DETAILED OFFICE ACTION
Status of the Application
This Office Action is in response to Application Serial 18/622,666. In response to Examiner’s action mail dated October 06, 2025, Applicant submitted amendments and arguments mail dated January 06, 2026. The claims 1-19 are pending.
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 . In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Information Disclosure Statement
Applicant did not submit an information disclosure statement (IDS) for consideration by examiner.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-19 are pending in this application. The claims 1, 11, and 17 are amended. Claims 4, 14, and 20 are cancelled.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection, the amendments to claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101.
Regarding the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection, the amendments 1-3, 5-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 06, 2026 have been fully considered. The Applicant’s 35 U.S.C. 101 amendments are persuasive. The Applicant’s 35 U.S.C 103 are considered but they are not persuasive and/or moot in view of the revise rejections.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
On pages 6-14 of the Applicant’s arguments, the Applicant traverses the 35 U.S.C. 101 arguments and amendments. On page 17 of the Applicant’s amendments, Applicant submits that the pending claims are not directed to an abstract idea and, even it they were, they integrate any alleged abstract idea into a practical application and recite significantly more.
On page 7-8 of the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant submits the amended claims 1, 11, and 17 define a specific technical architecture involving distinct communication sessions that must be maintained and managed by the conferencing platform and therefore, the claims improve the functioning of a computer or other technology.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Applicant’s claims do not recite the additional elements that are used to improve the functioning of a computer or other technology. The Applicant’s claims limitations recite, “… automatically transitioning the participant’s connection from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting upon detecting updated criteria values.” Although the Applicant points to the instant specification [090] and argues “communications made within a waiting room, such as chat messages, on p.8 “detecting updated criteria values”, and [094] “server applicant 209 may move a participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting based on the participant’s criteria and/or based upon changes to the participant’s criteria”. Applicant’s claims are improving the user experience by automating the transition of participants from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting. A claimed, Applicant’s claims do not improve the functioning of a computer other technology. At Step 2A prong two the claims are not integrated into a practical application.
On page 8-9 of the Applicant’s arguments, Applicant traverses the amended claims also recite significantly more than any alleged abstract idea. The combination of maintaining separate communication environments where participants can communicate with each other, detecting updated criteria values, and automatically transitioning participant connection between these environments represents a specific technical implementation that is not well- understood, routine, or conventional. The amended claims do not merely recite generic computer components performing generic functions but rather recite specific technical operations for managing communication sessions in a conferencing platform.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument of the invention amounting to significantly more. Examiner evaluated the claims to determine if the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept, significantly more than the judicial exception. The Applicant argues the invention is detecting updated criteria values, and automatically transitioning participant connection between these environments thus representing a specific technical implementation that is not well- understood, routine, or conventional. Examiner traverses, Applicant’s claims of automatically transitioning … based on the participant’s criteria describes a function or method that is using a computer server application 209 to manage communications. A server following an instruction is a computer conducting a computer function. The claims do not amount to significantly more.
In the previous action Examiner does not argue well-understood routine and conventional during the Step 2B evaluation. At step 2B, the claims are evaluated to determine whether the claims recite additional elements that amount to an inventive concept. If the claims as a whole does not amount to significantly more there is no inventive concepts in the claims, the claim is ineligible. In the instant application, the additional elements are applied to conduct the abstract idea, See MPEP 2106.05(f). At Step 2B, those additional elements evaluated at step 2A prong two are evaluated individually and in combination to determine whether they amount significantly more. Applicant’s claims of automatically transitioning … based on the participant’s criteria describes a function or method that is using a computer server application 209 to manage communications. See MPEP 2106.05(f). A server following an instruction is a computer conducting a computer function. A computer server, executing an instruction does not amount to significantly more nor an improvement in technology. The claims do not amount to significantly more. Applicant’s well-understood routine and conventional argument is not asserted by Examiner. Therefore, this well understood-routine and conventional argument is moot. Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s argument of the invention amounting to significantly more at Step 2B.
Dependent claims 2-10 depend from amended independent claim 1, dependent claims 12-16 depend from amended independent claims 11, and dependent claims 18-20 depend from 17. For at least the same reasons that amended independent claims 1, 11 and 17 are patent eligible, dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, and 18-20 are also patent eligible. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Examiner submits the dependent claims narrow the independent claims, therefore, the arguments for the independent claims are the same for the dependent claims. See above.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102
On pages 9-11 of the Applicant’s prior arguments, the Applicant traverses the pending 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection. Applicant respectfully submits that Masi does not disclose or teach each and every element of amended claims 1, 11 and 17.
Applicant argues Masi [0130]-[0131] teaches the transition from the lobby to the conference room is user initiated through manual selection of an entrance element, and the transition occurs based on user selection, not based on detecting updated values for participant criteria. Applicant argues Masi [0128] “virtual conference room entrance element” that “is a selectable user interface element that exits the lobby and virtually transports the participant to the virtual conference room” is fundamentally different from the claimed automatic movement based on updated criteria values. Applicant traverses Masi is not detecting updated criteria values and moving participants from a waiting room to a scheduled meeting based on those updated values. Accordingly, Masi fails to disclose which and every element of amended claims 1, 11 and 17.
Applicant’s amendments necessitate grounds for a new rejection. See prior art rejection.
Examiner submits, the Applicant’s instant application [081] teaches notification 601 contains the message “Go to collaborating before the scheduled meeting?” informing the user that they may go to the pre-meeting collaboration. Notification 601 may include a “Go” control button 602 for moving the user to a separate meeting room to collaborate before the scheduled meeting. In light of the instant specification teaching Masi reads on the claimed limitation. Regarding the Applicant’s arguments of automatically. Applicant is encouraged to distinguish “automatically” as described in the instant specification [0105] is different from the instant application [081] “Go” control.
Dependent claims 2-3, 6-10, 12-13, 16, and 18-19 dependent from amended independent claims 1, 11 and 17. For at least the same reasons that amended independent claims 1, 11, and 17 are not anticipated by Masi, the dependent claims 2-3, 6-10, 12-13, 16, and 18-19 are not also not anticipated.
See arguments for the independent claims.
Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejections of claims 1-3, 6-13, 16-19 under 35 U.S.C. 102.
Examiner submits, the Applicant’s amendments necessitate grounds for a new rejection. See prior art rejection below.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
On pages 11-13 of the Applicant’s prior arguments, the Applicant traverses the pending 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection. Applicant respectfully submits that Examiner’s rationale for combining Masi in view of Microsft-052A does not cure the deficiencies of Masi with respect to the independent claims, and the combination still fails to teach all the limitations of claims 5 and 15. Applicant submits, claims 5 and 15 do not disclose or teach “… calculating a waiting room time for a plurality of participants based on a predetermined criteria associated with the waiting room.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments. Regarding the independent claims, the Applicant’s amendments necessitate grounds for a new rejection. Since claims 5 and 15 depend on independent claims, further consideration is required in light of the amended independent claims.
Regarding Applicant’s arguments of the limitation “… calculating a waiting room time for a plurality of participants based on a predetermined criteria associated with the waiting room ” not being disclosed by Masi in view of Microsoft-052A, Applicant is encouraged to clarify “calculating” as disclosed in the specification. Examiner points Applicant to instant specification [092].
Examiner submits, the Applicant’s amendments necessitate grounds for a new rejection. See prior art rejection below.
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 1-3, 5-10 are process.
Claim(s) 11-13, 15-16 is/are machine.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are manufacture.
The claims (claim 1 and similarly claim 11 and claim 17) recites, “… receiving a request for a participant to join a scheduled meeting; detecting one or more criteria for the participant of the scheduled meeting; based on the one or more criteria, moving the participant to a waiting room, wherein …. where participants can communicate with each other; moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting, wherein moving the participant … comprises: detecting one or more updated values for the one or more criteria of the participant; and based on the one or more updated values for the one or more criteria, moving the participant …, and wherein moving the participant comprises automatically transitioning the participant's connection from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting upon detecting updated criteria values.” The claims recite the abstract concept of moving participants, scheduled for a meeting, to waiting from, then moving participant from waiting room to scheduled meeting. The limitations recite certain methods of organizing human activity – managing personal behavior. Accordingly, the claims recite certain methods of organizing human activity, and thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
This judicial exception are not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of, “A computer-implemented method for a conferencing platform before scheduled meetings, comprising”, “the waiting room is a separate communication environment from the scheduled meeting,” in claim 1; “A system for collaboration within a conferencing platform before scheduled meetings, comprising: a processor; and a memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes”, “the waiting room is a separate communication environment from the scheduled meeting ”, in claim 11; “A non-transitory, computer-readable medium, storing a set of instructions that, when executed by the processor, causes:” , “the waiting room is a separate communication environment from the scheduled meeting”, in claim 17; however, when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recite adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea – see MPEP 2106.05 (f)
The dependent claims do not recite additional elements that are not recited in the dependent claims. However, the Applicant arguments hinge on the limitation, “…wherein moving the participant comprises automatically transitioning the participant's connection from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting”, emphasis on “automatically transitioning”. The Applicant is encouraged to clarify the steps of “automatically transitioning” explain how “automatically transitioning” is rooted in technology.
Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims also fails to recite any improvements to another technology or technical field, improvements to the functioning of the computer itself, use of a particular machine, effecting transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, and/or an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, because the additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more. (See MPEP 2106.05 (f) Mere Instruction to Apply an Exception – Thus, for example, claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using a generic computer do not render an abstract idea eligible.” Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct at 235).
At Step 2B, it is MPEP 2106.05 (d) – Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information).
Examiner concludes that the additional elements in combination fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea based on findings that each element merely performs the same function (s) in combination as each element performs separately. The claim is not patent eligible. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitation as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Dependent claims 2-3, 5-10 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 1. The claims 1-3, 5-10 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 12-13, 15-16 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 11. The claims 11-13, 15-16 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 18-19 further narrow the abstract idea of independent claim 17. The claims 17-19 are not patent eligible.
Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-3, 5-10 & 11-13, 15-16 & 17-19 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea.
Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6-13, 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masi (US 2021/0,352,120 A1) in view of Ren (CN 115,633,023 A.
Regarding Claim 1, [and similarly claim 11 and 17] (Currently Amended)
A computer-implemented method for a conferencing platform before scheduled meetings, comprising: receiving a request for a participant to join a scheduled meeting;
Masi discloses Figure 14 illustrates a flowchart implements a lobby stage of a meeting prior to the virtual conference room., Masi [018], [Figure 14 and the associated text].
detecting one or more criteria for the participant of the scheduled meeting; based on the one or more criteria, moving the participant to a waiting room, …
Masi discloses Figure 19 illustrates a virtual lobby. Masi teaches moving to conference room. Masi [019], [026], [Figure 14], [Figure 15 and the associated text].
Masi interface 1500 includes a chat interface 1501, a file sharing application interface 1502, a file editing application interface 1503 and 1504, and an audiovisual communication interface 1503. The interface 1500 also includes a status interface 1505 letting participants in the lobby know which participants have entered the virtual conference room and a virtual conference room entrance element 1506 that lobby participants can select to exit the virtual lobby and enter the virtual conference room. Although not shown, the virtual lobby can also include an interface to send meeting invites to other users. Masi [0132].
Although highly suggested, Masi does not rely on Masi to teach:
…. wherein the waiting room is a separate communication environment from the scheduled meeting where participants can communicate with each other; moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting, wherein moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting comprises: detecting one or more updated values for the one or more criteria of the participant; and based on the one or more updated values for the one or more criteria, moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting, and wherein moving the participant comprises automatically transitioning the participant's connection from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting upon detecting updated criteria values. …
Although highly suggested by Masi, Ren is relied on to teach:
wherein the waiting room is a separate communication environment from the scheduled meeting where participants can communicate with each other; moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting, wherein moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting comprises: detecting one or more updated values for the one or more criteria of the participant; and based on the one or more updated values for the one or more criteria, moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting, and wherein moving the participant comprises automatically transitioning the participant's connection from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting upon detecting updated criteria values.
Ren [p.4 ] teaches Step S3, based on the interview start operation performed by the recruiting user on the applicant user in the waiting room at the recruiting terminal, transfer the applicant user from the waiting room to the interview room, and apply for the application of the user between the recruiting terminal and the interview. Establish a video connection between the terminals for video interviews.
Masi teaches virtual conferencing with embedded collaboration tools. Ren discloses establishing interview room and waiting room at the recruiting terminal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine before the effective filing date, participants using a virtual lobby taught by Masi, with transferring the application user from the waiting room to the interview room, and establishing a video connection between the recruitment end and the application end of the interfaced application user between the interviews to perform video interview, as taught by Ren, so the meeting endpoint can later remove user from the waiting room if, for example, as taught by Ren to effectively improve the recruitment efficiency and improves the recruitment experience. Ren [abstract].
Regarding Claim 2, [and similarly claim 12 and claim 18] (Original)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, prior to moving the participant to the waiting room, generating the waiting room.
Masi utilizes a lobby phase which allows members, meeting organizers, or some other sub-group of participants to communicate, collaborate, exchange, and co-edit files with one another prior to entering the “virtual conference room,” where the other participants await., Masi [026].
Regarding Claim 3, [and similarly claim 13 and claim 19] (Original)
The computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein participants in the waiting room can communicate with each other outside of the scheduled meeting.
See above. Masi teaches lobby, and moving to conference room. Masi [026], [Figure 14], [Figure 15].
Regarding Claim 4, [and similarly claim 14 and claim 20], (Cancelled)
Regarding Claim 6, [and similarly claim 16] (Original)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein the one or more criteria is based on participant information.
Masi setup stage is to create a room and invite members. The setup stage can include one-tap invitation to members, one-tap invitation to new users via email, and one-tap Guest invitation (for Room onetime access only) via share link through any desired communication channel., Masi [0136].
Masi FIG. 16, member invites 1602 are then sent to invited members 1603 and guest invites 1604 are sent to guests. “Members” in this figure refers to any participants who have the required user parameters/access privileges/authorization to access the lobby, whereas “Guests” refers to all others who do not have the required user parameters/access privileges/authorization to access the lobby., Masi [0137].
Masi member invites 1602 are used by members 1603 to join the virtual lobby 1606. Optionally, members 1603 can use other routes to enter the meeting once they have been put on the invite list, such as an app or specific meeting web address., Masi [0138].
Masi established invitation criteria considers the participant type. Masi distinguishes participant types member and guest. Participant type is participant information., See above. Masi [0136] –[0138].
Regarding Claim 7, (Original)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, wherein determining the one or more criteria comprises determining the one or more criteria from an invitation for the scheduled meeting.
See above. Masi established invitation criteria considers the participant type. Masi distinguishes participant types member and guest. Participant type is participant information., See above. Masi [0136] –[0138].
Regarding Claim 8, (Original)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising determining that the participant is joining after a predetermined time before the scheduled time, wherein the predetermined time is determined by an organizer of the scheduled meeting.
Masi user- environment features include when users join the meeting their icon appears at the table., Masi [0152]. Masi discloses room check-in and checkout log of every room member., Masi [0144]- [0145].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the room check-in and checkout log will disclose participants joining/exit time, and thus, joining after a predetermined times could be determined from the log.
Regarding Claim 9, (Original)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising, moving the participant to the separate waiting room in response to user input.
Masi discloses guests or members excluded from the lobby can have their own chat communication channel separate from the members who can access the lobby. In another variation, permissions and the presence of members in the lobby or the room can be used to trigger whether chat communications from members having lobby privileges are viewable to members in the room who do not have lobby privileges., Masi [0147].
Regarding Claim 10, (Original)
The computer-implemented method of claim 1, further comprising: receiving another request for a second participant to join the scheduled meeting; detecting one or more second participant criteria for the second participant; and based on the one or more second participant criteria, moving the second participant to a second waiting room, wherein the second waiting room is separate and distinct from the waiting room.
See above Masi [0147].
Claim(s) 5 and claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masi (US 2021/0,352,120 A1) in view of Ren (CN 115,633,023 A) and in further view of Microsoft (JP 2008546052 A).
Examiner submits, the inventors name for Application JP 2008546052 is written in Japanese. Therefore, Examiner refers to the Assignee and documentation number JP 2008546052, herein referred to as Microsoft -052A.
Regarding Claim 5, [and similarly claim 15] (Original)
The computer-implemented method of Claim 1, wherein moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting, comprises: … a waiting room wait time for a plurality of participants based on a predetermined criteria associated with the waiting room; and upon determining that the waiting room wait time has elapsed for the participant, moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting.
See above. Masi teaches lobby, and moving to conference room. Masi [026], [Figure 14], [Figure 15].
Although highly suggested, Masi does not explicitly teach:
… calculating … wait time … wait time has elapsed
Ren teaches:
a waiting room wait time for a plurality of participants based on a predetermined criteria associated with the waiting room; and upon determining that the waiting room wait time has elapsed for the participant, moving the participant from the waiting room to the scheduled meeting.
Ren [p.4 ] teaches Step S3, based on the interview start operation performed by the recruiting user on the applicant user in the waiting room at the recruiting terminal, transfer the applicant user from the waiting room to the interview room, and apply for the application of the user between the recruiting terminal and the interview. Establish a video connection between the terminals for video interviews.
Masi teaches virtual conferencing with embedded collaboration tools. Ren discloses establishing interview room and waiting room at the recruiting terminal. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine before the effective filing date, participants using a virtual lobby taught by Masi, with transferring the application user from the waiting room to the interview room, and establishing a video connection between the recruitment end and the application end of the interfaced application user between the interviews to perform video interview, as taught by Ren, so the meeting endpoint can later remove user from the waiting room if, for example, as taught by Ren to effectively improve the recruitment efficiency and improves the recruitment experience. Ren [abstract]
Microsoft -052A Further Teaches:
… calculating a waiting room wait time … the waiting room wait time has elapsed for the participant ….
Microsoft -052A teaches where the meeting endpoint uses a waiting room, user D can be placed in the waiting room. The meeting endpoint can later remove user D from the waiting room if, for example, the requested meeting does not start within a predetermined amount of time., Microsoft -052A [p.3], [p.4].
Masi teaches virtual conferencing with embedded collaboration tools. Microsoft -052A teaches virtual meeting timestamping meeting entry points to very meeting attendance. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine participants using a lobby taught by Masi, with determining the scheduled meeting has not yet started and allowing authorized meeting attendees to enter the waiting area to where the meeting endpoint uses a waiting room, user D can be placed in the waiting room, as taught by Microsoft -052A, so the meeting endpoint can later remove user D from the waiting room if, for example, the requested meeting does not start within a predetermined amount of time., Microsoft -052A. Microsoft -052A [p.10].
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 THEA LABOGIN whose telephone number is (571)272-9149. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, 8am-5pm.
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, Patricia Munson can be reached at 571-270- 5396. 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.
/THEA LABOGIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3624 /PATRICIA H MUNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3624