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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 11/13/2025 has been entered. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
1. 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 a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim(s) 9, 17 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), claim(s) 1 is/are drawn to a system (i.e., a machine/manufacture). As such, claims 1, 9, and 17 is/are drawn to one of the statutory categories of invention.
Claims 1-20 are directed to using NL processing to determine user intent and perform and action. Specifically, the claims recite receiving a natural language input into a chatbot interface displayed in an application; querying an ML model for an intent of the natural language input; receiving an output payload from the ML model include the intent of the natural language input; based on the intent of the natural language input, retrieving context from the application; determining an action to be performed based on the retrieved context and the intent, wherein the action is associated with a first setting of the application; which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because, when analyzed under prong two of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 54-55 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of the claim(s) such as memory, and a processor merely use(s) a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or generally link(s) the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Specifically, the memory, and a processor perform(s) the steps or functions of presenting a contextual response in the chatbot interface including an option for performing the action; receiving a selection of the option for performing the action; and causing the action to be performed by the application. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the additional element(s) of using a memory, and a processor to perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of using NL processing to determine user intent and perform and action. As discussed above, taking the claim elements separately, the memory, and a processor perform(s) the steps or functions presenting a contextual response in the chatbot interface including an option for performing the action; receiving a selection of the option for performing the action; and causing the action to be performed by the application. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of using NL processing to determine user intent and perform and action. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-16, 18-20 further describe the abstract idea of using NL processing to determine user intent and perform and action. The dependent claims do not include additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or that provide significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, the dependent claims are also not patent eligible.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishant (U.S. Patent App Pub 20190012390) in view of Ramanan (U.S. Patent App Pub 20240362277)
Regarding claim 1,
Nishant teaches a computing system for performing actions in an application is response to natural language input, the computing system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: (See paragraphs 5, 51, fig 10., Nishant)
receiving a natural language input into a chatbot interface displayed in an application; (See paragraphs 40, 42, 44, 148, fig 10., Nishant teaches receiving NL input at chatbot)
querying an ML model for an intent of the natural language input; (See paragraphs 149-150, fig 10., Nishant teaches query the chatbot)
receiving an output payload from the ML model include the intent of the natural language input; (See paragraphs 148-151, fig 10., Nishant teaches receiving NL output)
based on the intent of the natural language input, retrieving context from the application; (See paragraphs 148-150, fig 10., Nishant teaches retrieving context)
determining an action to be performed based retrieved context and the intent; (See paragraphs 189-151, fig 10., Nishant teaches receiving NL input at chatbot)
presenting a contextual response in the chatbot interface including an option for performing the action; (See paragraphs 148-151, fig 10., Nishant teaches displaying options)
receiving a selection of the action; and (See paragraphs 152-154, fig 10., Nishant teaches select popular articles)
causing the action to be performed by the application. (See paragraphs 152-154, fig 10., Nishant teaches displaying the popular articles)
Nishant does not explicitly teach but Ramanan determining an action to be performed based on the retrieved context and the intent, wherein the action is associated with a first setting of the application based on a NPL; (See paragraphs 16-18, 33-35 Ramanan teaches natural language processor get information of settings and an action to be performed is based on the setting. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Ramanan with Nishant because both deal with data analytics. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Ramanan into Nishant is that Ramanan teaches a method enables detecting and maintaining strong security posture across SaaS applications by effectively inspecting correct configuration settings for SSPM with less resource utilization, and facilitating efficient inspection and verification by domain-level experts and reducing workload for manual inspection in SSPM, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0002], [0012], [0015], Ramanan)
Regarding claim 2,
Nishant and Ramanan teach the computing system of claim 1, wherein the application is a web browser application and the context includes at least one context item selected from a group consisting of: settings information for settings of the web browser application; an address of a webpage displayed in an active tab of the web browser application including a first setting; webpage content; one or more entities extracted from the webpage; favorites; browsing history; and webpages of other open tabs. (See paragraphs 153-154, fig 10., Nishant teaches webpage content)
Regarding claim 3,
Nishant and Ramanan teach the computing system of claim 2, wherein the context includes settings information for settings of the web browser application including the first setting. (See paragraphs 153-154, fig 10., Nishant teaches webpage content presenting)
Regarding claim 4,
Nishant and Ramanan teach the computing system of claim 1, wherein causing the action to be performed includes generating one or more application programming interface (API) calls to an API of the application. (See paragraphs 102-103, fig 10., Nishant teaches APIs)
Regarding claim 5,
Nishant and Ramanan teach the computing system of claim 4, wherein the context is retrieved via the API. (See paragraphs 102-103, fig 10., Nishant teaches APIs)
Regarding claim 6,
Nishant and Ramanan teach the computing system of claim 4, wherein the action includes at least one of action selected from a group consisting of: enabling the first setting of the application; disabling the first setting of the application; navigating to a new page; inserting content into the application; and copying content from the application. (See paragraphs 152-153, fig 10., Nishant teaches enabling disabling settings)
Regarding claim 7,
Nishant and Ramanan teach the computing system of claim 6, wherein the action includes enabling the first setting of the application or disabling the first setting of the application. (See paragraphs 43, 82, 72, fig 10., Nishant teaches enabling disabling settings)
Regarding claim 8,
Nishant and Ramanan teach the computing system of claim 1, wherein the output payload from the ML model includes executable code for causing the action to be performed. (See paragraphs 43, 29-30, fig 10., Nishant teaches an action)
Claims 9-16 list all the same elements of claims 1-8, but in system form rather than method form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claims 1-8 applies equally as well to claims 9-16.
Regarding claim 17,
Nishant teaches a computing system for performing actions in an application is in response to natural language input, the computing system comprising: at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the computing system to perform operations comprising: (See paragraphs 5, 51, fig 10., Nishant)
receiving a natural language input into a chatbot interface displayed in web browser (See paragraphs 40, 42, 44, 148, fig 10., Nishant teaches receiving NL input at chatbot)
querying a machine learning (ML) model for an intent of the natural language input; (See paragraphs 149-150, fig 10., Nishant teaches query the chatbot)
receiving an output payload from the ML model including the intent of the natural language input; wherein the intent is associated with the protecting privacy data on a website (See paragraphs 148-151, fig 10., Nishant teaches receiving NL output retrieving context, webpage content)
presenting a contextual response in the chatbot interface including an option for performing the action; (See paragraphs 148-151, fig 10., Nishant teaches displaying options)
receiving a selection of the option for performing the action; and (See paragraphs 152-154, fig 10., Nishant teaches select popular articles)
causing the action to be performed by the web browser. (See paragraphs 152-154, fig 10., Nishant teaches displaying the popular articles)
Nishant does not explicitly teach but Ramanan teaches based on the intent of the natural language input, retrieving context from the web browser, wherein the context includes at least one context item selected from a group consisting of: privacy settings information for the web browser; an address of a webpage of a website, content of the webpage of the website; one or more entities extracted from the webpage of the website; one or more entities extracted from the webpage of the website; favorites; browsing history; and webpages of other open tabs; (See paragraphs 16, 27-28, 40, Ramanan teaches nlp scarping webpages)
determining an action to be performed based on the retrieved context and the intent, wherein the action includes at least one of: changing a security setting of the web browser; navigating to a configuration page of the web browser; and navigating to a different website;; (See paragraphs 17, 33-35, 39 Ramanan teaches natural language processor get information of settings and an action to be performed is based on the setting. )
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have known to combine the teachings of Ramanan with Nishant because both deal with data analytics. The advantage of incorporating the above limitation(s) of Ramanan into Nishant is that Ramanan teaches a method enables detecting and maintaining strong security posture across SaaS applications by effectively inspecting correct configuration settings for SSPM with less resource utilization, and facilitating efficient inspection and verification by domain-level experts and reducing workload for manual inspection in SSPM, therefore making the overall system more robust and efficient. (See paragraphs [0002], [0012], [0015], Ramanan)
Regarding claim 18,
Nishant and Ramanan teach the computing system of claim 17, wherein the context includes settings information for privacy settings for the web browser. (See paragraphs 153-154, fig 10., Nishant teaches webpage content presenting)
Regarding claim 19,
Nishant and Ramanan teach the computing system of claim 17, wherein causing the action to be performed includes generating one or more application programming interface (API) calls to an API of the web browser. (See paragraphs 102-103, fig 10., Nishant teaches APIs)
Regarding claim 20,
Nishant and Ramanan teach the computing system of claim 17, wherein the action includes changing the security setting of the web browser by enabling the security setting or disabling the security setting. (See paragraphs 43, 82, 72, fig 10., Nishant teaches enabling disabling settings)
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of United States Patent 12010076. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims contain every element of the instant application and as such is encompassed by the claims of this instant application. Claims 1-20 of the instant application therefore is/are not patently distinct from the earlier patent claim(s) and as such is/are unpatentable over obvious-type double patenting. A later patent/application claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier claim if the later claim is anticipated by the earlier claim. “A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. (In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896,225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus); ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001) (Cf., Titanium Metals Corp. v. Banner, 778 F.2d 775, 227 USPQ 773 (Fed. Cir. 1985)); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 944, 214 USPQ 761, 767 (CCPA 1982); In re Goodman (CA FC) 29 USPQ2d 2010 (12/3/1993)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: “the claims in the ’076 patent do not appear to include presenting an option for performing an action and detecting selection of such an option as recited in claims 1, 9, and 15. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that the currently pending claims are not obvious variations of the claims in the ‘076 patent.”
Examiner’s response: Examiner respectfully disagrees and points to at least claim 10 of patent 12010076, which teaches presenting a contextual response in the chatbot interface including an option for performing the action; receiving a selection of the action; and causing the action to be performed by the application. These teach the limitations as argued by applicant.
A. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong One. As for Step 2A Prong One, of the Abstract idea is directed towards the abstract idea of to using NL processing to determine user intent and perform and action which is grouped within the Methods Of Organizing Human Activity and is similar to the concept of (fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk) OR (commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations) OR (managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions) OR Mental Processes and is similar to the concept of (concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion) grouping of abstract ideas in prong one of step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 54 (January 7, 2019)). Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea (See pages 7, 10, Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al., US Supreme Court, No. 13-298, June 19, 2014; 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 53-54 (January 7, 2019)).
B. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2A Prong Two. As for Step 2A Prong Two, the claim limitations do not include additional elements in the claim that apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, and the claim is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception and the claim limitation simply describe the abstract idea. The limitation directed to to using NL processing to determine user intent and perform and action does not add technical improvement to the abstract idea. The recitations to “processor” and “memory” perform(s) the steps or functions of perform the steps amounts to no more than using a computer or processor to automate and/or implement the abstract idea of using NL processing to determine user intent and perform and action. The use of a processor/computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea and/or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it requires no more than a computer performing functions that correspond to acts required to carry out the abstract idea. The additional elements do not involve improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05(a)), the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (Vanda Memo), the claims do not apply the abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine (MPEP 2106.05(b)), the claims do not effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (MPEP 2106.05(c)), and the claims do not apply or use the abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo). Therefore, the claims do not, for example, purport to improve the functioning of a computer. Nor do they effect an improvement in any other technology or technical field. Accordingly, the additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
C. Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to a judicial exception under Step 2B.
As for Step 2B, The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when analyzed under step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test (See 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 52, 56 (January 7, 2019)), the limitation directed to using NL processing to determine user intent and perform and action does not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Furthermore, using well-known computer functions to execute an abstract idea does not constitute significantly more. The recitations to “processor” and “memory” are generically recited computer structure. These functions correspond to the actions required to perform the abstract idea. Viewed as a whole, the combination of elements recited in the claims merely recite the concept of to using NL processing to determine user intent and perform and action. Therefore, the use of these additional elements does no more than employ the computer as a tool to automate and/or implement the abstract idea. The use of a computer or processor to merely automate and/or implement the abstract idea cannot provide significantly more than the abstract idea itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f) & (h)). Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and located in the PTO-892 form.
1.Sarangi, U.S. Patent App 20180025085, teaches systems and methods for responding to a user query are provided. More specifically, the systems and methods provide static search results along with a relevant chat bot user interface for combined display on a browser interface in response to a user query. As such, the systems and methods utilize a conversation layer to communicate with a selected chat bot service. Additionally, the systems and methods may update the static search results and other related content displayed in the browser interface in response to user chat bot inputs and/or chat bot responses provided on the chat bot user interface in the combined display. Accordingly, the systems and methods for responding to a user query provide a more efficient and better search engine when compared to previously utilized search engines that did not provide access to a chat bot interface on the same browser interface as the search results.
2. Jampani, U.S. Patent 10225255, teaches vomputer systems and methods in various embodiments are configured for improving the security and efficiency of server computers interacting through an intermediary computer with client computers that may be executing malicious and/or autonomous headless browsers or “bots”. In an embodiment, a server computer system that is programmed to validate requests from a client computer to a server computer, the server computer system comprising: a memory persistently storing a set of server instructions; one or more processors coupled to the memory, wherein the one or more processors execute the set of server instructions, which causes the one or more processors to: generate a first challenge credential to be sent to the client computer, wherein the first challenge credential corresponds to a first response credential in a first challenge-response credential pair; render one or more first dynamic-credential instructions, which when executed by the client computer, cause the client computer to generate the first response credential in the first challenge-response credential pair; send, to the client computer, the first challenge credential and the one or more first dynamic-credential instructions, but not the first response credential; receive a first request that includes a first test-challenge credential and a first test-response credential; determine whether the first test-challenge credential and the first test-response credential are the first challenge-response credential pair; in response to determining that the first test-response credential is the first response credential, determine that a first count is associated with the first challenge-response credential pair, and determine whether the first count satisfies a first threshold; in response to determining that the first count does not satisfy the first threshold, determine that the first request is not a replay request and assign a second count to the first challenge-response credential pair.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NINOS DONABED whose telephone number is (571)272-8757. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00pm - 4:00pm.
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, John Follansbee can be reached on (571) 272-3964. 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.
/NINOS DONABED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444