification describes messages that include clinical information and describes accessing clinically relevant information from one or more electronic medical records. The specification also describes that, when an optimal path is unavailable, the actual payload containing clinical information is not communicated over an alternate path and a notification of the message is communicated instead. However, the specification does not describe the particular clinical information as corresponding to a first size or characterize the particular clinical information according to its size. The disclosed distinction between transmitting a message containing clinical information and transmitting a notification without the clinical information discusses the content included or omitted from the transmissions and does not reasonably convey possession of the particular clinical information “corresponding to a first size,” as presently claimed. Accordingly, the specification does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession, at the time the application was filed, of the claimed limitation requiring the particular clinical information to correspond to a first size.
Claim 2 is recites “wherein the message corresponds to a second size greater than the first size.” Claim 1 also recites that the message includes a payload comprising particular clinical information corresponding to a first size. However, the specification does not describe the particular clinical information as corresponding to a first size, the message as corresponding to a second size, or a relationship where the second size of the message is greater than the first size of the particular clinical information. Although the specification distinguishes between a message containing clinical information and a notification that does not include the clinical information, including by describing that the actual payload is not communicated over an alternate path and that a notification of the message is communicated instead, the disclosure describes the content transmitted over the respective paths and does not describe or reasonably convey possession of the claimed relative size relationship. Accordingly, the specification does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor had possession, at the time the application was filed, of the limitation requiring the message to correspond to a second size greater than the first size corresponding to the particular clinical information.
Claim 3 recites that “the notification comprises a selectable acknowledgement request” and “receiving an indication that the selectable acknowledgement request has been selected.” The specification describes device level acknowledgements indicating that a message has been reliably delivered to an intended device and user level acknowledgements, such as read receipts, indicating that message content has been presented on the device. However, the specification does not describe the notification as including a selectable acknowledgement request, an acknowledgement request that is presented for selection by a user, or receiving an indication resulting from selection of the request. The disclosed delivery acknowledgements and read receipts confirm delivery or presentation of message content, but do not reasonably convey possession of the claimed notification containing a selectable acknowledgement request and receiving an indication that the selectable acknowledgement request has been selected. Accordingly, the specification does not reasonably convey to one skilled in the art that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter.
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 1-6, 8-13, 15-19 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Under step 1, the analysis is based on MPEP 2106.03, and claims 1-6 are drawn to a method, and claims 8-13 are drawn to a system, and claims 15-19, and 21-23 are drawn to one or more non-transitory media. Thus, each claim, on its face, is directed to one of the statutory categories (i.e., useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) of 35 U.S.C. 101.
Step 2A Prong One
Claim 1 recites the limitations of identifying a first path, for transmitting the message with the particular clinical information to a target endpoint address associated with the target device, as a preferred path; determining that the first path to the target endpoint address is unavailable; and in response to determining that the first path to the target endpoint address is unavailable: refraining from transmitting the message with the particular clinical information; determining that a notification, without the particular clinical information and corresponding to the message, is to be transmitted to the target endpoint address to preserve confidentiality of the particular clinical information when transmitted across the separate domains; identifying, a second path, different from the first path, to the target endpoint address. These limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, constitute observations, evaluations, judgements, or decisions that can practically performed in the mind or by using a pen and paper. Specifically, the limitations involve evaluating available alternatives for communicating information, identifying a preferred alternative, determining that the preferred alternative is available, deciding to withhold particular information, and instead provide a notification without the particular information and identifying an alterative manner of providing the notification. These activities constitute evaluations, judgements, and decisions of a mental process. Even when considering the “via the service” or “via the one or more hardware processors” language, the recitation of a service or hardware processors as a mechanism through which these evaluations and determinations are performed does not take the out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process which is an abstract idea.
