Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to an Amendment Application received on 03/30/2026. In the application, claims 1, 5, 14, and 17 have been amended. Claims 2-4, 6-13, 15-16, and 18-20 remain original. No claim has been cancelled and no new claim has been added.
For this Office Action, claims 1-20 have been received for consideration and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 101
Applicant’s remarks that amended claims overcome the 35 USC § 101 Abstract Idea rejection, examiner respectfully disagree. After review, the remarks have been summarized as follows:
1. The claims are directed to controlling how a browser processes received content, not to abstract data processing. Specifically, the claims recite: ensuring the received characters are not executable by the browser, and using a mis-matched font file to display the content without execution of hidden script within the requested displayable content. This recites the practical application of technically preventing execution of hidden scripts and improving browser security by changing how the browser interprets and executes received content (Page # 7).
Examiner’s Response
Regarding remark # 1, that claims recite ensuring ‘the received characters are not executable by the browser, and using a mis-matched font file to display the content without execution of hidden script within the requested displayable content’, examiner respectfully disagree. The amended claim language mentions ‘a browser’ as an additional element which is only used to display the non-executable code sequence and use it as a tool to not execute the non-executable code sequence. Under the Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, this action falls under Mental process or Method or Organizing Activity. Therefore, claims do not recite addressing a root technical problem in browser security as being alleged in the remarks.
2. The claims recite significantly more than any abstract idea. Claims recite Operation of a browser which is improved by rendering hidden, executable content non-executable, and using fonts in a non-conventional, security-enforcing manner, rather than for mere aesthetics (Page # 8).
Examiner’s Response
Regarding remark # 2, that claims recite Operation of a browser which improves rendering of hidden data, to which examiner respectfully disagree. As examiner has mentioned in previous remark that recitation of ‘a browser’ is an additional element without adding any significant value to the Abstract Idea. Examiner would like to note that limitations recite methods of manipulating and displaying data—specifically requesting and rendering displayable content using a mis-matched font file and non-executable code. These are the steps of parsing and mapping data via a mis-matched font file to prevent a browser from executing a hidden script align with abstract concepts (such as using rules to encode/decode data). The core of the claim is directed to a desired result—preventing a browser from executing a script and displaying text in a specific way—rather than providing a particular, concrete technological means for doing so.
Based on these explanations and interpretations, the amended claims still recite and Abstract Idea and therefore the rejection has been maintained.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 102
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/30/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 USC § 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of new amendments to the claims.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an Abstract Idea without significantly more analyzed according to MPEP 2106.
Step 1: The independent claims 1, and 14 fall into one of the four statutory categories of “a method” claims. Nevertheless, the claims still are considered as Abstract Idea (i.e., Mental Process) for the following prongs and reasons.
Step 2A: Prong 1: The limitations of the independent claims 1, 13, and 14 recite the abstract idea of:
“responsive to requesting displayable content, receiving a non-executable code sequence generated for the requested displayable content and a mis-matched font file that maps a plurality of characters of the requested displayable content to the non-executable code sequence (Mental process: a human request display of content, and in response to, receives sequence of code and a font file); and
displaying by a [[browser]] human the non-executable code sequence as a text string in accordance with the received mis-matched font file, where executable script hidden within the requested displayable content is non-executable by the [[browser]] human (Mental process: in further response, the human sees on display, the sequence of code in accordance with the font file) – Claim 1,
processing a plurality of characters of a requested displayable content to generate a non-executable code sequence for the requested displayable content and a mis-matched font file, the non-executable code sequence not interpretable as executable script (Mental process: a human processes characters of a displayable content and generate sequence of code and a font file); and
displaying by a [[browser]] human the non-executable code sequence in accordance with the mis-matched font file, where executable script hidden within the requested displayable content is non-executable by the [[browser]] human (Mental process: the human displays the generated sequence of code and the font file) – Claim 14.
The claim generically recites the concept of a Mental process where a human request for content to be displayed and in response it receives sequence of code and a font file and further the human process the received sequence of code and the font file and displays the processes sequence of code and the font file.
The above limitations are steps which clearly fall into the Mental Process - concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) bucket which under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the human mind and / or with pen and paper.
