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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is a Final action on the merits in response to the application filed on 10/15/2025.
Claims 1, 7, 9 and 15 have been amended. Claims 1 – 16 are currently pending and have been examined in this application.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment has been considered.
Examiner acknowledges submitted inventor’s oaths dated 10/28/2025.
Applicant’s amendment is sufficient to overcome the claim objection set forth in the prior office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks have been considered.
Applicant argues, “Applicant submits that present claim 1 is not directed to a patent ineligible concept, and therefore, is not covered by the first prong of the Alice analysis.” (pgs. 8-9)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims encompass the abstract concept of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities related to managing personal behavior or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor). For example, receiving a service request, determining a delivery person, directed delivery person to pick up laundry, etc., reflect managing interactions between people (e.g. client and delivery person). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Applicant argues, “In the present application, the focus of claim 1 is on an improvement to computer functionality in a distributed terminal network.” (pg. 9)
Examiner notes there is no support in the Specification or claims of an improvement in computer functionality. The cited steps receiving a service request, determining a delivery person, directing the delivery person, etc. generic computer functionality of sending/receiving data using generic computer components (e.g. terminals, a processor). See below 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection.
Applicant argues , “ The claims therefore include "rules" that improve the operation of the computer-implemented coordination process itself, akin to the animation rules in McRO.” (pg. 10)
In McRO the claims were directed to an improvement in computer related technology by allowing computers to produce accurate and realistic lip synchronization and facial expressions in animated characters. The court in McRo looked to the specification which described the invention as improving computer animation through the use of specific rules and how the claimed rules enabled the automation of specific animation tasks that previously could not be automated, utilizing rules in a specific technological way (e.g. a particular way to achieve a desired outcome). The McRO court also noted that the claims described a specific way to solve the problem of producing accurate and realistic lip synchronization and animation.
The instant application focuses on receiving a service request, determining a delivery person, directing the delivery person to pickup articles, receiving a status signal, automatically triggering a dispatch instruction and directing the delivery person using generic computer components. The claimed limitations do not demonstrate a technical computer based problem or solution. The claims are directed to sending/receiving communications to facilitate laundry services and do not provide for an improvement in a technology or a technical field.
Applicant argues, “ Further, the "ordered combination" of terminal roles, message flows, and triggers constitute a non-conventional, non-generic architecture (Step 2B).
In Bascom the court found that although the additional elements were generic computer elements when considered individually, when considered in combination an inventive concept was found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of the additional elements. The claims in Bascom did not merely recite the abstract idea of
filtering content along with the requirement to perform it on the Internet, or to perform it on a set of generic computer components. The inventive concept is in the technical feature of network technology in a filtering system by associating individual accounts with their own filtering scheme and elements while locating the filtering.
Here, the generic computer components of client terminal, delivery personnel terminal, server terminal, etc. are merely performing sending/receiving and analyzing data (data gathering) which are generic functionality routinely performed by a computer. The independent claims do not amount to significantly more nor do they provide an inventive concept.
Applicant argues, “Furthermore, claim 1 is necessarily rooted in networked terminal technology (distributed client, delivery, and machine terminals executing conditioned triggers) in order to overcome a problem specifically arising in the realm of such technology - namely, real-time coordination latency and manual confirmation bottlenecks in multi-terminal workflows.” (pgs. 11-12)
Examiner notes there is no disclosure or support in the Specification or claims for the cited problem involving real time coordination latency and manual confirmation bottlenecks. As previously stated the claims reflect the use of generic computer components of client terminal, delivery personnel terminal, server terminal, etc. for sending/receiving and analyzing data (data gathering) which is generic functionality routinely performed by a computer. Further, the problem disclosed in the Specification is directed to household related tasks such as laundry which generally is time consuming and laborious work (see ¶00002). As such the claims may provide an improved business process for laundry services, not rooted in a technically driven problem.
Applicant argues, “ With respect to the additional features described above, the Applicant submits that the claim is "more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the [abstract idea]" as stated in Alice. “ (pg. 14)
Based on the July 2015 Update: Subject Matter Eligibility, preemption is not a standalone test for eligibility and is inherent in the 2-part Alice/Mayo analysis (MPEP 2106.04). Further, preemption does not guarantee that the claims are eligible. Here, based on the 2-part analysis the claims were found to be abstract and therefore in-eligible. For this reason, questions on preemption are inherent in and resolved by the § 101 analysis.