Claim 1 also recites as a whole a method of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions)) because the claim recites a method that allows users to detect a request to transmit a message to a group, wherein: the group includes a destination associated with a target device, the message includes a payload comprising particular clinical information corresponding to a first size; and transmit the notification to the target endpoint address via the second path, wherein the notification is transmitted to the target endpoint address, via the second path, without the particular clinical information corresponding to the first size. Specifically, the recited limitations establish rules governing the communication of information between a source and a destination by specifying what information is to be communicated to the destination and how the communication is to proceed when a preferred manner of communication is unavailable. The claimed process therefore manages an interaction between people by controlling the communication of clinical information and a corresponding notification between a source and an intended recipient according to predetermined conditions governing the communication. The nominal recitation of one or more hardware processors, the control server, or the service as mechanisms though which the communication management activity is carried out does not take the claim out of the methods of certain methods of human activity. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Independent claims 8 and 15 recite identical or nearly identical steps with respect to claim 1 (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and these claims are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
Under Step 2A Prong Two
The claimed limitations, as per claim 1, include:
executing a messaging protocol via the one or more hardware processors, wherein executing the messaging protocol is performed at a control server (i) comprising a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) serialized transport and an application layer protocol specifying JSON serialization, (ii) associated with a medical environment, (iii) utilizing a websocket protocol layer above a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) layer, and (iv) providing messaging between an endpoint and a service;
detecting, via the one or more hardware processors at the control server, a request from a source device to transmit a message via the service to a group, wherein: the group includes a destination associated with a target device, the message includes a payload comprising particular clinical information corresponding to a first size, identified from one or more electronic medical records, and the control server and the destination are in separate domains associated with the medical environment;
identifying a first path, for transmitting the message with the particular clinical information via the service to a target endpoint address associated with the target device, as a preferred path;
determining that the first path to the target endpoint address is unavailable; and in response to determining that the first path to the target endpoint address is unavailable:
(a) refraining from transmitting the message with the particular clinical information;
(b) determining that a notification, without the particular clinical information and corresponding to the message, is to be transmitted to the target endpoint address to preserve confidentiality of the particular clinical information when transmitted across the separate domains;
(c) identifying, via the one or more hardware processors, a second path, different from the first path, to the target endpoint address via the service; and
(d) transmitting the notification via the service to the target endpoint address via the second path, wherein the notification is transmitted to the target endpoint address, via the second path, without the particular clinical information corresponding to the first size.
Examiner Note: underlined elements indicate additional elements of the claimed invention identified as performing the steps of the claimed invention.
The judicial exception expressed in claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of evaluating and managing how information is communicated when a preferred communication option is unavailable in a computer environment. The claimed computer components (i.e., executing a messaging protocol via the one or more hardware processors, wherein executing the messaging protocol is performed at a control server (i) comprising a JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) serialized transport and an application layer protocol specifying JSON serialization, (iii) utilizing a WebSocket protocol layer above a Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) layer, and (iv) providing messaging between an endpoint and a service; via the one or more hardware processors at the control server; from a source device; and via the service) are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform the process of evaluating a requested communication, determining how and what information is communicated based on the availability of a preferred communication path, and implementing the resulting communication. The recited processors, control server, source device, service, and messaging protocol provide the computer and network mechanisms through which the evaluations, determinations, and communication are performed, instead of reflecting an improvement to the function of the computer, server, devices, or network technology itself.
The judicial exception expressed in claim 1 is not integrated into a practical application. The abstract idea is merely carried out in a particular technological environment or field, specifically, a computerized clinical messaging environment involving the communication of clinical information across separate medical messaging domains, and the claim fails to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to this particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). The additional elements that place the abstract idea in this technological environment include the recitations that the messaging protocol is associated with a medical environment, that the particular clinical information is identified from one or more electronic medical records, and that the control server and the destination are in separate domains associated with the medical environment. These limitations restrict the claimed information evaluation and communication management process to the context of clinical information, electronic medical records, and communications occurring across separate domains in a medical environment, instead of reflecting an improvement to the functioning of the computer, electronic medical records, network domains, or another technology or technical field. Thus, the limitations narrow the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use in which the abstract process is carried out. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Therefore, under step 2A, the claims are directed to the abstract idea, and require further analysis under Step 2B.
Under step 2B
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of evaluating and managing how information is communicated when a preferred communication option is unavailable in a computer environment. Further, considering the additional elements individually and in combination, the recitation of the hardware processors, control server, source and target devices, service, JSON serialized transport, application layer protocol specifying JSON serialization, WebSocket protocol layer, and TCP layer does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not recite an improvement to JSON serialization, WebSocket, TCP, or the operation of the underlying processors, server, devices, or network protocols themselves. Instead, these technologies are used according to their ordinary functions to provide the computer, networking, and messaging mechanisms for carrying out the recited information evaluation and communication management process. The combination of these limitations does not change the functions of the computer and network components or recite a technological implementation that provides an inventive concept beyond using the components and technologies to implement the abstract idea. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception and do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed judicial exception into patent eligible subject matter.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed with respect to Step 2A, the abstract idea is merely carried out in a technical environment or field, however fails to contain meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claims 4-6, 11-13, 18-19, and 21-23 recite no further additional elements, and only further narrow the abstract idea. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not integrate the narrowed abstract idea into a practical application for reasons similar to those explained above, and do not amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract idea for reasons similar to those explained above.
Claims 2-3, 9-10, and 16-17 recite the additional elements of displaying a notification regarding the communicating on the target device (claims 2, 9, and 16) and receiving an indication that the selectable acknowledgement request has been selected (claim 3, 10, and 17). However, these additional elements amount to mere data gathering and displaying a result (i.e., insignificant extra-solution activities). As such, these additional elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Thus, as the dependent claims remain directed to a judicial exception, and as the additional elements of the claims do not amount to significantly more, the dependent claims are not patent eligible.
