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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-22 are pending.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-22 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Upon further consideration, and in view of applicant’s amendments, a new grounds of
rejection is made in view of newly cited reference Paini.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-3, 5-12, 14-22 are rejected on the ground of anticipatory-type nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. US 12314246 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims under examination are anticipated by the reference claims.
See below for further analysis.
Examined Application
Patented Application US 12314246 B2
Claim 1 (and similar claim 11) regularly monitor actions occurring within the computer system and associated with one or more user profiles; aggregate a set of data associated with the monitored actions occurring within the computer system; identify potential occurrence of an irregularity associated with the one or more user profiles by detecting a characteristic outside a normal operating condition; access the aggregated set of data associated with the monitored actions; analyze the aggregated set of data to confirm whether the identified potential irregularity constitutes a significant change of circumstance; in response to determining that the identified potential irregularity constitutes a significant change of circumstance, access a database to identify objectives corresponding to the one or more user profiles; based at least in part on the confirmation that the identified potential irregularity constitutes a significant change of circumstance and the accessed objectives corresponding to the one or more user profiles, automatically generate one or more proposed modified objectives; initiate communication of the automatically generated one or more proposed modified objectives to a sub-system for consideration; and in response to receiving feedback from the sub-system, store the modified objectives in the database
Claim 1. regularly monitor actions occurring within the computer system and associated with one or more user profiles; aggregate a set of data associated with the monitored actions occurring within the computer system; predicting, by the predictive model, potential occurrence of an irregularity associated with the one or more user profiles by detecting a characteristic outside a normal operating condition; access the aggregated set of data associated with the monitored actions; analyze the aggregated set of data to confirm whether the identified potential irregularity constitutes a significant change of circumstance; in response to determining that the identified potential irregularity constitutes the significant change of circumstance, access a database to identify objectives corresponding to the one or more user profiles; based at least in part on the confirmation that the identified potential irregularity constitutes the significant change of circumstance and the accessed objectives corresponding to the one or more user profiles, automatically generate one or more proposed modified objectives; initiate communication of the automatically generated one or more proposed modified objectives to a sub-system for consideration; in response to receiving feedback from the sub-system, store the modified objectives in the database; and store the further modified objectives in the database
2 (and similar claim 12) recites wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors via the memory to: access the database to retrieve the modified objectives; and initiate display of the modified objectives using a sub-system interface.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors via the memory to: access the database to retrieve the modified objectives; and initiate display of the modified objectives using a sub-system interface.
3 (and similar claim 13) recites wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors via the memory to: generate a prompt-based decision tree based at least in part on the identified irregularity; and initiate display of a prompt-based decision tree using the sub-system.
3. The system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors via the memory to: generate the prompt-based decision tree by: accessing a database comprising a logical decision tree configured to steer a user to a decision regarding objectives; modifying the logical decision tree in response to the identified irregularity; and store the modified decision tree in the database for subsequent access.
4(and similar claim 14) recites wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors via the memory to: receive input in response to the prompt-based decision tree over the sub-system; further modify objectives based at least in part on the input received by the sub-system; and store the further modified objectives in the database.
Claim 1. receive input via a prompt-based decision tree over the sub-system, the prompt-based decision tree generated based at least in part on the identified irregularity; further modify objectives based at least in part on the received input; and store the further modified objectives in the database.
5(and similar claim 15) recites wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors via the memory to: generate the prompt-based decision tree by: accessing a database comprising a logical decision tree configured to steer a user to a decision regarding objectives; modifying the logical decision tree in response to the identified irregularity; and store the modified decision tree in the database for subsequent access.
Claim 1. initiate communication of the automatically generated one or more proposed modified objectives to a sub-system for consideration; in response to receiving feedback from the sub-system, store the modified objectives in the database; receive input via a prompt-based decision tree over the sub-system, the prompt-based decision tree generated based at least in part on the identified irregularity; further modify objectives based at least in part on the received input; and store the further modified objectives in the database
6(and similar claim 16) recites wherein modifying the logical decision tree in response to the identified irregularity comprises: determining that the detected irregularity raises an issue outside a scope of the possible decision paths associated with the logical decision tree.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein modifying the logical decision tree in response to the identified irregularity comprises: determining that the detected irregularity raises an issue outside a scope of the possible decision paths associated with the logical decision tree.
7(and similar claim 17) recites wherein modifying the logical decision tree in response to the identified irregularity comprises: in response to determining that the detected irregularity raises an issue outside a scope of the possible decision paths associated with the logical decision tree, create at least one new possible decision path to account for the detected irregularity
5. The system of claim 4, wherein modifying the logical decision tree in response to the identified irregularity comprises: in response to determining that the detected irregularity raises an issue outside a scope of the possible decision paths associated with the logical decision tree, create at least one new possible decision path to account for the detected irregularity.
8(and similar claim 18) recites wherein modifying the logical decision tree in response to the identified irregularity comprises: upon creation of the at least one new possible decision path, upload the at least one new possible decision path to the database.
6. The system of claim 5, wherein modifying the logical decision tree in response to the identified irregularity comprises: upon creation of the at least one new possible decision path, upload the at least one new possible decision path to the database.
9(and similar claim 19) recites wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors via the memory to: access the modified at least one new possible decision path from the database and make available the new possible decision path to the sub-system for display initiation.
7. The system of claim 6, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors via the memory to: access the modified at least one new possible decision path from the database and make available the new possible decision path to the sub-system for display initiation.
10(and similar claim 20) recites wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors via the memory to: receive input from the sub-system regarding selection of the at least one new possible decision path; and in response to receiving selection of the new decision path, store the selection in the database, thereby updating the objectives.
8. The system of claim 7, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors via the memory to: receive input from the sub-system regarding selection of the at least one new possible decision path; and in response to receiving selection of the new decision path, store the selection in the database, thereby updating the objectives.
21. (new) The method of claim 11, wherein the iterative training and testing loop is based on insertion of a target variable into the iterative training and testing loop, wherein the iterative training and testing loop comprises the predictive model iteratively predicting the target variable.
Claim 9. the training comprising: inserting a target variable value into the iterative training and testing loop; and iteratively predicting the target variable via the iterative training and testing loop,
22. (new) The method of claim 11, wherein iterative predictions of the target variable comprise modifying weights and calculations applied to the training data set during subsequent prediction iterations.
Claim 9. wherein iterative predictions of the target variable comprise modifying weights and calculations applied to the training data set during subsequent prediction iterations in order to improve predictability of the target variable;
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-3, 11-12, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith et al (US 20130310163 A1) hereafter Smith in view of Lee (US 11206393 B2) hereafter Lee in view of Paini et al (US 20250103986 A1) hereafter Paini
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches a computer system for sub-system irregularity correction, the system comprising: a memory (Para 0024, a memory card installed within the mobile device); one or more processors in communication with the memory (Para 0128, a processor unit 602); and program instructions executable by the one or more processors via the memory (Para 0128, execute a set of instructions in accordance with some embodiments) to: regularly monitor actions occurring within the computer system and associated with one or more user profiles (Para 0047, where the system detects gaming-related information associated with the gaming device in response to establishing the communication link between the mobile device and the gaming device); aggregate a set of data associated with the monitored actions occurring within the computer system (Para 0081, compares gaming-related information to device-related information, and vice versa); identify potential occurrence of an irregularity associated with the one or more user profiles by detecting a characteristic outside a normal operating condition (Para 0018, automatically verify whether the specific settings of the profile are optimized for use with the gaming situation or environment based on the gaming information); access the aggregated set of data associated with the monitored actions (Para 0018, obtain gaming information associated with wagering games or gaming devices).
Smith does not appear to explicitly teach analyze the aggregated set of data to confirm whether the identified potential irregularity constitutes a significant change of circumstance; in response to determining that the identified potential irregularity constitutes a significant change of circumstance, access a database to identify objectives corresponding to the one or more user profiles; based at least in part on the confirmation that the identified potential irregularity constitutes a significant change of circumstance and the accessed objectives corresponding to the one or more user profiles, automatically generate one or more proposed modified objectives; initiate communication of the automatically generated one or more proposed modified objectives to a sub-system for consideration; and in response to receiving feedback from the sub-system, store the modified objectives in the database.
In analogous art, Lee teaches analyze the aggregated set of data to confirm whether the identified potential irregularity constitutes a significant change of circumstance (Column 4 lines 34-35, capabilities pertaining to measuring a display latency)(“display latency” teaches “potential irregularity”); in response to determining that the identified potential irregularity constitutes a significant change of circumstance, access a database to identify objectives corresponding to the one or more user profiles (Column 13 lines 11-12, the one or more recommendations may include at least one suggestion to a user regarding a modification to the user's current configuration); based at least in part on the confirmation that the identified potential irregularity constitutes a significant change of circumstance and the accessed objectives corresponding to the one or more user profiles, automatically generate one or more proposed modified objectives (Column 13 lines 3-4, user interface 350 may recommend that a user manually select a “game mode” of display 330 to reduce the display latency); initiate communication of the automatically generated one or more proposed modified objectives to a sub-system for consideration (Column 13 lines 7-8, User interface 350 may recommend that a user modify any other setting, function, or process on display 330 that may affect the display latency of display 330); and in response to receiving feedback from the sub-system, store the modified objectives in the database (Column 16 lines 4-5, Display screen 1144 may display information, as well as being a user interface for receiving user commands and/or other information). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith to include the teaching of Lee. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to measure action in a computer system, as taught by Lee (Column 1 lines 39-40, Methods, systems, and computer program products are provided for measuring a display latency).
Smith in view of Lee does not appear to explicitly teach predict, by a predictive model, potential occurrence of an irregularity associated with the one or more user profiles by detecting a characteristic outside a normal operating condition, wherein the predictive model is trained via an iterative training and testing loop and a training data set, the training data set comprising a respective data set of the one or more user profiles; and receive input via a prompt-based decision tree over the sub-system, the prompt-based decision tree generated based at least in part on the identified irregularity; further modify objectives based at least in part on the input received by the sub-system; and store the further modified objectives in the database.
In analogous art, Paini teaches predict, by a predictive model, potential occurrence of an irregularity associated with the one or more user profiles by detecting a characteristic outside a normal operating condition(Para 0042, The ML subsystem may identify patterns indicative of potential failures and refines its predictive models over time), wherein the predictive model is trained via an iterative training and testing loop and a training data set, the training data set comprising a respective data set of the one or more user profiles (Para 0061, In addition to improving the quality of the data, the data pre-processing engine 216 may implement feature extraction and/or selection techniques to generate training data); and receive input via a prompt-based decision tree over the sub-system, the prompt-based decision tree generated based at least in part on the identified irregularity (Para 0087, incorporate user feedback to refine the remedial actions, implement rule-based decision trees to navigate through a set of predefined conditions and outcomes); further modify objectives based at least in part on the input received by the sub-system (Para 0087, employ heuristic methods based on best practices, expert input, or statistical models that weigh the likely success of various actions, use real-time monitoring data to inform its decision, run a comparative analysis of similar past incidents to determine which remedial actions were most effective in those cases, and/or the like); and store the further modified objectives in the database (Para 0073, the ML subsystem may then consult a repository of applicable remedial actions that were effective in resolving similar issues in the past). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Lee to include the teaching of Paini. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to solve anomalies, as taught by Paini (Abs, the anomaly resolution subsystem is configured to troubleshoot instances of interruptions in the execution of the sequence of actions).
Regarding claim 2, Smith in view of Lee in view Paini teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors via the memory to: access the database to retrieve the modified objectives; and initiate display of the modified objectives using a sub-system interface (Smith, Para 0079, the system presents a notification message, via a user interface of the application, which notification message indicates a suggestion for one or more modifications to the profile).
Regarding claim 3, Smith in view of Lee in view Paini teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the instructions are further executable by the one or more processors to: generate the prompt-based decision tree based at least in part on the identified irregularity; and initiate display of a prompt-based decision tree using the sub-system (Paini, Para 0087, implement rule-based decision trees to navigate through a set of predefined conditions and outcomes). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Lee to include the teaching of Paini. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to solve anomalies, as taught by Paini (Abs, the anomaly resolution subsystem is configured to troubleshoot instances of interruptions in the execution of the sequence of actions).
Claim 11 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 1, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 12 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 2, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Regarding claim 21, Smith in view of Lee in view Paini teaches the method of claim 11, wherein the iterative training and testing loop is based on insertion of a target variable into the iterative training and testing loop, wherein the iterative training and testing loop comprises the predictive model iteratively predicting the target variable (Paini, Para 0042, The ML subsystem may identify patterns indicative of potential failures and refines its predictive models over time). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Lee to include the teaching of Paini. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to solve anomalies, as taught by Paini (Abs, the anomaly resolution subsystem is configured to troubleshoot instances of interruptions in the execution of the sequence of actions).
Regarding claim 22, Smith in view of Lee in view Paini teaches the method of claim 11, wherein iterative predictions of the target variable comprise modifying weights and calculations applied to the training data set during subsequent prediction iterations (Paini, Para 0042, The ML subsystem may identify patterns indicative of potential failures and refines its predictive models over time). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Lee to include the teaching of Paini. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to solve anomalies, as taught by Paini (Abs, the anomaly resolution subsystem is configured to troubleshoot instances of interruptions in the execution of the sequence of actions).
Claims 5-10, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith in view of Lee in view Paini further in view of Ashcraft et al (US 20060224359 A1) hereafter Ashcraft
Regarding claim 5, Smith in view of Lee in view Paini further in view of Ashcraft teaches the system of claim 4, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors via the memory to: generate the prompt-based decision tree by: accessing a database comprising a logical decision tree configured to steer a user to a decision regarding objectives; modifying the logical decision tree in response to the identified irregularity; and store the modified decision tree in the database for subsequent access (Ashcraft, Para 0007, The optimal solution may be determined by defining a further decision tree branch as expanding a decision tree based on the category of the input software). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Lee in view Paini to include the teaching of Ashcraft. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to optimize software, as taught by Ashcraft (Abs, an optimal solution for the new software system may be determined by adding a further decision tree branch to the initial decision tree).
Regarding claim 6, Smith in view of Lee in view Paini further in view of Ashcraft teaches the system of claim 5, wherein modifying the logical decision tree in response to the identified irregularity comprises: determining that the detected irregularity raises an issue outside a scope of the possible decision paths associated with the logical decision tree (Ashcraft, Para 0025, If the optimal solution has not been found, the category of the input software may be determined based on the profiling data 112). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Lee in view Paini to include the teaching of Ashcraft. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to optimize software, as taught by Ashcraft (Abs, an optimal solution for the new software system may be determined by adding a further decision tree branch to the initial decision tree).
Regarding claim 7, Smith in view of Lee in view Paini further in view of Ashcraft teaches the system of claim 6, wherein modifying the logical decision tree in response to the identified irregularity comprises: in response to determining that the detected irregularity raises an issue outside a scope of the possible decision paths associated with the logical decision tree, create at least one new possible decision path to account for the detected irregularity (Ashcraft, Para 0025, When an optimal solution is found after several tests on the input software based on the desirable decision branch, the decision tree may be updated with a further decision tree branch which holds new configuration parameter sets). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Lee in view Paini to include the teaching of Ashcraft. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to optimize software, as taught by Ashcraft (Abs, an optimal solution for the new software system may be determined by adding a further decision tree branch to the initial decision tree).
Regarding claim 8, Smith in view of Lee in view Paini further in view of Ashcraft teaches the system of claim 7, wherein modifying the logical decision tree in response to the identified irregularity comprises: upon creation of the at least one new possible decision path, upload the at least one new possible decision path to the database (Ashcraft, Para 0025, When an optimal solution is found after several tests on the input software based on the desirable decision branch, the decision tree may be updated with a further decision tree branch which holds new configuration parameter sets). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Lee in view Paini to include the teaching of Ashcraft. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to optimize software, as taught by Ashcraft (Abs, an optimal solution for the new software system may be determined by adding a further decision tree branch to the initial decision tree).
Regarding claim 9, Smith in view of Lee in view Paini further in view of Ashcraft teaches the system of claim 8, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors via the memory to: access the modified at least one new possible decision path from the database and make available the new possible decision path to the sub-system for display initiation (Ashcraft, Para 0025, When an optimal solution is found after several tests on the input software based on the desirable decision branch, the decision tree may be updated with a further decision tree branch which holds new configuration parameter sets). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Lee in view Paini to include the teaching of Ashcraft. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to optimize software, as taught by Ashcraft (Abs, an optimal solution for the new software system may be determined by adding a further decision tree branch to the initial decision tree).
Regarding claim 10, Smith in view of Lee in view Paini further in view of Ashcraft teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the program instructions are further executable by the one or more processors via the memory to: receive input from the sub-system regarding selection of the at least one new possible decision path; and in response to receiving selection of the new decision path, store the selection in the database, thereby updating the objectives (Ashcraft, Para 0025, When an optimal solution is found after several tests on the input software based on the desirable decision branch, the decision tree may be updated with a further decision tree branch which holds new configuration parameter sets). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Smith in view of Lee in view Paini to include the teaching of Ashcraft. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to implement this modification in order to optimize software, as taught by Ashcraft (Abs, an optimal solution for the new software system may be determined by adding a further decision tree branch to the initial decision tree).
Claim 14 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 4, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 15 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 5, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 16 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 6, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 17 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 7, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 18 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 8, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 19 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 9, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
Claim 20 is the method claim corresponding to the system claim 10, and is analyzed and rejected accordingly.
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 Brooks Hale whose telephone number is 571-272-0160. The examiner can normally be reached 9am to 5pm 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, Sanjiv Shah can be reached on (571) 272-4098. 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.
/B.T.H./Examiner, Art Unit 2166
/SANJIV SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2166
Prosecution Insights