DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is responsive to Applicant’s claims filed 10/29/2025.
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 are currently pending and have been examined here.
Claims 1, 7-10, 13, 16-17, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 5-6 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 8 of Applicant’s Response filed 10/29/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Furthermore, Examiner respectfully notes that claim 20 does not even recite an autonomous vehicle for performing this step. As outlined below, the mere requirement to implement the one or more abstract ideas using an autonomous vehicle amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using an autonomous vehicle, and further recites insignificant extra-solution activity. Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 8-9 of Applicant’s response filed 10/29/2025, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered, and they are persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
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 1-4 and 7-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 20, each of the claims recites that requirements for the office features to be available in a seating zone are received, wherein the office features are independent of location of the vehicle. Each of the claims then requires that the vehicle is to be moved to a location that meets the one or more requirements. It would be unclear to one of ordinary skill in the art as to how the vehicle is to be moved to a location that meets the one or more requirements for the office features when the office features are independent of the location of the vehicle. Since there appears to be incongruity between the requirements and the location of the vehicle, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention, and claims 1, 13, and 20 are rejected as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 2-4, 7-12 and 14-20, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) since they depend from claim 1, and do not cure the above deficiencies.
Claims 1, 13, and 20 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.
As per claims 1, 13, and 20, each of the claims recites that a vehicle is autonomously moved to a location that meets the one or more requirements, wherein the one or more requirements include a maximum light level within the vehicle or a maximum sound level within the vehicle. Thus, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims includes moving the vehicle to a location that meets the sound level requirements. While paragraph [0066] of the present specification as filed indicates that the vehicle may be moved to a location with reduced sunlight exposure, nothing in the specification describes moving the vehicle to a location which meets the sound requirements of the user. Rather, the specification merely describes seating with privacy zones with reduced sound. Since the specification is silent as to any mention of moving the vehicle to a reduced sound zone and does not indicate how a location with reduced sound may be located or how the vehicle would know when it arrived at such a zone, the specification does not describe this limitation 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.
As per claims 2-4, 7-12 and 14-20, these claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since they depend from claim 1, and do not cure the above deficiencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, 11-13, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The claims are drawn to ineligible patent subject matter, because the claims are directed to a recited judicial exception to patentability (an abstract idea), without claiming something significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
Claims are ineligible for patent protection if they are drawn to subject matter which is not within one of the four statutory categories, or, if the subject matter claimed does fall into one of the four statutory categories, the claims are ineligible if they recite a judicial exception, are directed to that judicial exception, and do not recite additional elements which amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 375 U.S. ___ (2014). Accordingly, claims are first analyzed to determine whether they fall into one of the four statutory categories of patent eligible subject matter. Then, if the claims fall within one of the four statutory categories, it must be determined whether the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea). In determining whether a claim is directed to a judicial exception, the claim is first analyzed to determine whether the claim recites a judicial exception. If the claim does not recite one of these exceptions, the claim is directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim recites one of these exceptions, the claim is then analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. Claims which integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101. If the claim fails to integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Finally, if the claims are directed to a judicial exception to patentability, the claims are then analyzed determine whether the claims are directed to patent eligible subject matter by reciting meaningful limitations which transform the judicial exception into something significantly more than the judicial exception itself. If they do not, the claims are not directed towards eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Regarding independent claims 1, 13, and 20 the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (a process, a machine, and an article of manufacture, respectively.) The claimed invention of independent claims 1, 13, and 20 is directed to a judicial exception to patentability, an abstract idea. The claims include limitations which recite elements which can be properly characterized under at least one of the following groupings of subject matter recognized as abstract ideas by MPEP 2106.04(a):
Mathematical Concepts: mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations;
Certain methods of organizing human activity: fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions); and
Mental processes: concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion)
Claims 1, 13, and 20, as a whole, recite the following limitations:
receiving from the user device, a listing of one or more requirements for the office features to be available in the seating zone, the office features being independent of location of the vehicle, wherein the requirements include one or more of a maximum light level within the vehicle or a maximum sound level within the vehicle; (claims 13, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a share request of this type; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for their customers)
receiving. . . a reservation of a seating zone of the vehicle, responsive to a share request requesting the seating zone being received. . . from a listing of available shares; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a reservation in this manner; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for their customers)
and providing access to the seating zone in accordance with the reservation; (claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could provide access to a seating zone in accordance with a reservation; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for their customers)
receive share data from a plurality of vehicles, the share data indicating office features of seating zones of the respective vehicles; (claims 1, 13, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive this data; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for their customers)
compile a listing of available shares based on the share data; (claims 1, 13, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could compile this list; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for their customers)
receive a share request requesting a seating zone. . . , the share request including a listing of one or more requirements for the office features to be available in the seating zone, the office features being independent of location of the vehicle, wherein the requirements include one or more of a maximum light level within the vehicle or a maximum sound level within the vehicle; (claims 13, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a share request of this type; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for their customers)
filter the listing of available shares based on the requirements; (claims 1, 13, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could filter a list based on requirements; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for their customers)
receive an indication of a selected vehicle of the plurality of vehicles. . . (claims 13, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive an indication of a selected vehicle; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for their customers)
send. . . a reservation of the seating zone of the vehicle and a credential for access to the seating zone, and send. . . the credential for access to the seating zone, the credential to be provided . . . to grant access to the seating zone. (claims 13, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could send a reservation and a credential; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for their customers)
Moving forward, the above recited abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application.
The added limitations do not represent an integration of the abstract idea into a practical application because:
the claims represent mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, and merely use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
the claims merely add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (activity which can be characterized as incidental to the primary purpose or product that is merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim). See MPEP 2106.05(g) and/or
the claims represent mere general linking of the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. See MPEP 2016.05(h)
Beyond those limitations which recite the abstract idea, the following limitations are added:
from a user device of a user (claims 1, 13, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . to a vehicle from a rental server. . .(claim 1; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
a rental server including one or more hardware computing devices, the rental server being configured to execute a sharing service to perform operations including to: (claim 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
A non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions that, when executed by one or more hardware computing devices, cause the one or more hardware computing devices to perform operations including to: (claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . to the selected vehicle. . . (claims 13, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . . to a user device. . . (claims 13, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
. . .from the user device to the vehicle. . . (claims 13, 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer used as a tool in its ordinary capacity; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation represents mere general linking of the abstract idea to a particular computer environment or field of use)
autonomously moving the vehicle to a location that meets the one or more requirements. (claims 1, 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using an autonomous vehicle since the limitation merely recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and since the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of post-solution activity since the limitation merely invokes an autonomous vehicle to begin the share after the determinations and matches have been made)
move the vehicle to a location that meets the one or more requirements. (Claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation amounts to the mere requirement to “apply” the abstract idea using a vehicle since the limitation merely recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished, and since the claim invokes computers or other machinery merely as a tool to perform an existing process; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of post-solution activity since the limitation merely invokes a vehicle to begin the share after the determinations and matches have been made)
The claims, as a whole, are directed to the abstract idea(s) which they recite. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims, as a whole, are directed to the judicial exception.
Turning to the final prong of the test (Step 2B), independent claims 1, 13, and 20 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because there are no meaningful limitations which transform the exception into a patent eligible application.
As outlined above, the claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)).
The following limitations have been characterized above as reciting insignificant extra-solution activity:
autonomously moving the vehicle to a location that meets the one or more requirements. (claims 1, 13; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites the court-recognized well-understood routine and conventional computer function of transmitting and receiving information over a network since the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation includes sending a signal to a vehicle which causes the movement)
move the vehicle to a location that meets the one or more requirements. (Claim 20; the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites the court-recognized well-understood routine and conventional computer function of transmitting and receiving information over a network since the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation includes sending a signal to a vehicle or driver device which causes the movement)
Furthermore, no specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Besides performing the abstract idea itself, the generic computer components only serve to perform the court-recognized well-understood computer functions of receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations, electronic record keeping, and storing and retrieving information in memory. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. The specification details any combination of a generic computer system program to perform the method. Generically recited computer elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation and because the Alice decision noted that generic structures that merely apply the abstract ideas are not significantly more than the abstract ideas. Therefore, independent claims 1, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 as being directed to ineligible subject matter.
Claims 2, 7-9, 11-12, 16, and 18-19, recite the same abstract idea as their respective independent claims.
The following additional features are added in the dependent claims:
Claim 2:
further comprising: receiving a credential to the vehicle from the rental server for providing the access to the vehicle;
validating the credential by the vehicle as entered by the user of the user device, the credential being provided to the user via the user device;
and granting the access to the seating zone responsive to the credential being validated.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could receive a credential, validate it, and grant access to a seating zone in response thereto; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for their customers.
Claims 7 and 16:
wherein the requirements include one or more of availability of Wi-Fi, availability of a table, availability of a conference call speaker device, availability of a conference call microphone device, availability of a conference call camera device, and/or availability of charging features or electrical outlets.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the requirements used in the abstract ideas above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 8:
wherein the requirements include availability of a privacy sound zone.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the requirements used in the abstract ideas above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 9:
wherein the requirements include availability of swiveling seats to allow for a face-to-face conference.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the requirements used in the abstract ideas above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 11 and 18:
wherein the share request indicates a location for the vehicle, and further comprising one or more of navigating the vehicle to the location or navigating the user to the location.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of share request used in the abstract ideas above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could navigate a vehicle from pickup to dropoff in response to detecting that they have entered a vehicle; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for their customers.
Claims 12 and 19:
wherein the share request indicates a pickup location and a dropoff location, and further comprising responsive to detecting the user as having entered the vehicle, navigating the vehicle from the pickup location to the dropoff location.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation merely alters the type of share request used in the abstract ideas above and therefore further recites one or more abstract ideas for the reasons outlined above. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites mental processes since a human using their mind, pen and paper, and simple observation, evaluation, and judgment could navigate a vehicle from pickup to dropoff in response to detecting that they have entered a vehicle; alternatively, the broadest reasonable interpretation of this limitation recites certain methods of organizing human activity in the form of commercial interactions such as business relations and sales activities since commercial ridesharing companies would perform this step in coordinating ridesharing services for their customers.
The above limitations do not represent a practical application of the recited abstract idea. The claim limitations do not present improvements to another technological field, nor do they improve the functioning of a computer or another technology. Nor do the claim limitations apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine. The claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. See MPEP 2106.05(c). None of the hardware in the claims "offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking 'the use of the [method] to a particular technological environment' that is, implementation via computers” such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. See MPEP 2106.05(e); Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l (citing Bilski v. Kappos, 561 U.S. 610, 611 (U.S. 2010)). Therefore, because the claims recite a judicial exception (an abstract idea) and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the claims are also directed to the judicial exception.
Furthermore, the added limitations do not direct the claim to significantly more than the abstract idea. No specific limitations are added which represent something other than what is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d). Accordingly, none of the dependent claims 2, 7-9, 11-12, 16, and 18-19, individually, or as an ordered combination, are directed to patent eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Please see MPEP §2106.05(d)(II) for a discussion of elements that the Courts have recognized as well-understood, routine, conventional, activity in particular fields.
Please see MPEP §2106 for examination guidelines regarding patent subject matter eligibility.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 EMMETT K WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2624. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 6 a.m. - 4:45 p.m..
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, Resha Desai can be reached at 571-270-7792. 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.
/EMMETT K. WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628