Therefore, the claims here fail to contain any additional element(s) or combination of additional elements that can be considered as significantly more and the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 for lacking eligible subject matter.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see Remarks/Amendments submitted on 07/07/2026 with respect to the rejection of the claims have been carefully considered and is addressed below.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory obvious type double patenting rejection is withdrawn in view of terminal disclaimer filed on 07/07/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The rejection of claims 4 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s arguments. The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) is maintained, and new rejections of claim 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are made in view of the amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. For Step 2A, Prong One, Applicant states that claim 1 does not recite a mental process because the claimed operations are performed using hardware processors and because the claim additionally recites a control server, JSON serialized transport, an application layer protocol specifying JSON serialization, and a WebSocket protocol layer above a TCP layer. However, the rejection does not describe these technological components or the claim as a whole as being performed in the human mind. Instead, claim 1 recites the evaluations, judgments, and decisions, including identifying a preferred path for communicating information, determining that the preferred path is unavailable, determining to refrain from transmitting particular clinical information and instead provide a notification without the particular clinical information, and identifying an alternative path for providing the notification. These steps constitute evaluations, judgments, and decisions of mental processes. The recitation that these activities are performed “via the one or more hardware processors” or “via the service” does not change the evaluations and determinations and the technological limitations are considered as additional elements under Step 2A, Prong Two. Additionally, the claim recites managing the communication of information from a source to an intended recipient or group according to predetermined conditions governing what information is communicated and how the communication proceeds, which describes managing interactions between people and falls within the certain methods of organizing human activity grouping. Although the interaction is facilitated through electronic devices, it does not remove the communication management activity from the abstract idea grouping.
Applicant also states that the amended limitations integrate any judicial exception into a practical application because the claim provides a technical improvement involving failover reliability, preservation of confidentiality, reduced network bandwidth, memory usage, and processor resource usage, cross domain delivery, preferred and alternate path selection, and a particular protocol stack. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Although claim 1 recites refraining from transmitting the particular clinical information when the preferred path is unavailable and instead transmitting a notification without that information via a second path, the stated reductions in network bandwidth, memory usage, and processor resource usage are not recited in the claim. Specifically, claim 1 does not recite determining, controlling, or reducing network bandwidth, memory consumption, or processor resource utilization, and it does not require that the transmitted notification have a size smaller than the message or establish a reduction in the computing resources consumed by the respective transmissions. Accordingly, the alleged resource efficiencies represent results of performing the claimed process rather than a technological improvement required by the claim..
Applicant’s statement on the particular protocol stack is also unpersuasive. The recitation of a JSON serialized transport, an application layer protocol specifying JSON serialization, a WebSocket protocol layer above a TCP layer, and endpoint service messaging describes the computer and network mechanisms that the claimed messaging process is implemented, but the claim does not recite an improvement to JSON serialization, WebSocket, TCP, or the functioning of the processors, server, devices, or network protocols. Instead, these technologies provide the mechanisms for carrying out the recited information evaluation and communication management process. Therefore, when the additional elements are considered individually and in combination, they do not impose a meaningful limitation that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Lastly, Applicant’s statement that the additional elements provide an inventive concept under Step 2B is not persuasive. Considering the additional elements individually and as a combination with the judicial exception, the claim uses the recited hardware processors, control server, source and target devices, service, JSON serialization, WebSocket, TCP, electronic medical records, and network domains to perform their ordinary computer, networking, data access, and messaging functions by implementing the claimed process. The combination does not change the functions of these components or protocols, and the alleged benefits of reduced bandwidth, memory usage, and processor resource utilization are not improvements required by the claim. Accordingly, the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not provide an inventive concept sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In view of Applicant’s amendments and arguments, the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-13, and 15-19, and 21-23 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure.
Shurtz (U.S. Patent Publication 2016/0379470 A1) teaches a system that detects a failed emergency call to a PSAP, prompts the caller for situational information, and generates and forwards a message containing location and priority data to an alterative entity capable of assisting the caller.
Wang et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2012/0136995 A1) teaches a process that monitors IP flow data to detect when an application server becomes unavailable, identifies affected active users through their IP addresses, and notifies them, then later alerts them again when the server becomes available.
Hungerford et al. (U.S. Patent Publication 2011/0099034 A1) teaches a method is provided for displaying medically related tasks on a patient viewable display in an in-patient care setting by receiving a clinical order, automatically generating corresponding tasks, and optionally linking them to the patient’s electronic medical records for retrieval and display.
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 KYRA R LAGOY whose telephone number is (703)756-1773. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm EST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571)272-6702. 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.
/K.R.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685
Prosecution Insights