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 in reply to application 18/608,003 filed 3/18/2024. Claims 1-15 were cancelled and claims 16-27 were newly added in the reply filed 11/10/2025. Claims 16-27 are pending. This action is final.
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 16-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 16 recites A method executed by a network-connected portal system having a database, a processor, and an interface, the method comprising: receiving, via the interface, member-specific case criteria of a case input by one of a plurality of member users, wherein the member-specific case criteria includes subject matter and geographic location; storing, in the database, a plurality of professional profiles including subject matter expertise and geographic location; executing, via the processor, a program configured to compare the member-specific case criteria with a plurality of professional profiles and identify one or more professionals having the required subject matter expertise and prioritize those professionals based the professional's geographic location relative to the case's geographic location; automatically generating and transmitting, via the processor, case offers to the one or more identified professionals having the required subject matter expertise and proximity in geographic locations; monitoring, via the processor, status data associated with each case offer and automatically flagging a case as inactive when (a) a predetermined amount of time has passed without a case offer being accepted by an identified professional, (b) no potential professional satisfies the predefined matching thresholds; or (c) all identified professionals reject the case offer; and displaying, via the interface, cases flagged as inactive for a service provider.. Therefore, claim 16 is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention: a method.
Step 2A – Prong One: The limitations A method ... the method comprising: receiving ... member-specific case criteria of a case input by one of a plurality of member users, wherein the member-specific case criteria includes subject matter and geographic location; storing ... a plurality of professional profiles including subject matter expertise and geographic location ... compare the member-specific case criteria with a plurality of professional profiles and identify one or more professionals having the required subject matter expertise and prioritize those professionals based the professional's geographic location relative to the case's geographic location; automatically generating and transmitting ... case offers to the one or more identified professionals having the required subject matter expertise and proximity in geographic locations; monitoring ... status data associated with each case offer and automatically flagging a case as inactive when (a) a predetermined amount of time has passed without a case offer being accepted by an identified professional, (b) no potential professional satisfies the predefined matching thresholds; or (c) all identified professionals reject the case offer; and displaying ... cases flagged as inactive for a service provider, as drafted, is a method that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, only covers concepts of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). That is, nothing in the claim elements disclose anything outside the groupings of “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” (e.g., commercial interactions – business relations). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 16 merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of the aforementioned abstract idea using generic computer components. The additional elements of claims 16, a network-connected portal system, a database, a processor, an interface, and a program, are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer tools to perform the aforementioned abstract idea. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computerized system is not a practical application of the abstract idea. Accordingly, alone and in combination, the additional elements of claim 16 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims as a whole merely describe the abstract idea generally “applied” to a generic computer environment. The additional elements of claim 16, a network-connected portal system (described in spec. para. [0012]), a database (not explicitly described in the spec.), a processor (not explicitly described in the spec.), an interface (described implicitly in spec. para. [0011]), and a program (described in spec. para. [0012]), are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” (Examiner’s Note: Although the additional elements a database and a processor are not explicitly recited in the specification, these terms are so generic and broad such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand them to be a part of the computer system described in the specification. Therefore, no written description rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) is warranted.) The high level of generality in which this additional element is described indicates that the additional element is sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional element to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 17-27 have been given the full two-part analysis including analyzing the limitations both individually and in combination. Claims 17-27 when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: The limitations of the dependent claims fail to integrate an abstract idea into a practical application because the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” a method of the aforementioned abstract idea. Although claim 17 recites the additional element email and claim 21 recites the additional elements a drop-down menu and a progress bar, the claims as a whole merely describe how to generally “apply” the aforementioned abstract idea in a generic computer environment. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims integrates the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B: Performing the further narrowed abstract ideas of the dependent claims on the additional elements of the independent claim, individually or in combination, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract ideas and amount to merely using a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Similarly, the recited limitations of the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims provide an inventive concept because claims that merely use a computer, in its ordinary capacity, as a tool to perform the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept. Although claim 17 recites the additional element email (described in spec. para. [0012]) and claim 21 recites the additional elements a drop-down menu (described in spec. para. [0017]) and a progress bar (described in spec. para. [0017]), they are recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as generic computer components upon which the abstract idea is “applied.” The high level of generality in which the additional elements are described indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently known such that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of the additional elements to satisfy the statutory disclosure requirements. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more to the abstract idea. Therefore, the claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 16-23 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agoni (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0133374) in view of Studer (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0222451).
