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
Claims 16-19 and 22-34 were previously pending and subject to a non-final rejection dated April 15, 2026. In Response, submitted July 15, 2026, claims 16, 25, 26, and 33 were amended, and claims 35-37 were added. No new subject matter was introduced in these amendments. Therefore, claims 16-19 and 22-37 are currently pending and subject to the following final rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks on Page 13 of the Response regarding the previous objection of the specification, have been fully considered and the objection is withdrawn in light of amended specification.
Applicant’s remarks on Pages 14-17 of the Response, regarding the previous rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101, have been fully considered and are not found persuasive.
On Pages 14-15 of the Response, Applicant argues “As amended, the claims are not confined to recommending, specifying, displaying, or modifying data. … The claim further recites that the node circuitry is configured to generate transaction information based on the request and distribute the transaction information to the blockchain network, and that electricity is supplied to the user for consumption according to the transaction information generated by the node and distributed to the blockchain network.”
Examiner notes, “generat[ing] transaction information based on the request and distribut[ing] the transaction information” is an abstract idea that is carried out merely by being generally linked to the field of blockchain technology through the use of the “node circuitry” and the “blockchain network”. As discussed further in the detailed rejection below, this node technology and blockchain network are recited at such a high level that they amount to merely generally linking the abstract idea, and fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or amount to significantly more. Further, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., electricity is supplied to the user for consumption according to the transaction information generated by the node and distributed to the blockchain network) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). While the claims do transmit data regarding the usage plan and verify usage data via a readout, these processes amount to mere abstract data processing which is accomplished in part through being generally linked to blockchain technology through the recited node and blockchain network. That is, the invention does not actually supply or distribute electricity to the customer, merely sends and receives data regarding the supply of electricity which occurs beyond the scope of the claimed invention.
On Page 15 of the Response, Applicant argues “Considered as a whole, the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea. … The amended claims recite a particular, concrete process by which the type of production method of the electricity that is actually metered and consumed by the user is determined so as to approach a confirmed usage plan, recorded as a transaction distributed on a blockchain network, and used to govern the electricity that is thereafter supplied to the user for consumption. These operations are not the recitation of a result at a high level of generality; they set forth specific operations that produce a real-world effect on how the electricity consumed by the user is sourced and supplied.”
Examiner notes, as discussed above, the current claims do not actually perform the production or provision of electricity to the customer, but rather interacts with data regarding the metering, production, and provision. That is, the system provides data regarding how the customer desires their electricity to be supplied, and measures the data regarding the electricity that has been consumed by the consumer to see if these data reflect each other. This is mere data analysis and does not reflect any practical element of “govern[ing] the electricity that is thereafter supplied to the user for consumption”.
On Page 16 of the Response, Applicant argues “the recited operations integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application. The claims do not merely invoke the registration server, the communication terminal, the screen, and the blockchain node as tools to ‘apply’ a concept; they tie those elements to a physical outcome, namely the supply of electricity of a determined production method to the user, keyed to metered consumption and to the confirmed usage plan. … the amended claims recite specific operations, determining the type of production method for the electricity consumed by the user to approach the stored usage plan and supplying electricity to the user according to the resulting blockchain transaction, that apply any recited concept in a particular and meaningful way and impose meaningful limits on the claim. Consistent with Desjardins, these operations should not be set aside by evaluating the claims at ‘such a high level of generality’ that meaningful limitations are dismissed. Desjardins at 9.