As mentioned above, the steps of claim can be performed by a human who intends to display a content and in response it receives sequence of code and a font file and further the human process the received sequence of code and the font file and displays the processes sequence of code and the font file.
Step 2A: Prong 2: The judicial exception (i.e., a method) is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims do not recite any additional element to perform beyond routine steps. To show that the involvement of a computer assists in improving the technology, the claims must recite the details regarding how a computer aids the method, the extent to which the computer aids the method, or the significance of a computer to the performance of the method. Merely adding generic computer components to perform the method is not sufficient. Thus, the claim must include more than mere instructions to perform the method on a generic component or machinery to qualify as an improvement to an existing technology (MPEP 2106.5(a) II).
In this particular case, the additional elements of the claims are:
“displaying by a browser”, and “a non-executable code and a font file”.
Recitation of the additional elements do not improve the functioning of the computer or to any other technology or technical field.
The additional elements are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic terms performing generic computer functions (Instant spec. [0057] discloses that generic processor and memory is used to execute the steps of the invention) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. Therefore, 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 with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the claims do not reflect improvement in the technology.
The recitation of visual deep learning in the claim fails to recite a practical application that goes beyond the abstract concept itself. To be patentable, the claims must be more than just the abstract idea of using machine learning for visual analysis. Instead, they need to be anchored to concrete improvements, specific hardware, novel data structures, unique data processing, or measurable gains in computational performance. Therefore, the underlying algorithms and the process of "learning" can be viewed as an abstract idea, similar to a mental process.
Further, mere automated instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the above identified additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using general purpose computer.
To support this factual conclusion, the examiner takes Official Notice that one of the ordinary skills in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have found processors and/or software well-known and routine in technology that involves computers (PgPub instant spec. [0057]) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. 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. Thus, the examiner asserts that the above noted elements, when considered individually or in combination, do not constitute as “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-13, and 15-20 recite a method claims and hence falls into one of the statutory categories and therefore passes step 1 analysis. However, under step 2, 2A & 2B analysis, the claim fails to recite any limitations that create a difference in the 101 analyses as indicated for claims 1, and 14 because dependent claims merely recite steps which fall under a mental process where human users can perform the steps of these dependent claims and thus dependent claims are ineligible as well.
Overall analysis of the claims 1-20 demonstrates that limitations are directed to a mental process performable by a human being in their head using a pen and paper in a methodical and orderly manner. Therefore, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramam et al., (US9477836B1) in view of Cohen., (US20240403413A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ramam discloses:
A method of disabling executable script in requested displayable content, comprising:
responsive to requesting displayable content, receiving a non-executable code sequence generated for the requested displayable content and a mis-matched font file that maps a plurality of characters of the requested displayable content to the non-executable code sequence (Col. 16, Line # 58-67 – Col. 17, Line # 1-3; At box 302, the process includes receiving content that includes text arranged to be displayed by a computing device. The content may be an electronic document such as a webpage, a plain text document, PDF, or word processor document. In some implementations, the document may include both text that is arranged for display and other text that indicates a layout, functionality, or stylization for the document and that is not to be displayed. For example, an HTML file for a webpage may include or reference various HTML tags, scripts, or style selectors that instruct a browser to display the webpage in a particular manner. Displayable text, on the other hand, may be located between HTML tags, for example; Col. 21, Line # 29-37; At box 312, the process includes identifying a font definition that maps obfuscated characters to glyphs that are visually equivalent to original characters. The font definition can be used by a client device or other computing device to generate a display of obfuscated text in re-coded content that appears as if the obfuscated text was the original text. Each obfuscated character can be associated with a particular glyph that graphically represents the original character to which the obfuscated character is mapped in the font file); and
displaying the non-executable code sequence as a text string in accordance with the received mis-matched font file (i.e., obfuscated text in the file) (Col. 24, Line # 11-25; At box 324, the process generates a plurality of different re-coded documents using the different character maps. For example, a first re-coded version of the document may be generated for a first request from a first client device in a first session. A second re-coded version of the document may be generated for a second request from the first client device in a second session. A third re-coded version of the document may be generated for a third request from a different, second client device. Each of the first, second, and third versions of the re-coded document can be generated by obfuscating displayable text in the document using a different character map. For instance, a string of text in the original document that read “Hello World” can be obfuscated to “ta*7H poiK!” in the first version, “nVtr@+−Q#m” in the second version, and “<o&yQ NCx˜I” in the third version of the document; Col. 24, Line # 33-35; At box 326, the process provides a respective version of the re-coded document each of the client devices that requested the document).