Regarding claim 16, Agoni discloses the following limitations:
A method executed by a network-connected portal system having a database, a processor, and an interface, the method comprising: (Examiner’s Note: Although the additional elements a database and a processor are not explicitly recited in the specification, these terms are so generic and broad such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand them to be a part of the computer system described in the specification. Therefore, no written description rejection under 35 USC § 112(a) is warranted. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would also understand these elements to be present in a similarly described web portal.) [See [0023]; (Fig. 1); Agoni teaches a host having accessible communication modules and databases, the host facilitating communication and service transactions between a professional and a client through a network (i.e., a network-connected portal system). Agoni [0071] further teaches the system comprising an attorney profile database 112 (i.e., a database) which stores attorney profile data. Agoni [0051] further teaches that the host 110, the client 102, and the professional 104 each use a computer, and that the host 110 computer may comprise one or more processors (i.e., a processor). Agoni (Fig. 15); [0131] illustrates an example of one of a plurality of graphical user interfaces which the system comprises (i.e., an interface).]
receiving, via the interface, member-specific case criteria of a case input by one of a plurality of member users, wherein the member-specific case criteria includes subject matter and geographic location; [See (Fig. 4, element 404); [0080]; Agoni teaches a client (i.e., a member user) entering their initial case information (i.e., receiving, via the interface, member-specific case criteria of a case input by one of a plurality of member users). Agoni [0080] further teaches that the case information may include the client’s name, address, area of law involved (i.e., subject matter), and zip code (i.e., geographic location).]
storing, in the database, a plurality of professional profiles including subject matter expertise and geographic location; [See [0071] Agoni teaches the system comprising an attorney profile database 112 which stores attorney profile data (i.e., storing, in the database, a plurality of professional profiles). Agoni [0069]; [0134]; (Fig. 16, element 1604) further teaches that each attorney profile in the attorney profile database 112 comprises an attorney profile table 1602 comprising attorney information such as the law practice description which may include practice sub-area(s) of the attorney such as automobile accident cases or medical malpractice cases (i.e., subject matter expertise). Agoni [0069]; [0134]; (Fig. 16, element 1604) further teaches that the attorney profile table 1602 further comprises data on the attorney’s office location, zip code, and states licensed (i.e., geographic location).]
executing, via the processor, a program configured to compare the member-specific case criteria with a plurality of professional profiles and identify one or more professionals having the required subject matter expertise and prioritize those professionals based the professional's geographic location relative to the case's geographic location; [See (Fig. 4, element 408); [0082]; Agoni teaches matching attorney profiles in the attorney profile database with search conditions entered by the client (i.e., executing, via the processor, a program configured to compare the member-specific case criteria with a plurality of professional profiles and identify one or more professionals). Agoni [0082] further teaches that the search conditions may include the state where the attorney is licensed, the location of the attorney office (i.e., the professional’s geographic location relative to the case’s geographic location), the language skill of the attorney or office staff, the practice sub-area of the attorney (i.e., required subject matter expertise), client-entered keywords, and so forth. Agoni [0096] further teaches that the search process may locate attorneys available to practice in the zip code provided by the client and/or attorneys in nearby zip codes (i.e., the professional’s geographic location relative to the case’s geographic location).]
automatically generating and transmitting, via the processor, case offers to the one or more identified professionals having the required subject matter expertise and proximity in geographic locations; [See (Fig. 4); [0082]; Agoni teaches matching attorney profiles in the attorney profile database with search conditions entered by the client. Agoni [0082] further teaches that the search conditions may include the state where the attorney is licensed, the location of the attorney office (i.e., proximity in geographic locations), the language skill of the attorney or office staff, the practice sub-area of the attorney (i.e., required subject matter expertise), client-entered keywords, and so forth. Agoni [0096] further teaches that the search process may locate attorneys available to practice in the zip code provided by the client and/or attorneys in nearby zip codes (i.e., proximity in geographic locations). Agoni [0088-0090] further teaches that after a client selects a plurality of candidate attorneys from the practice-sub-area-based and location-based search results, the case information may be automatically sent to the candidate attorneys by the system (i.e., automatically generating and transmitting, via the processor, case offers to the one or more identified professionals having the required subject matter expertise and proximity in geographic locations).]
monitoring, via the processor, status data associated with each case offer and automatically flagging a case as inactive when (a) a predetermined amount of time has passed without a case offer being accepted by an identified professional, (b) no potential professional satisfies the predefined matching thresholds; or (c) all identified professionals reject the case offer; [See [0084]; (Fig. 4, element 410) Agoni teaches determining whether at least one attorney is found which has an attorney profile at least partially matching the search criteria. If no attorney is found (i.e., when ... (b) no potential professional satisfies the predefined matching thresholds), then the client is notified via the interface (i.e., monitoring, via the processor, status data associated with each case offer and automatically flagging a case as inactive) and the client modifies the search conditions for another search.]