Examiner notes, as discussed above and in the detailed rejection below, “determining the type of production method for the electricity consumed by the user to approach the stored usage plan” is a recitation of the abstract idea and unhelpful in bringing the claims to eligibility. Further “supplying electricity to the user according to the resulting blockchain transaction” is not positively recited in the claimed invention. Rather the claimed invention measures data concerning the electricity that has been consumed, analyzes the data and records the results, which are abstract processes that are carried out by generally linking them to the field of blockchain technology through additional elements such as the blockchain network and the nodes. Similarly, the other recited additional elements are used to carry out the recited abstract idea either as generic tools, i.e. “apply it”, or by generally linking them to a field of use and therefore fail to integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
On Pages 16-17 of the Response, Applicant argues “The ordered combination of confirming and storing a usage plan, metering the electricity actually consumed by the user once per predetermined time period, determining a type of production method for the consumed electricity to approach the stored usage plan, generating and distributing a corresponding transaction on the blockchain network, and supplying electricity to the user according to that transaction is a specific, non-conventional arrangement that supplies an inventive concept. … Dependent Claims 17-19, 22-25, and 34 depend from Claim 16, and dependent Claims 27-33 depend from Claim 26; each is patent-eligible for at least the reasons given for its respective independent claim, and further in view of the additional limitations each recites. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the amended claims are drawn to statutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
Examiner notes, “confirming and storing a usage plan, metering the electricity actually consumed by the user once per predetermined time period, determining a type of production method for the consumed electricity to approach the stored usage plan, generating and distributing a corresponding transaction” are recitations of the abstract idea and are unhelpful in bring the claims to eligibility regardless of its specificity or non-conventionality. Further, as discussed at length about generally linking the generation and distribution of the transaction to blockchain technology fails to amount to significantly more. Additionally, as discussed at length above, “supplying electricity to the user according to that transaction” is not positively recited in claimed invention. Therefore, similar to the analysis discussed in the arguments above, the claims fail to amount to significantly more.
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.
Claims 16-19 and 22-37 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.
Claim 16 and 26 recite “to approach the usage plan information” (emphasis added) in limitations 20 and 10 respectively. It is unclear what is meant for the electricity consumed by the user “to approach the usage plan information”. For examination purposes, these limitations will be interpreted as the electricity consumed by the user “meets the usage plan information”. Claims 17-19, 22-25, and 27-37 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claims 23 and 31 recite “the node of the blockchain”, and claims 23, 24, 31, and 32 further recite “the blockchain”. It is unclear whether these recitations refer to the recitation of “a node of a blockchain”/“a blockchain” introduced in claims 22 and 30 or the recitation of “a node of a blockchain network” and “a blockchain network” introduced in limitation 3 of claim 16 and limitation 11 of claim 26. For examination purposes, the recitations in claims 22 and 30 will be interpreted as “the node of the blockchain”. Appropriate correction is required. Claims depending from the rejected claims are rejected by virtue of dependency.
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 16-19, and 22-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 16-19, 22-25, 34, 35, and 37 is directed to a system (i.e., a machine); and claims 26-33 and 36 are directed to a method (i.e., a process). Therefore, claims 16-19 and 22-37 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong One
Independent claim 16 substantially recites determine recommendation details based on information on a condition specified according to a user input, the recommendation details including one or more recommended types of production methods for electricity;
generating a usage plan setting to be displayed, based on the recommendation details, including the one or more recommended types of production methods for the electricity, a total amount of electricity transactions performed in a predetermined period for each of all production methods, carbon dioxide emission amount information, and electricity price information, wherein each of the one or more recommended types of production methods having a period of use indicated by a corresponding dimension size of a corresponding visual indicator;
receiving change information indicating a change of a dimension size of a first visual indicator according to a user operation of moving an edge of a horizontal dimension of the first visual indicator by touching, the first visual indicator indicating a period of use for a first energy asset produced by a first type of production method included in the one or more recommended types of production methods;
determining additional recommendation details based on the change information; and
reflecting the additional recommendation details to obtain an update to be displayed,
displaying the usage plan setting;
receiving the user operation of changing the dimension size of the first visual indicator;
transmitting the change information indicating the change of the dimension size of the first visual indicator; and
displaying the update indicating the dimension size of the first visual indicator changed by the user operation and another dimension size of a second visual indicator indicating another period of use for a second energy asset produced by a second type of production method,
the second type of production method is included in the one or more recommended types of production methods,
the another dimension size of the second visual indicator is automatically recalculated according to the change in the dimension size of the first visual indicator to maintain a total energy allocation constraint,
storing in response to a user confirmation operation, usage plan information including the period of use for the first energy asset produced by the first type of production method indicated by the first visual indicator changed by the user operation and the another period of use for the second energy asset produced by the second type of production method indicated by the second visual indicator;
receiving, from the user, usage information indicating a usage amount of electricity consumed by the user, once per predetermined time period;
reading out the usage plan information of the user;
determining a type of production method for the electricity consumed by the user, based on the usage information received, to approach the usage plan information read out; and
transmitting a request including the usage amount of the electricity consumed by the user and the determined type of production method, and
generating transaction information based on the request and distribute the transaction information.