The remainder of Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Claim Objection
Claim 1 is objected to for the following informality. Claim 1 recites, “…[status] automatically triggering, …,” at line 14. The word status should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 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, “automatically triggering, by a server terminal in response to the received status signal, a dispatch instruction to the delivery personnel terminal when the status indicates completion of laundering, …” The Specification does not explicitly disclose ‘triggering by a service terminal’. The Specification does disclose “directing the delivery person to collect the laundered articles by communicating the status of the laundry cleaning to the delivery personnel terminal when the status indicates the cleaning is complete; and directing the delivery person to deliver the laundered articles.” The language does not appear to be consistent or have the same meaning.
Claims 2-8 are rejected based on their dependency on Claim 1.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claim 1 recites:
receiving a service request from [a client terminal], the service request comprising a laundry pickup address and a laundry delivery address; determining a delivery person to respond to the service request;
directing the delivery person to pick up the articles to be laundered by communicating the service request to [a delivery personnel termina]l associated with the delivery person;
receiving a status signal from [a laundry machine terminal] associated with a laundry machine subsequent to the delivery person loading the articles to be laundered into the laundry machine;
directing the delivery person to collect the laundered articles by communicating the status of the laundry cleaning to [the delivery personnel terminal] when the status indicates the cleaning is complete; and
[status] automatically triggering, [by a server terminal] in response to the received status signal, a dispatch instruction to [the delivery personnel terminal] when the status indicates completion of laundering, the dispatch instruction indicates to the delivery person that the laundered articles are to be collected
The limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activities related to managing personal behavior or interactions between people, but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g. a processor). For example, receiving a service request, determining a delivery person, directed delivery person to pick up laundry, etc., reflect managing interactions between people (e.g. client and delivery person). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea of Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity.
Independent Claim 9 substantially recite the subject matter of Claim 1 and also include the abstract idea identified above. The dependent claims encompass the same abstract ideas. For instance, Claim 2 is directed to receiving a further service request, Claim 3 is directed to recording images, Claim 4 is directed to receiving a status of laundry machine, Claim 5 is directed to receiving selection of wash modes, Claim 6 is directed to further directions for delivery person, Claim 7 is directed to predicting demand of laundry machines and Claim 8 is directed to adjusting a pricing of service. Claims 10-16 substantially recite the subject matter of Claims 2-8 and encompass the same abstract idea. Thus, the dependent claims further limit the abstract concept found in the independent claims.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 recites the additional elements of terminals for clients, delivery personnel, laundry machine terminal and a server terminal. Claim 9 recites the additional elements of a server terminals, terminals for clients, delivery personnel and laundry machine with each terminal, a server terminal, comprising one or more processors in communication with data storage. These are generic computer components generally recited as performing generic computer functions (see Spec ¶0028).
For instance, the steps of receiving a service request from a client terminal, directing the delivery person to pick up the articles, receiving a status signal from a laundry machine terminal, directing the delivery person to collect laundered articles and triggering a dispatch instruction based on completion of laundry are sending/receiving data (e.g. data gathering activity). Examiner notes that the triggering step also involves a condition (analysis) of completion that triggers the dispatch notification. The step of determining a delivery person involves analyzing data (e.g. data gathering activity) . Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer components (e.g. a terminal w/ a processor). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (e.g. a processor). Therefore, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application because it does not impose meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As stated above, the additional elements of a server, client, delivery person, and laundry machine terminals and one or more processors are considered generic computer components performing generic computer functions that amounts to no more than instructions to implement the judicial exception, which does not provide an inventive concept. The steps of receiving a service request from a client terminal, directing the delivery person to pickup, receiving a status from a laundry machine terminal, directing the delivery person to collect laundered articles and directing the delivery person to deliver are sending/receiving data are considered extra-solution activity in Step 2A, this has been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background does not provide any indication that terminals including one or more processors is anything other than a generic computer components. The court decision i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
The dependent claims when analyzed both individually and in combination are also held to be ineligible for the same reason above and the additional recited limitations fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract. The additional limitations of the dependent claims when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination and individually adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use generic computer components, to "apply" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, Claims 1-16 are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10,13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lutnick et al. (US 2013/0218727) In view of Belveal et al. (US 2017/0085390) further in view of Aborishade (US 2019/0347601).