Agoni does not, however Studer does, disclose the following limitations:
displaying, via the interface, cases flagged as inactive for a service provider. [See (Fig. 13); [0122]; [0138-0139] Studer teaches that a manager receiving a new appointment request (i.e., a case flagged as inactive), and may view different types of employees in order to assemble a team required to perform a task which has not yet been assigned a team, and manually assign employees to specific tasks (i.e., displaying, via the interface, cases flagged as inactive for a service provider).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the service provider portal of Agoni with the service provider portal of Studer. By making this combination, a manager may be granted the ability to manually assign candidate attorneys to specific cases instead of relying on an automated matching process. This would provide a manager of the system more control over the attorney assignment process, thereby being able to account for different situations such as unreported attorney availability, attorney quality, the needs of other clients, client preferences, or any other common issue that comes with workforce management.
Regarding claim 17, Agoni in view of Studer discloses all claim 16 limitations. Agoni further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the case offers are transmitted via email. [See [0088-0089]; (Fig. 4, element 420); (Fig. 8, elements 804, 806); Agoni teaches candidate attorneys are sent emails with a client’s case information, which they may respond to by communicating with the client in pre-retainer communication.]
Regarding claim 18, Agoni in view of Studer discloses all claim 16 limitations. Agoni further discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: displaying ... via the portal, a plurality of professional profiles for comparison to case criteria for a case ... [See (Fig. 4); [0082]; Agoni teaches matching attorney profiles in the attorney profile database with search conditions entered by the client. Agoni [0082] further teaches that the search conditions may include the state where the attorney is licensed, the location of the attorney office, the language skill of the attorney or office staff, the practice sub-area of the attorney, client-entered keywords, and so forth. Agoni [0096] further teaches that the search process may locate attorneys available to practice in the zip code provided by the client and/or attorneys in nearby zip codes. Agoni [0088-0090] further teaches that after a client selects a plurality of candidate attorneys from the practice-sub-area-based and location-based search results (i.e., displaying ... via the portal, a plurality of professional profiles for comparison to case criteria for a case ...), the case information may be automatically sent to the candidate attorneys by the system.]
receiving ... via the interface, an input identifying one or more professionals to receive a case offer ... [See (Fig. 4); [0082]; Agoni teaches matching attorney profiles in the attorney profile database with search conditions entered by the client. Agoni [0082] further teaches that the search conditions may include the state where the attorney is licensed, the location of the attorney office, the language skill of the attorney or office staff, the practice sub-area of the attorney, client-entered keywords, and so forth. Agoni [0096] further teaches that the search process may locate attorneys available to practice in the zip code provided by the client and/or attorneys in nearby zip codes. Agoni [0088-0090] further teaches that after a client selects a plurality of candidate attorneys (i.e., receiving ... via the interface, an input identifying one or more professionals to receive a case offer ...) from the practice-sub-area-based and location-based search results, the case information may be automatically sent to the candidate attorneys by the system.]
and automatically generating and transmitting, via the processor, case offers to the one or more professionals ... [See (Fig. 4); [0082]; Agoni teaches matching attorney profiles in the attorney profile database with search conditions entered by the client. Agoni [0082] further teaches that the search conditions may include the state where the attorney is licensed, the location of the attorney office, the language skill of the attorney or office staff, the practice sub-area of the attorney, client-entered keywords, and so forth. Agoni [0096] further teaches that the search process may locate attorneys available to practice in the zip code provided by the client and/or attorneys in nearby zip codes. Agoni [0088-0090] further teaches that after a client selects a plurality of candidate attorneys from the practice-sub-area-based and location-based search results, the case information may be automatically sent to the candidate attorneys by the system (i.e., and automatically generating and transmitting, via the processor, case offers to the one or more professionals ...).]
Although Agoni teaches displaying a plurality of candidate attorneys for an inactive case, Agoni does not explicitly teach the inactive cases and candidate attorney being viewed and selected by a service provider. Therefore, Agoni does not, however Studer does, disclose the following limitations:
... displaying to the service provider, via the portal, a plurality of professional profiles for comparison to case criteria for a case ... [See (Fig. 13); [0122]; [0138-0139] Studer teaches that a manager receiving a new appointment request (i.e., a case flagged as inactive), and may view different types of employees in order to assemble a team required to perform a task which has not yet been assigned a team, and manually assign employees to specific tasks (i.e., ... displaying to the service provider, via the portal, a plurality of professional profiles for comparison to case criteria for a case ...).]
... inactive case ... [See (Fig. 13); [0122]; [0138-0139] Studer teaches that a manager receiving a new appointment request (i.e., inactive case), and may view different types of employees in order to assemble a team required to perform a task which has not yet been assigned a team, and manually assign employees to specific tasks.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the service provider portal of Agoni with the service provider portal of Studer. By making this combination, a manager may be granted the ability to manually assign candidate attorneys to specific cases instead of relying on an automated matching process. This would provide a manager of the system more control over the attorney assignment process, thereby being able to account for different situations such as unreported attorney availability, attorney quality, the needs of other clients, client preferences, or any other common issue that comes with workforce management.
Regarding claim 19, Agoni in view of Studer discloses all claim 16 and 18 limitations. Agoni further discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: receiving, via the portal, input from the service provider to modify case status data. [See (Fig. 8, elements 806); [0099]; Agoni teaches that, after a candidate attorney is sent a client’s detailed case information, a candidate attorney engages in pre-retainer communication with the client during which the candidate attorney determines whether he or she would be interested in representing the client (i.e., further comprising: receiving, via the portal, input from the service provider to modify case status data). Agoni (Fig. 8, elements 810, 812); [0101] further teaches that at a block 810, the pre-retainer communication module 116 notifies the retained attorney that the client has signed the retainer agreement (i.e., modify case status data). At a next block 812, the preretainer communication module 116 notifies the unretained candidate attorneys that the client has retained another attorney (i.e., modify case status data), and that the other candidate attorneys will no longer be able to communicate with the client about the case using the pre-retainer communication module 116. In one embodiment, the notifications are made in the form of automatically generated email messages and/or phone messages.]
Regarding claim 20, Agoni in view of Studer discloses all claim 16 limitations. Agoni further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the member-specific case criteria is input by the member in response to a multi-step intake question system. [See (Fig. 4, elements 404, 418); [0080]; [0085]; Agoni teaches a client being initially prompted to enter initial case information in step 404 and then later the client being prompted to enter detailed case information in step 418 (i.e., wherein the member-specific case criteria is input by the member in response to a multi-step intake question system).]
Regarding claim 21, Agoni in view of Studer discloses all claim 16 and 20 limitations. Agoni further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the multi-step intake question system comprises a drop-down menu or questionnaire and a progress bar. [See [0098]; (Fig. 7); Agoni teaches a detailed case submission form to be filled out by a client. Agoni further teaches that the case submission form comprises a plurality of questions and dropdown menus for submission of information (i.e., wherein the multi-step intake question system comprises a drop-down menu).]
Regarding claim 22, Agoni in view of Studer discloses all claim 16 and 20 limitations. Agoni further discloses the following limitations:
wherein the multi-step intake question system dynamically responds to inputs by a member user. [See [0098]; (Fig. 7); Agoni teaches a detailed case submission form to be filled out by a client. Agoni further teaches that the case submission form comprises a plurality of questions and dropdown menus for submission of information, and tracks information input into the form (i.e., wherein the multi-step intake question system dynamically responds to inputs by a member user).]
Regarding claim 23, Agoni in view of Studer discloses all claim 16 limitations. Agoni further discloses the following limitations:
further comprising: receiving a response to the case offer from an identified professional indicating acceptance or rejection of the case offer. [See (Fig. 8, elements 806); [0099]; Agoni teaches that, after a candidate attorney is sent a client’s detailed case information, a candidate attorney engages in pre-retainer communication with the client during which the candidate attorney determines whether he or she would be interested in representing the client (i.e., receiving a response to the case offer from an identified professional indicating acceptance or rejection of the case offer).]
Regarding claim 26, Agoni in view of Studer discloses all claim 16 and 23 limitations. Agoni further discloses the following limitations:
automatically generating and transmitting, via the processor, a case-matching notification to the user member listing one or more identified professionals that accepted the case offer. [See (Fig. 8, elements 810, 812); [0101] Agoni teaches that at a block 810, the pre-retainer communication module 116 notifies the retained attorney that the client has signed the retainer agreement (i.e., automatically generating and transmitting, via the processor, a case-matching notification to the user member listing one or more identified professionals that accepted the case offer). At a next block 812, the preretainer communication module 116 notifies the unretained candidate attorneys that the client has retained another attorney, and that the other candidate attorneys will no longer be able to communicate with the client about the case using the pre-retainer communication module 116. In one embodiment, the notifications are made in the form of automatically generated email messages and/or phone messages.]
Claims 24-25 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Agoni (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0133374) in view of Studer (U.S. Pub. No. 2023/0222451) in view of Beltran (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0213559).
Regarding claim 24, Agoni in view of Studer discloses all claim 16 and 23 limitations. Agoni further discloses the following limitations:
... selecting, via the processor, a ... identified professional from a plurality of identified professionals that accepted the case offer [See (Fig. 8, elements 806); [0099]; Agoni teaches that, after a candidate attorney is sent a client’s detailed case information, a candidate attorney engages in pre-retainer communication with the client during which the candidate attorney determines whether he or she would be interested in representing the client (i.e., selecting, via the processor, a ... identified professional from a plurality of identified professionals that accepted the case offer).]
Although Agoni in view of Studer teaches selecting a candidate attorney to be match with the client based on the candidate attorney accepting the client, Agoni in view of Studer does not explicitly teach the system itself automatically making the selection based on geographic proximity. Therefore, Agoni in view of Studer does not, however Beltran does, explicitly disclose the following limitations:
automatically selecting ... a preferred identified professional ... wherein the preferred professional is selected based on proximity in geographic locations. [See [0038] Beltran teaches automatically selecting a service provider which is the closest service provider to the user (i.e., automatically selecting ... a preferred identified professional ... wherein the preferred professional is selected based on proximity in geographic locations).]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to combine the service provider matching system of Agoni with the service provider matching system of Beltran. By making this combination, the system of Agoni could prioritize attorneys who are closest to the client, thereby reducing the travel time for the user to meet with the attorney, and improving convenience for the client.
Regarding claim 25, Agoni in view of Studer discloses all claim 16 and 23 limitations and Agoni in view of Studer in view of Beltran discloses all claim 24 limitations. Agoni further discloses the following limitations:
automatically generating and transmitting, via the processor, a case-assignment notification to preferred identified professional and a case-unavailability notification to other identified professionals that accepted the case offer. [See (Fig. 8, elements 810, 812); [0101] Agoni teaches that at a block 810, the pre-retainer communication module 116 notifies the retained attorney that the client has signed the retainer agreement (i.e., automatically generating and transmitting, via the processor, a case-assignment notification to preferred identified professional). At a next block 812, the preretainer communication module 116 notifies the unretained candidate attorneys that the client has retained another attorney (i.e., automatically generating and transmitting, via the processor ... a case-unavailability notification to other identified professionals that accepted the case offer), and that the other candidate attorneys will no longer be able to communicate with the client about the case using the pre-retainer communication module 116. In one embodiment, the notifications are made in the form of automatically generated email messages and/or phone messages.]
Regarding claim 27, Agoni in view of Studer discloses all claim 16 and 23 limitations and Agoni in view of Studer in view of Beltran discloses all claim 24 limitations. Agoni further discloses the following limitations:
automatically, via the processor, updating the status data of the case to reflect the acceptance of the case offer. [See (Fig. 8, elements 810, 812); [0101] Agoni teaches that at a block 810, the pre-retainer communication module 116 notifies the retained attorney that the client has signed the retainer agreement (i.e., automatically, via the processor, updating the status data of the case to reflect the acceptance of the case offer). At a next block 812, the preretainer communication module 116 notifies the unretained candidate attorneys that the client has retained another attorney (i.e., automatically, via the processor, updating the status data of the case to reflect the acceptance of the case offer), and that the other candidate attorneys will no longer be able to communicate with the client about the case using the pre-retainer communication module 116. In one embodiment, the notifications are made in the form of automatically generated email messages and/or phone messages.]
Prior Art
The following prior art is relevant to the invention but was not used in prior art rejections:
Ashikawa (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0086126) – Information processing apparatus and method.
Dasgupta (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0302340) – Methods and systems for recommending crowdsourcing tasks.
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 CHRIS GOMEZ whose telephone number is (571) 272-0926. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7-4 CDT.
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 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.
/CHRISTOPHER GOMEZ/
Examiner, Art Unit 3628