Independent claim 26 substantially recites determining recommendation details based on information on a condition specified according to a user input, the recommendation details including one or more recommended types of production methods for electricity;
generating a usage plan setting to be displayed, based on the recommendation details, including the one or more recommended types of production methods for the electricity, a total amount of electricity transactions performed in a predetermined period for each of all production methods, carbon dioxide emission amount information, and electricity price information, wherein each of the one or more recommended types of production methods having a period of use indicated by a corresponding dimension size of a corresponding visual indicator;
transmitting the usage plan setting for display, receiving a user operation of changing a dimension size of a first visual indicator by moving an edge of a horizontal dimension of the first visual indicator by touching;
receiving change information indicating a change of the dimension size of the first visual indicator according to the user operation, the first visual indicator indicating a period of use for a first energy asset produced by a first type of production method included in the one or more recommended types of production methods;
determining additional recommendation details based on the change information and reflecting the additional recommendation details to obtain an update to be displayed;
transmitting the update for display, the update indicating the dimension size of the first visual indicator changed by the user operation and another dimension size of a second visual indicator indicating another period of use for a second energy asset produced by a second type of production method, wherein the second type of production method is included in the one or more recommended types of production methods, and the another dimension size of the second visual indicator is automatically recalculated according to the change in the dimension size of the first visual indicator to maintain a total energy allocation constraint;
storing in response to a user confirmation operation, usage plan information including the period of use for the first energy asset produced by the first type of production method indicated by the first visual indicator changed by the user operation and the another period of use for the second energy asset produced by the second type of production method indicated by the second visual indicator;
receiving, from the user, usage information indicating a usage amount of electricity consumed by the user, once per predetermined time period;
reading out the usage plan information of the user;
determining a type of production method for the electricity consumed by the user, based on the usage information received, to approach the usage plan information read out;
transmitting a request including the usage amount of the electricity consumed by the user and the determined type of production method; and
generating transaction information based on the request and distributing the transaction information.
The limitations stated above are processes/functions that under broadest reasonable interpretation covers “certain methods of organizing human activity” (commercial or legal interactions) of recommending and specifying future energy consumption (See PG Publication, Para. 5). Therefore, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 16 and 26 as a whole amount to: (i) merely invoking generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The claim recites the additional elements of: (i) a registration server (claims 16, 26), (ii) a communication terminal (claims 16, 26), (iii) a communication network (claims 16), (iv) a display (claims 16), (v) a registration server circuitry (claim 16), (vi) communication terminal circuitry (claim 16), (vii) a usage plan setting screen (claims 16, 26), (viii) a node of a blockchain network (claims 16, 26), (ix) node circuitry (claim 16), (x) the blockchain network (claims 16, 26), (xi) a storage (clams 16, 26), and (xii) a smart meter (clams 16, 26).
The additional elements of (i) a registration server, (ii) a communication terminal, (iii) a communication network, (iv) a display, (v) a registration server circuitry, (vi) a communication terminal circuitry, (vii) a usage plan setting screen, and (xi) a storage are recited at a high level of generality (see [0047] of the Applicants PG Publication discussing the registration server, [0060] discussing the communication terminal, [0048] discussing the communication network, [0065] discussing the display, [0071] discussing the registration server circuitry, [0062] discussing the communication terminal circuitry, [0132 & 0145] discussing the usage plan setting screen, [0098] discussing the storage) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of (viii) a node of a blockchain network, (ix) node circuitry, (x) the blockchain network, and (xii) a smart meter is recited at a high-level of generality (see [0118] of the Applicants PG Publication discussing the node of a blockchain network and the node circuitry, [0204] discussing the blockchain network, [0057] discussing the smart meter) when viewed as whole/ordered combination, does no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., blockchain technology, and connected meters) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, these additional elements, when viewed as a whole/ordered combination [See Figures 1, 2, 4, 12A-B, and 14-16 showing all the additional (i) a registration server, (ii) a communication terminal, (iii) a communication network, (iv) a display, (v) a registration server circuitry, (vi) a communication terminal circuitry, and (vii) a usage plan setting screen, (viii) a node of a blockchain network, (ix) node circuitry, (x) the blockchain network, (xi) a storage, and (xii) a smart meter in combination], do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements amount to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claims adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, the claims 16 and 26 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 17, 18, 27, 28, and 37 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 16 and 26 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 17, 18, 27, 28, and 37 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 19 and 29 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claims 19 and 29 also recites the additional elements of a usage plan management database, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0099] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the usage plan management database) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, the additional elements do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e. databasing) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a usage plan management database does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 19 and 29 are ineligible.