Ramam does not explicitly discloses:
displaying by a browser the non-executable code sequence, where executable script hidden within the requested displayable content is non-executable by the browser.
However, Cohen discloses:
displaying by a browser the non-executable code sequence (i.e., CSS parameter settings (e.g., associated with CSS code portion 6-108 which is construed as non-executable code)) ([0259] By way of a non-limiting example, in FIG. 6-2 , at least one processor 110 (FIG. 1 ) may receive webpage code 6-100 for execution within JavaScript runtime environment (e.g., execution environment 220 of FIG. 2 ). Webpage code 6-100 may include a portion relating to a nested web element 6-102 (e.g., an iframe nested inside a page delineated between <div> and </div> tags). At least one processor 110 may inject JavaScript agent 6-200 into a code portion associated with nested web element 6-102. JavaScript agent 6-200 may be configured to identify at least one parameter value associated with nested web element 6-102. For example, JavaScript agent 6-200 may identify CSS parameter settings (e.g., associated with CSS code portion 6-108) based on a unique identifier (e.g., Vulnerable_Page) included in nested web element 6-102 and referenced in CSS code portion 6-108. JavaScript agent 6-200 may determine, based on the at least one parameter value (e.g., opacity of zero) that nested web element 6-102 is configured to cause hidden presentation of a display element (e.g., button 6-202) within a user interface (e.g., webpage 6-300 of FIG. 6-3)),
where executable script hidden within the requested displayable content is non-executable by the browser ([0250] In some embodiments, the JavaScript agent is further configured to cause display, via the user interface, of a notification indicating a threat associated with the nested web element. A notification indicating a threat associated with the nested web element may refer to a message or warning of a possible danger (e.g., to a computing resource or data, such as processing capacity, user data, or a connection). The message may include one or more of a text (e.g., “WARNING”), a graphic image (e.g., of a hazard sign), a sound (e.g., a beep or ring), or a haptic signal (e.g., vibration); [0254] In some embodiments, the JavaScript agent is further configured to block execution of the at least one portion of the code relating to the nested web element; [0261] Block 6-502 may relate to receiving code for execution within a JavaScript runtime environment, the code including at least one portion relating to a nested web element. Block 6-504 may relate to injecting a JavaScript agent into the at least one portion of the code. Blocks 6-506 to 6-512 may be associated with operations performed by the JavaScript agent. Block 6-506 may relate to identifying at least one parameter value associated with the nested web element. Block 6-508 may relate to determining, based on the at least one parameter value, that the nested web element is configured to cause hidden presentation of a display element within a user interface. Block 6-510 may relate to determining that the at least one code portion relating to the nested web element is associated with at least one input event. Block 6-512 may relate to, in response to the determination that the at least one code portion relating to the nested web element is associated with the at least one input event, preventing an occurrence of the at least one input event).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a computer system for obfuscating text in an electronic document and include a system and method for implementing a runtime virtual barrier for fine grained execution control through browser, as disclosed by Cohen.
The motivation to combine the above teachings is to have a system for performing cybersecurity operations for protecting against a manipulated user interface, the system including: at least one processor configured to: receive code for execution within a JavaScript runtime environment, the code including at least one portion relating to a nested web element (Cohen: [0258]).
Regarding claim 14, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 1 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising generating the mis-matched font file that maps the plurality of characters of the requested displayable content to the non-executable code sequence (Ramam: Col. 25, Line # 14-20; The client device may also receive a font definition file that maps the obfuscated characters in the document to glyphs that will be displayed as representations of the obfuscated characters. The respective glyphs for particular ones of the obfuscated characters can be visually equivalent to an original character that the obfuscated character has replaced in the document).
Regarding claim 15, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 2 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 2, with a server selecting and providing the mis-matched font file to the browser that displays the non-executable code sequence as a text string in accordance with the received mis-matched font file (Cohen: [0250-0251] & [0260]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify a computer system for obfuscating text in an electronic document and include a system and method for implementing a runtime virtual barrier for fine grained execution control through browser, as disclosed by Cohen.
The motivation to combine the above teachings is to have a system for performing cybersecurity operations for protecting against a manipulated user interface, the system including: at least one processor configured to: receive code for execution within a JavaScript runtime environment, the code including at least one portion relating to a nested web element (Cohen: [0258]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 3, where the mis-matched font file is one of a plurality of mis-matched font files stored on one or more of a content server and a font server (Ramam: Col. 23, Line # 12-35; At box 316, a web document is received. Although this process is discussed with respect to a web document (e.g., a webpage) in this example, the techniques can also be applied to other forms of electronic content such as word processor documents, application content and electronic messages. In some implementations, the document may be received by an obfuscation intermediary that is situated between a server that hosts the original document and a client device to which the document is ultimately to be served. The obfuscation intermediary may be executed at a server subsystem that intercepts traffic between client devices and a web server. The obfuscation intermediary may act as a reverse proxy server that is generally transparent to a web server so that the web server serves code for a web document in an original form without performing obfuscations itself. The obfuscation intermediary obfuscates original text in the served code before forwarding a re-coded document with obfuscated text to a client device. Similarly, the obfuscation intermediary can receive requests from the client devices that are addressed for the web server. The requests may be generated by the client devices based on obfuscated text. Accordingly, the obfuscation intermediary can de-obfuscate information in the requests from the client devices before forwarding the requests to the web server).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 2, where generating the mis-matched font file that maps the plurality of characters of the requested displayable content to the non-executable code sequence comprises generating for each character of the requested displayable content a mapping between an ASCII code and a glyph (Ramam: Col. 8, Line # 18-26; The character map 112 can correlate the encoded characters with glyphs in a manner that is inversely related to how the original characters were substituted from original electronic content 102 to the obfuscated characters in obfuscated electronic content 104. For example, to execute a web page that uses Unicode character encoding, the character map 112 can associate each obfuscated character that corresponds to a particular original character with a glyph that graphically represents the particular original character).
Regarding claim 16, it is a method claim and recites similar subject matter as claim 5 and therefore rejected under similar ground of rejection.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 5, where generating the mis-matched font file includes randomly mapping between the ASCII code and the glyph for each character of the requested displayable content in the mis-matched font file (Ramam: Col. 10, Line # 54-63; The character distribution can be used by the mapping module 128 to select or generate a character map that is optimal to use in obfuscating particular text. For example, if many instances of a first character occur in a set of text, while relatively few instances of a second character occur in the set of text, then a character map may be determined based on the character distribution that includes more obfuscated characters mapped to the first character than the number of obfuscated characters mapped to the second character).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 5, where generating the mis-matched font file includes mapping between the ASCII code and the glyph according to a predetermined mapping scheme for each character of the requested displayable content in the mis-matched font file (Ramam: Col. 10, Line # 54-63; The character distribution can be used by the mapping module 128 to select or generate a character map that is optimal to use in obfuscating particular text. For example, if many instances of a first character occur in a set of text, while relatively few instances of a second character occur in the set of text, then a character map may be determined based on the character distribution that includes more obfuscated characters mapped to the first character than the number of obfuscated characters mapped to the second character).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 2, where generating the mis-matched font file includes one or more of a font server and a content server determining a font-glyph mis-mapping of the mis-matched font file that maps the plurality of characters of the requested displayable content to the non-executable code sequence (Ramam: Col. 9, Line # 48-57; The mapping module 128 is configured to generate or otherwise obtain character maps for use in obfuscating strings of text. Character maps are generally arranged to map an original set of characters to an obfuscated set of characters. Character maps can be referenced by the obfuscator 124 to generate obfuscated strings of text from original strings of text. For example, a particular character map may map original characters ‘a,’ ‘b; and ‘c,’ to obfuscated characters ‘p,’ ‘^,’ and ‘Q,’ respectively).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 8, where generating the mis-matched font file that maps the plurality of characters of the requested displayable content to the non-executable code sequence comprises generating for each character of the requested displayable content a mapping between an ASCII code and a glyph in accordance with the font-glyph mis-mapping (Ramam: Col. 10, Line # 54-63; The character distribution can be used by the mapping module 128 to select or generate a character map that is optimal to use in obfuscating particular text. For example, if many instances of a first character occur in a set of text, while relatively few instances of a second character occur in the set of text, then a character map may be determined based on the character distribution that includes more obfuscated characters mapped to the first character than the number of obfuscated characters mapped to the second character).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising requesting the requested displayable content (Ramam: Col. 16, Line # 58-67 – Col. 17, Line # 1-3; At box 302, the process includes receiving content that includes text arranged to be displayed by a computing device).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 10, where responsive to requesting the requested displayable content, one or more of: generating the mis-matched font file for each request; and retrieving the mis-matched font file from a plurality of mis-matched font files stored on one or more of a content server and a font server (Ramam: Col. 10, Line # 64-67 – Col. 11, Line # 1-14; In some implementations, the mapping module 128 can generate or otherwise identify font definitions that correspond to the character maps. Font definitions can be stored in association with respective character maps in the font data repository 130. A font definition correlates glyphs (graphical representations of characters) with characters so as to cause a client device 120 to display corresponding glyphs when particular characters are displayed by a client device 120. The font definitions may be based on standard font definitions (e.g., TrueType fonts, OpenType fonts, etc.), except that the glyphs are shifted from their normal positions so that obfuscated characters are associated with glyphs for their respective original characters. Thus, when obfuscated text is displayed by a client computing device 120 using a font definition that corresponds to a character map by which the text was obfuscated, the glyphs from the font definition generate a presentation of the obfuscated text that is visually equivalent to original text).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 11, where generating the mis-matched font file for each request is performed by one or more of the content server and the font server (Ramam: Col. 9, Line # 32-39; In some implementations, the obfuscator 124 is included in the web server 122, or may be implemented at the client devices 120 a-n. The obfuscator 124 can include a data interface 126, a mapping module 128, a font data repository 130, a glyph generator 132, an analysis module 134, an input obfuscation module 136, or particular combinations of one or more of these).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 1, further comprising responsive to each new request for displayable content:
receiving a new non-executable code sequence and a new mis-matched font file that maps the plurality of characters of the requested displayable content to the new non-executable code sequence; and displaying the non-executable code sequence as a text string in accordance with the new received mis-matched font file (Ramam: Col. 11, Line # 37-51; The modified glyphs may be human-discernible as representing the same characters as the glyphs from the base font. In some implementations, the analysis module 134 can identify one or more font faces that an original string of text is formatted to be displayed with. The obfuscator 124 can then provide an appropriate font definition to the client devices 120 a-n that includes modified glyphs that are determined to be similar to the glyphs in the one or more identified font faces. In some implementations, multiple different sets of modified glyphs can be generated for particular fonts. The modified glyphs can be constantly changed or updated to create a moving target so that when obfuscated text is transmitted to client devices 120 a-n, the font definitions provided for displaying the obfuscated text can use different glyphs in response to each of a plurality of different requests).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 14, where processing the plurality of characters of the requested displayable content to generate the non-executable code sequence and the mis-matched font file is performed by a server and displaying the non-executable code sequence in accordance with the mis-matched font file is performed by the browser (Ramam: Col. 15, Line # 23-26; As noted, the content from web servers 204 a-204 n, as encoded by decode, analysis, and re-encode module 224, may be rendered on web browsers of various client computers).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 17, further comprising requesting the requested displayable content by the browser and generating by a server the mis-matched font file responsive to the browser requesting the requested displayable content (Ramam: Col. 15, Line # 23-25; As noted, the content from web servers 204 a-204 n, as encoded by decode, analysis, and re-encode module 224, may be rendered on web browsers of various client computers).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 17, further comprising requesting the requested displayable content by the browser with one or more of a content server and a font server and generating the mis-matched font file responsive to the browser requesting the requested displayable content (Ramam: Col. 15, Line # 23-25; As noted, the content from web servers 204 a-204 n, as encoded by decode, analysis, and re-encode module 224, may be rendered on web browsers of various client computers).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Ramam and Cohen discloses:
The method of claim 14, where the processing eradicates any executable script hidden within the requested displayable content (Cohen: [0250-251] & [0260]).
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 SYED M AHSAN whose telephone number is (571)272-5018. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, William Korzuch can be reached at 571-272-7589. 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.
/SYED M AHSAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2491
Prosecution Insights