Claim 1:
Lutnick discloses:
A method automated coordination of pickup and delivery of laundry services for laundering articles at a self-service laundromat, the method comprising: (see at least ¶0283 and ¶0290, requesting laundry services)
receiving a service request from a client terminal, the service request comprising a laundry pickup address and a laundry delivery address; (see at least Abstract, receiving a request; see also ¶0263, service requested; see also ¶0286, customer address; see also ¶0105)
determining a delivery person to respond to the service request; (see at least ¶0286, the system uses determines user location and determines which providers are within the radius; see also ¶0105, pickup or delivery and delivery agent)
directing the delivery person to pickup the articles to be laundered by communicating the service request to a delivery personnel terminal associated with the delivery person; (see at least ¶0106, sending communications to delivery agent)
directing the delivery person to deliver the laundered articles to the laundry delivery address. (see at least ¶0097, facilitate delivery of items; see also ¶0106, communicating to delivery agent to deliver)
While Lutnick discloses the above limitations, Lutnick does not explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Belveal discloses:
A method automated coordination of pickup and delivery of laundry services for laundering articles at a self-service laundromat, the method comprising: (see at least ¶0074, customer requesting laundry services)
receiving a service request from a client terminal, [the service request comprising a laundry pickup address and a laundry delivery address; (see at least ¶0074, requesting services; see also ¶0088, laundry service may provide additional service to pickup laundry)
directing the delivery person to pick up the articles to be laundered by communicating the service request to a delivery personnel terminal associated with the delivery person; (see at least ¶0088, customer application may request the service of delivery of laundry to the user’s home or other location)
receiving a status signal from a laundry machine terminal associated with a laundry machine subsequent to the delivery person loading the articles to be laundered into the laundry machine; (see at least ¶0036-¶0037, status of laundry machine; see also ¶0087, user device receiving periodic status updates peer-to-peer from laundry machine or using the management server; see also Figure 5 and associated text)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the identifying of providers to perform services including laundry of Lutnick with the performing of laundry service of Belveal to facilitate the pickup, laundry service and delivery of laundry.
While Lutnick and Belveal disclose the above limitations, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Aborishade does disclose:
[status] automatically triggering, by a server terminal in response to the received status signal, a dispatch instruction to the delivery personnel terminal when the status indicates completion of laundering, the dispatch instruction indicates to the delivery person that the laundered articles are to be collected; and (see at least Figure 3 and associated text; see also ¶0057, the service platform determines whether the laundry client is in need of drop off services; see also ¶0044, once laundry is done the service platform can identify client’s preference for laundry to be picked up and identify a new driver and alert to washer )
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the identifying of providers to perform services including laundry of Lutnick and the performing of laundry service of Belveal with the determining if drop of is needed and identifying a driver of Aborishade to facility communication and service provision between individuals needed laundry services (see Abstract).
Claim 2:
While Lutnick, Belveal and Aborishade disclose claim 1, Lutnick nor Aborishade explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Belveal does disclose:
further comprising receiving a further service request, and wherein while the laundry machine is operating, communicating the further service request to the delivery person. (see at least ¶0088, requesting additional services)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the identifying of providers to perform services including laundry of Lutnick and the performing of laundry service of Belveal with the determining if drop of is needed and identifying a driver of Aborishade to facility communication and service provision between individuals needed laundry services (see Abstract).
Claim 5:
While Lutnick, Belveal and Aborishade disclose claim 1, Lutnick nor Aborishade explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Belveal does disclose:
wherein the service request comprises a selected wash mode, and wherein directing the delivery person to launder the articles comprises indicating the selected wash mode. (see at least ¶0088, requesting an additional wash cycle; see also ¶0067, selecting cycles, temperature, etc.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the identifying of providers to perform services including laundry of Lutnick and the performing of laundry service of Belveal with the determining if drop of is needed and identifying a driver of Aborishade to facility communication and service provision between individuals needed laundry services (see Abstract).
Further , since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Claim 6:
While Lutnick, Belveal and Aborishade disclose claim 1, Lutnick nor Aborishade explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Belveal does disclose:
wherein the service request further comprises directions to the delivery person to iron, fold, pack, or a combination thereof, the articles. (see at least ¶0088, customer requests additional services including folding; see also ¶0047, ironing)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the identifying of providers to perform services including laundry of Lutnick and the performing of laundry service of Belveal with the determining if drop of is needed and identifying a driver of Aborishade to facility communication and service provision between individuals needed laundry services (see Abstract).
Claims 9, 10, 13 and 14 for a system (Lutnick Figure1) substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 3 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lutnick et al. (US 2013/0218727) in view of Belveal et al. (US 2017/0085390) further in view of Aborishade (US 2019/0347601) further in view of Tae (KR 20240023951) further in view of Bover et al. (US 2021/0079579).
Claim 3:
While Lutnick , Belveal and Aborishade disclose claim 1, neither explicitly disclose the following limitation; however, Tae does disclose:
wherein the delivery personnel terminal comprises a video recording device to records images or videos of the pickup of the articles to be laundered, [operation of the laundry machine], and delivery of the articles to be laundered. (see at least pg. 5, para 5, user can view captured video of laundry provided by laundry terminal)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the identifying of providers to perform services including laundry of Lutnick, the attendant mobile device located in laundromat of Belveal and the determining if drop of is needed and identifying a driver of Aborishade with the capturing of video picked up laundry of Tae in order to effectively track and confirm laundry pickup/drop-off.
While Tae discloses the above limitation, Tae does not explicitly disclose operation of the laundry machine; however, Bover does disclose:
wherein the delivery personnel terminal comprises a video recording device to records images or videos of [the pickup of the articles to be laundered], operation of the laundry machine, and [delivery of the articles to be laundered. ] (see at least ¶0015, recording of activity of the different washing machines; see also ¶0025)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the identifying of providers to perform services including laundry of Lutnick, the attendant mobile device located in laundromat of Belveal and the determining if drop of is needed and identifying a driver of Aborishade and the capturing of video picked up laundry of Tae with the recorded images of washing/drying machines of Bover to provide machine and pattern tracking (see ¶0025).
Claim 3 for a system (Lutnick Figure1) substantially recites the subject matter of Claim 11 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lutnick et al. (US 2013/0218727) in view of Belveal et al. (US 2017/0085390) further in view of Aborishade (US 2019/0347601) further in view of Hubig et al. (US 2008/0072448).
Claim 4:
While Lutnick ,Belveal and Aborishade disclose claim 1, neither explicitly discloses the following limitation; however Hubig does disclose:
further comprising receiving a status from the laundry machine terminal associated with a dryer subsequent to the delivery person loading the articles to be laundered into the dryer. (see at least ¶0017, alerting laundry personnel of dryer status)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the identifying of providers to perform services including laundry of Lutnick, the performing of laundry service of Belveal and the determining if drop of is needed and identifying a driver of Aborishade with the dryer status monitoring of Hubig to assist in facilitating laundry service.
Claim 4 for a system (Lutnick Figure1) substantially recites the subject matter of Claim 12 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Claims 7, 8, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lutnick et al. (US 2013/0218727) in view of Belveal et al. (US 2017/0085390) further in view of Aborishade (US 2019/0347601) further in view of Lerro (US 12165232).
Claim 7:
While Lutnick , Belveal and Aborishade disclose claim 1, and Belveal further discloses further comprising predicting demand of [the laundry machines at the self-service laundromat based on historical usage data of the laundry machines and time of day patterns (see at least ¶0007 and ¶0089), neither Lutnick , Belveal and Aborishade explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lerro does disclose:
further comprising predicting demand of [the laundry machines at the self-service laundromat based on historical usage data of the laundry machines and time of day patterns] using a predictive model. (see at least column 6, lines 59-65, predicted behavior can be used to adjust predicted costs; see also column 19, lines 4-10, demand prediction model)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the identifying of providers to perform services including laundry of Lutnick, the attendant mobile device located in laundromat of Belveal and the determining if drop of is needed and identifying a driver of Aborishade with the predicting demand of service of Lerro to help facilitate pricing adjustments based on demand.
Claim 8:
While Lutnick, Belveal , Aborishade and Lee disclose claim 7, neither Lutnick nor Belveal explicitly disclose the following limitations; however, Lerro does disclose:
further comprising adjusting a pricing for the service request based on the predicted demand. (see at least column 6, lines 59-65, predicted behavior can be used to adjust predicted costs; see also column 19, lines 4-10, demand prediction model)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to combine the identifying of providers to perform services including laundry of Lutnick, the attendant mobile device located in laundromat of Belveal and the determining if drop of is needed and identifying a driver of Aborishade with the predicting demand of service of Lero to help facilitate pricing adjustments based on demand.
Claims 15 and 16 for a system (Lutnick Figure1) substantially recites the subject matter of Claims 7 and 8 and are rejected based on the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered relevant but not applied:
Talavera (US 2025/0181420) discloses a laundry service model, allowing gig workers to perform laundry tasks using local laundry machines in homes or apartments, with a computing system managing scheduling, pick-up , washing, and delivery .
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 of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Renae Feacher whose telephone number is 571-270-5485. The Examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00 am - 5:00 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor, Beth Boswell can be reached at 571-272-6737.
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.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal/pair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866.217.9197 (toll-free).
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks
Washington, D.C. 20231
or faxed to 571-273-8300.
Hand delivered responses should be brought to the United States Patent and Trademark Office Customer Service Window:
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314.
/Renae Feacher/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625