Dependent Claims 22-24 and 30-32 merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. For reasons described above with respect to claims 19 and 29 these judicial exceptions are not meaningfully integrated into a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea. Thus, claims 22-24 and 30-32 are also ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 25 and 33 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claims 25 and 33 also recites the additional elements of a memory, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0072] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the memory) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: “apply it” (or an equivalent), and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a memory does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 25 and 33 are ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claim 34 further narrows the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claim 34 also recites the additional elements of an immutable transactional ledger system and an electronic certificate.
The additional element of an immutable transactional ledger system is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0198] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the memory) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The additional element of an electronic certificate is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0198] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the memory) such that when viewed as whole/ordered combination, do no more than generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (i.e., blockchain technology) (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: (i) “apply it” (or an equivalent), and (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, and is not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)); (ii) generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (See MPEP 2106.05(h)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional elements of an immutable transactional ledger system and an electronic certificate do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claim 34 is ineligible.
Step 2A, Prong Two
Dependent Claims 35 and 36 further narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Claims 35 and 36 also recites the additional elements of a web browser function, which is recited at a high-level of generality (See [0080] of the Applicants PG Publication disclosing the web browser function) such that, when viewed as whole/ordered combination, it amounts to no more than mere instruction to apply the judicial exception using generic computer components or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, the additional elements, when viewed individually and as a whole/ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
As discussed above with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional element amounts to no more than: “apply it” (or an equivalent), and are not a practical application of the abstract idea. The same analysis applies here in Step 2B, i.e., (i) merely invoking the generic components as a tool to perform the abstract idea or “apply it” (See MPEP 2106.05(f)), does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B.
Therefore, the additional element of a web browser function does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept at Step 2B. Thus, even when viewed as a whole/ordered combination, nothing in the claim adds significantly more (i.e., an inventive concept) to the abstract idea. Thus, claims 35 and 36 are ineligible.
Novel and Non-Obvious Over the Prior Art
Claims 16-19 and 22-37 are novel and non-obvious over the prior art; however, these claims are subject to the above rejections.
The closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2019/0372345 to Bain et al (hereafter Bain). Bain discloses a communication terminal in communication with a registration server that receives information and adjustments from the customer and provides data and recommendations about electricity sources and mixes.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2021/0123771 to Vega et al (hereafter Vega). Vega discloses factoring in users’ carbon emissions data of the electricity sources in recommendations for which source to utilize.
The next closest prior art is Non-Patent Literature “Understanding Electricity Generation” from Github (August 12, 2017) (hereafter Github). Github discloses visual indicators changeable via user operation that adjust production methods used during a period of use.
The next closest prior art is U.S. Patent Application No. 2017/0083989 to Brockman et al (hereafter Brockman). Brockman discloses comparing smart meter data to usage plan data to determine the smart data approaches the usage plan data and using blockchain nodes to record transactions.
While the closest prior art above teaches various aspects of the claimed invention individually, they fail to teach indicators which interact with a server, and affect the period of use for each production method type separately such as recited in limitations “transmit, to the registration server, the change information indicating the change of the dimension size of the first visual indicator;” and “the another dimension size of the second visual indicator is automatically recalculated by the registration server according to the change in the dimension size of the first visual indicator to maintain a total energy allocation constraint,” “store, in a storage, in response to a user confirmation operation on the usage plan setting screen, usage plan information … production method indicated by the first visual indicator changed by the user operation … production method indicated by the second visual indicator”. Therefore, the claims are rendered novel and non-obvious over the prior art. The indicators do not however interact with a server, nor affect the period of use for each production method type separately.
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 DAVID G GODBOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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, Shannon S Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. 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.
/DAVID G. GODBOLD/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights