DETAILED ACTION
Response received on May 26, 2026 has been acknowledged. Claims 1, 3-14, 15-18, and 20 have been amended, Claims 2, 14, and 19 are cancelled, and Claims 21-23 are newly added. Therefore, Claims 1, 3-13, 15-18, and 20-23 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 .
Status of Claims
This Final Office action is in response to the application filed on May 08, 2024 and in response to Applicant’s Arguments/Remarks filed on 5/26/2026. Claims 1, 3-13, 15-18, and 20-23 are pending.
Priority
Application 18658801 was filed on May 08, 2024 and claims priority to provisional U.S. Patent Application No. 63/465,171 filed May 9, 2023.
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, 3-13, 15-18, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 3-11 and 21-23 are directed to a method (process), 12-13 and 15-16 are directed to a computing system (machine/apparatus) and Claims 17-18 and 20 are directed to a non-transitory computer-readable medium (machine/apparatus). Thus, these claims fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: Yes)
For step 2A, the examiner has identified independent method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to independent claims 12 and 17. Claim 1, as exemplary is recited below, isolating the abstract idea from the additional elements, wherein the abstract idea is set in bold:
A computer-implemented method, comprising: receiving, by a document inference system executed by a computing system, user input indicating a natural language definition of a document inference condition, wherein: the document inference condition is associated with a particular document type; converting, by the document inference system, the natural language definition of the document inference condition into a document inference rule, wherein: the document inference rule expresses the document inference condition in a computer-readable data format, different from the natural language definition, that is applicable by a decision engine of the document inference system; receiving, by the document inference system, policy operation data associated with a policy operation, wherein: the policy operation has been performed within a policy management system that is separate from the document inference system; determining, by the decision engine of the document inference system, and by applying the document inference rule based on the computer-readable data format, that the policy operation data satisfies the document inference condition associated with the particular document type; generating, by the document inference system, and based on determining that the policy operation data satisfies the document inference condition, a document inference that comprises an identifier of the particular document type; and providing, by the document inference system, the document inference to at least one of: the policy management system, the document inference causing the policy management system to at least one of update a user interface or provide additional policy operation data associated with the policy operation to the document inference system, or a document generation system, the document inference causing the document generation system to generate an instance of the particular document type in association with the policy operation.
The above bolded limitations recite the abstract idea of generating documents associated with insurance policies, and more particularly to a system configured to determine which documents to generate in response to insurance policy operations that have been performed within a policy management system. These limitations under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations) but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system implemented by a data processor (computer) the claimed invention amounts to the abstract idea stated above. For example, for the document inference system and related computing components, this claim encompasses receiving a natural language condition for a document type, converting it into a decision-engine rule, evaluating operation data from a separate management system against that rule, and generating a document inference when the rule is satisfied, steps that could conventionally be performed by administrative or document management personnel as part of known classification or compliance reviews. A person could manually review operational records, apply written or internal guidelines that correspond to the stated condition, determine whether the records meet those criteria, and then classify or label the document accordingly. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers legal and commercial interactions between parties, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. The mere nominal recitation of a “a document inference system executed by a computing system”, “a decision engine of the document inference system”, “a policy management system”, “a user interface”, and “a document generation system” do not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, claims 1, 12, and 17 recites an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims recite an abstract idea).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application (2nd prong of eligibility test for step 2A). In particular, Claim 1 recites additional elements of a “a document inference system executed by a computing system”, “a decision engine of the document inference system”, “a policy management system”, “a user interface”, and “a document generation system”. Claim 12 recites the same additional elements of Claim 1 with the addition of “processor”, “memory”, and “management system”. Claim 17 recites the same additional elements of Claim 1 with the addition of “a non-transitory computer-readable medium”, “management system”, and “a processor”. These additional elements are all considered nothing more than generic computing devices to perform generic communicating functions such as storing data and instructions, transmitting and receiving data between computers. The computing devices are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of communicating data between users) such that they amount no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The additional elements are considered nothing more than a general link to a technological environment because there is no recitation of specifics of how this additional element is being used. See MPEP 2106.05(f) and (h). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and are recited at a high level of generality when considered both individually and as a whole. Thus, Claims 1, 12, and 17 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
For step 2B, the claim(s) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not amount to more than simply instructing one to practice the abstract idea by using generic computer components to carry out the steps that define the abstract idea, as discussed above. The additional elements (processors, decision engines, and document inference system, management system) are performing generic functions in their ordinary manner (such as receiving input, applying rules, analyzing data, and generating output) without any specialized configuration or technical improvement. This does not render the claims as being eligible. See MPEP 2106.05(f). The additional elements when considered both individually and as an ordered combination did not add significantly more to the abstract idea because they were simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, these additional elements, do not change the outcome of the analysis, and claims 1, 12, and 17 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Claims 3 and 13 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein: the policy operation data comprises synchronous policy operation data sent as a notification as part of, or substantially immediately following, performance of the policy operation, is generated in response to determining that the synchronous policy operation data satisfies the document inference rule. In addition, the claims recite the additional element of “policy management system”, “document inference system” which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 4 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein accessing, a second time, asynchronous policy operation data from that comprises the additional policy operation data; generating, a document payload indicating at least one content element for the instance of the particular document type based on at least one of the synchronous policy operation data or the asynchronous policy operation data; and providing, the document payload to the document generation system as part of, or in addition to, wherein the document inference causes to generate the instance of the particular document type based at least in part on the document payload. In addition, the claims recite the additional element of “the policy management system”, “the document inference system”, and “the document generation system” which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 5 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include the asynchronous policy operation data is published to a message table, accesses the asynchronous policy operation data from the message table. In addition, the claims recite the additional element of “the policy management system” and “the document inference system" which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 6 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein providing the document inference, display, a placeholder indicating that the instance of the particular document type will be generated in response to the policy operation, and replace the placeholder in the user interface, by presenting the instance of the particular document type, in response to generation of the instance of the particular document type. In addition, the claims recite the additional element of “the policy management system”, “user interface”, “the document generation system”, which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 7 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include the additional policy operation data corresponds to the particular document type indicated by the identifier in the document inference. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how generating documents associated with insurance policies, and more particularly to a system configured to determine which documents to generate in response to insurance policy operations that have been performed within a policy management system, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 8 and 20 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein the document inference is provided: determining that a suppression rule associated with the particular document type is satisfied; and adding, a suppression indicator associated with the particular document type to the document inference ,wherein the document inference and the suppression indicator cause to display, a notification that the particular document type corresponds to the policy operation but that generation of the instance of the particular document type is being suppressed. In addition, the claims recite the additional element of “the policy management system”, “the document inference system”, “user interface” which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 9 and 15 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein presents one or more user options configured to allow a user to provide the user input and define the natural language definition of the document inference condition associated with the document inference rule. In addition, the claims recite the additional element of “the user interface” and “the document inference system” which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 10-11 and 16 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include wherein converting the natural language definition of the document inference condition into the document inference rule comprises: using, mapping data to convert natural language descriptions of data types used within the natural language definition to corresponding data identifiers, defined by a schema, of data elements within the policy operation data. In addition, the claims recite the additional element of “the document inference system”, “the policy management system”, and “computing system” which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Claims 21 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include the computer-readable data format comprises at least one of JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) data or source code, and converting the natural language definition of the document inference condition into the document inference rule comprises generating at least one of a conditional statement or an attribute-value pair, within the at least one of the JSON data or the source code, that references a data identifier used with the policy operation data. The claimed elements are considered part of the abstract idea because they merely define how generating documents associated with insurance policies, and more particularly to a system configured to determine which documents to generate in response to insurance policy operations that have been performed within a policy management system, without adding any concrete technological implementation or improvement. Additionally, the dependent claim does not include any new additional elements and therefore are considered patent ineligible for the reasons given above.
Claims 22-23 recites limitations that further define the same abstract idea of independent claims to include displaying, a document template and receiving, and via the document template, second user input associated with a document template for the particular document type, wherein the second user input defines at least one of: pre-written sections of a document corresponding to the particular document type, an indication of how t is to select or arrange the pre- written sections, or placeholders within the document to be filled in with values based on a document payload and herein replacing the placeholder comprises presenting a link to the instance of the particular document type. In addition, the claims recite the additional element of “document inference system”, “user interface view”, “the document generation system”, which are considered nothing more than a general link of the abstract idea to a technological environment or field of use that merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) and MPEP 2106.05(A) indicate that merely “generally linking” the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. Therefore, the claims are patent ineligible.
Subject Matter Free of Prior Art
The prior art of record neither anticipates nor supports a conclusion of obviousness without the use of impermissible hindsight with respect to the subject matter, which is present in independent claims 1, 12, and 17.
In regards to Claims 1, 12, 17 with respect to the prior art, the closest reference appears to be Tyree et al. (US 20090241165) in view of Stollman (US20120179961).
Tyree et al. teaches a computer-implemented method, comprising (See FIG 1 & Abstract) receiving, by a document inference system executed by a computing system, user input indicating a natural language definition of a condition corresponding to a document type; (See [0008], [0044]-] [0020]-[0021])converting, by the document inference system, the natural language definition of the condition into a document inference rule that is applicable by a decision engine of the document inference system; (See [0039]-[0041]) receiving, by the document inference system, operation data associated with an operation performed within a management system that is separate from the document inference system; (See [0044], [0051], [0087]-) determining, by the decision engine of the document inference system, that the operation data satisfies the document inference rule associated with the document type; (See [0091]-[0093], [0115]- [0117] ). Stollman teaches generating, [by the document inference system], based on determining that the operation data satisfies the document inference rule, a document inference that identifies the document type (See [0005], [0017], [0021], [0028.).
However, Tyree et al. in view of Stollman alone or in combination fail to disclose or render obvious a document inference that comprises an identifier of the particular document type; and providing, by the document inference system, the document inference to at least one of: the policy management system, the document inference causing the policy management system to at least one of update a user interface or provide additional policy operation data associated with the policy operation to the document inference system, or a document generation system, the document inference causing the document generation system to generate an instance of the particular document type in association with the policy operation when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 1, 12, and 17 and their dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art.
Response to arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are noted. On page 11 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that claims 1-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as allegedly being directed to non- statutory subject matter and traverses this rejection. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because the Examiner did not reject claims 1-20 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter under Step 1 of the Alice/Mayo framework. Rather, the claims were actually previously determined to satisfy Step 1 as falling within a statutory category, and the 101 rejection was based on the subsequent eligibility analysis under Step 2A and Step 2B. Applicant further argues that the Office alleges that the claims cover "legal and commercial interactions between parties," within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping of abstract ideas, because the claims relate to determining "which documents to generate in response to insurance policy operations that have been performed.”, however, even if some elements of a claim "recite" a judicial exception, the "mere recitation of a judicial exception does not mean that the claim is 'directed to' that judicial exception." Applicant furthers adds that instead, the claim must be reviewed further at Prong Two of Step 2A to determine whether "additional elements," beyond the judicial exception, recited in the claim integrate the judicial exception into a "practical application" of the judicial exception. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant is reminded that the Examiner has not concluded that the mere recitation of the judicial exception renders the claim ineligible, rather, consistent with Step 2A, Prong Two, the claim was further evaluated and the additional elements were determined not to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as they merely implement the document related insurance policy determinations using generic computing components. Applicant further argues and notes that the "analysis in Step 2A Prong Two considers the claim as a whole" because the "way in which the additional elements use or interact with the exception may integrate the judicial exception into a practical application," such that the "additional limitations should not be evaluated in a vacuum" See August 4, 2025 USPTO " and that the claims, as currently amended, recite additional elements that demonstrate that the claims, as a whole, are not directed to the alleged abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the Examiner has considered the claim as a whole, including how the additional elements interact with the judicial exception. The recited additional elements of “a document inference system executed by a computing system”, “a decision engine of the document inference system”, “a policy management system”, “a user interface”, and “a document generation system” merely use generic computing functionality to automate the abstract idea and do not provide a technological improvement or otherwise integrate the exception into a practical application.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite additional elements beyond the alleged abstract idea and that these additional elements are not "legal or commercial interactions" or any other activity that falls into the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping, and that they are "additional elements" that are to be considered at Prong Two of Step 2A and at Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility analysis. Examiner respectfully disagrees because as set forth above the Examiner has considered the identified additional elements separately from the abstract idea under Step 2A, Prong Two and Step 2B. Although those elements may not themselves constitute legal or commercial interactions, they merely implement the underlying abstract idea (legal or commercial interactions) using generic computer components and therefore neither integrate the abstract idea into a practical application nor amount to significantly more. Applicant further argues that there is no indication that converting a natural language definition of a document inference condition into a different "computer-readable data format," as amended claim 1 recites, is a legal or commercial interaction. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the Examiner considers the conversion of the natural-language document inference condition into a computer-readable data format to be apart of the abstract idea itself, as it merely represents translating or organizing information concerning the criteria used to determine which document is associated with a particular policy operation. The fact that the information is expressed in a computer-readable format does not remove the underlying information processing activity from the abstract idea. Applicant further argues that the additional elements recited in the claims lead to technical improvements that demonstrate integration of the alleged abstract idea into a practical application, and that Applicant's specification describes those technical improvements. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim additional elements do not provide an improvement to the functioning of a computer or other technology. Rather, they merely use generic computing components to automate the processing of policy information and determination of associated documents. Any asserted improvement described in the specification must be reflected in the claim limitations, and the claims merely improve the efficiency of the underlying abstract idea rather than the technology itself.
Applicant further argues that the specification describes technical improvements over previous systems that rely on inflexible hard-coded logic of a policy management system, by instead allowing non-programmers to enter natural language input defining document inference conditions that may be converted into different computer-readable data that can be applied by a document inference system that is separate from the policy management system and that these technical improvements are reflected in the claims. Examiner respectfully disagrees because allowing natural-language input to be converted into computer-readable rules merely changes how the abstract policy/document determination is expressed and automated, rather than improving the operation of the computer itself. Examiner notes that separating the document inference system from the policy management system likewise constitutes an arrangement of generic computing components and does not establish a technological improvement. Applicant further argues that that the claims recite elements that overcome a technical barrier associated with inflexible and hard-coded document inference logic, and that the claims accordingly demonstrate a technical improvement and a practical application of the alleged abstract idea. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the alleged inflexibility of hard coded document inference logic is a limitation in how the underlying rules are defined or modified, not a technical barrier concerning computer functionality. The claimed conversion of natural-language conditions into computer-readable rules merely provides a different manner of implementing the abstract idea and therefore does not constitute a technological improvement or integration into a practical application. Applicant further argues that that the claims cover "a particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome, as opposed to merely claiming the idea of a solution or outcome," which the August 2025 USPTO Memorandum indicates is an "important consideration in determining whether a claim improves technology or a technical field." Examiner respectfully disagrees because merely reciting a particular implementation or solution does not establish a technological improvement where the claim solution itself is directed to implementing the abstract policy/document determination using generic computing functionality. Here, the claimed natural-language conversion and document inference merely automate the underlying abstract idea and do not improve the functioning of the computer or another technology.
Applicant further argues that the claims recite a "particular solution to a problem or a particular way to achieve a desired outcome" that involves a specific combination of steps including: 1) receiving "user input indicating a natural language definition of a document inference condition" associated with a particular document type; 2) converting "the natural language definition of the document inference condition into a document inference rule" that "expresses the document inference condition in a computer-readable data format, different from the natural language definition;" and 3) providing a document inference, generated based on the "document inference rule," to at least one of a "policy management system" or a "document generation system," for example as amended claim 1 recites. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the recited combination merely receives, converts, evaluates, and communicates information to automate the abstract policy/document determination and does not provide a technological improvement to the computer or another technical field. Applicant further argues that the claims recite additional elements, beyond the alleged abstract idea, that provide technical improvements as described above and that the claims show that the alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application, and that the claims are therefore not, as a whole, directed to the alleged abstract ideas. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons set forth above. Applicant further argues that the claims do recite additional elements that provide technical improvements, including technical improvements over previous systems that rely on inflexible hard-coded document inference logic and that the claims include significantly more than the alleged abstract ideas. The Examiner respectfully disagrees because the alleged improvement over hard-coded inference logic merely improves the flexibility and efficiency implementing the abstract idea, rather than computer functionality itself, and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Applicant further argues that there is no indication that the particular combination of elements recited in Applicant's claims is "well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field." Id. Examiner respectfully disagrees because the Examiner has not characterized the claimed combination as "well-understood, routine, conventional activity”. Rather, the 101 rejection is based on the determination that the additional elements, individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Applicant further argues that the combination of additional elements recited in the claims provides "significantly more" than the alleged abstract idea alone and demonstrates that the claims are patent-eligible. The Examiner respectfully disagrees for the same reasons set forth above. Thus, the claims do not amount to a technological improvement and fail to provide an inventive concept. The argument to the contrary is not persuasive. Thus, the rejections of Claims 1, 3-13, 15-18, and 20-23 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
The comments regarding the 35 USC 103 rejection are noted. On page 17 of Applicant’s response, applicant asserts that Tyree et al. and Stollman fail to teach or suggest the claimed functionality of a system that receives "user input indicating a natural language definition of a document inference condition ... "associated with a particular document type" and converting that "natural language definition of the document inference condition into a document inference rule" expressed in a "computer-readable data format, different from the natural language definition, that is applicable by a decision engine of the document inference system, and therefore fail to teach or suggest the corresponding limitations of amended independent claims 1, 12, and 17. Examiner finds the Applicant’s argument persuasive. In regards to Claims 1, 12, 17 with respect to the prior art, the closest reference appears to be Tyree et al. (US 20090241165) in view of Stollman (US20120179961). The prior art teaches all of the limitations of the independent claims except for the recited limitations of “a document inference that comprises an identifier of the particular document type; and providing, by the document inference system, the document inference to at least one of: the policy management system, the document inference causing the policy management system to at least one of update a user interface or provide additional policy operation data associated with the policy operation to the document inference system, or a document generation system, the document inference causing the document generation system to generate an instance of the particular document type in association with the policy operation” when the claim is considered as a whole. Absent a suggestion or teaching in the prior art, the examiner will not engage in impermissible hindsight to supply the missing limitation(s). Therefore, independent claim 1, 12, and 17 and their dependent claims, are not rejected under prior art. Accordingly, the examiner withdraws the corresponding prior art rejections based on that subject matter.
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
extension fee 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 date of this final
action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAA WADIE HUSSEIN whose telephone number is (571) 270-1748. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
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, Jessica Lemieux can be reached on 571-270-3445. 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.
/A.W.H./
Examiner, Art Unit 3626
/DENNIS W RUHL/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626
Prosecution Insights