DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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 Arguments
2. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 07/14/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application and have been considered below.
3. The rejection under 35 USC 101 of claims 1-20 is not overcome by the amendment. Therefore, the rejection is not withdrawn. See below for details.
4. Applicant arguments regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KANGJIN et al. (KR1020220150843) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner thoroughly reviewed Applicant’s arguments but firmly believes that the cited reference reasonably and properly meets the claimed limitation as rejected.
Applicant’s argument (1):
The newly amended independent Claims 1, 8, and 14 are patent-eligible under the USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance because they:
1. Are not directed to any judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1; and
2. Even if assumed to recite an abstract idea, integrate the exception into a "practical application" under Step 2A, Prong 2, and provide "significantly more" under Step 2B.
Examiner’s response: The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument above.
First, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), section II “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” teaches:
II. CERTAIN METHODS OF ORGANIZING HUMAN ACTIVITY
The phrase "methods of organizing human activity" is used to describe concepts relating to:
fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk);
commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations); and
managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people, (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions).
The Supreme Court has identified a number of concepts falling within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as abstract ideas. In particular, in Alice, the Court concluded that the use of a third party to mediate settlement risk is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and thus an abstract idea. 573 U.S. at 219–20, 110 USPQ2d at 1982. In addition, the Court in Alice described the concept of risk hedging identified as an abstract idea in Bilski as ‘‘a method of organizing human activity’’. Id. Previously, in Bilski, the Court concluded that hedging is a ‘‘fundamental economic practice’’ and therefore an abstract idea. 561 U.S. at 611–612, 95 USPQ2d at 1010.[AltContent: rect]
The term "certain" qualifies the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping as a reminder of several important points. First, not all methods of organizing human activity are abstract ideas (e.g., "a defined set of steps for combining particular ingredients to create a drug formulation" is not a certain "method of organizing human activity"), In re Marco Guldenaar Holding B.V., 911 F.3d 1157, 1160-61, 129 USPQ2d 1008, 1011 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Second, this grouping is limited to activity that falls within the enumerated sub-groupings of fundamental economic principles or practices, commercial or legal interactions, and managing personal behavior and relationships or interactions between people, and is not to be expanded beyond these enumerated sub-groupings except in rare circumstances as explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(3). Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.
As stated in the last office action, mailed on 0420/2026, under Step 2A, Prong 1,
The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human interactions. The claimed invention is a method that “identify a user input which triggers a profile transfer from an external electronic device to the electronic device, control the display to display information related to the profile transfer based on the user input, and obtain, via the camera, information for downloading a profile, the information being displayed on the external electronic device”. The mere nominal recitation of a generic content electronic device does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Second, as stated in the last office action, mailed on 0420/2026, under Step 2A, Prong 2, the additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements “at least one communication circuit; a camera, a display, at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor” are implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. It invokes a generic computer merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity. (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of that “identify a user input which triggers a profile transfer from an external electronic device to the electronic device, provide information related to the profile transfer based on the user input, and obtain, from the external electronic device, information for downloading a profile” of an electronic device. The claimed electronic device is recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a profile transfer from an external electronic device to the electronic device. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic electronic device is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Third, as stated in the last office action, mailed on 0420/2026, under Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. Under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the claim limitations as a whole are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitations, “identify a user input which triggers a profile transfer from an external electronic device to the electronic device, control the display to display information related to the profile transfer based on the user input, and obtain, via the camera, information for downloading a profile, the information being displayed on the external electronic device” are merely nominal recitation of a generic content electronic device does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and the methods of organizing human interactions grouping, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
The examiner’s response regarding applicant’s argument for claims 8 and 14 is the same as above.
Applicant’s argument (2): Applicant submits that Kangjin fails to disclose or render obvious the presently claimed combination of features recited in independent claim 1. For example, Applicant submits that Kangjin fails to disclose or render obvious "control the display to display information related to the profile transfer based on the user input, and obtain, via the camera, information for downloading a profile, the information being displayed on the external electronic device, wherein the information related to the profile transfer includes an operation type parameter having a value indicating that the information related to the profile transfer is provided by the electronic device to download the profile."
Examiner’s response: The examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s argument above. On page 3 of the machine English translation (provided by the examiner on 04/20/2026, hereinafter KANGJIN), KANGJIN teaches “when a terminal is replaced in a communication system, it is possible to request a profile transfer from an existing or new terminal to a mobile network operator business support systems”. On page 14, KANGJIN teaches “Referring to FIG. 9, in step 910, the AAC application AAC APP of the second terminal may receive an event of inputting an AAC value used for installingthe first profile in the first terminal through the UI. The AAC value may be input to the second terminal through various methods such as a QR codescan through a camera and a manual input of a user according to the method illustrated in FIG. 9, and the method is not limited thereto.” On page 19, KANGJIN teaches “The eUICC control S/W 104 May display a query asking whether to enable the profile immediately. The query may proceed before or after the profile installation.” On page 21, KANGJIN teaches “The eUICC control S/W 104 May display a query asking whether to enable the profile immediately.” On page 26, KANGJIN teaches “the terminal may further include at least one of a user interface for receiving a user input, a display unit for outputting information to the user, and a photographing unit (or camera) for generating an image by photographing the outside…… More specifically, the terminal may further include a user input unit that displays and inputs a type of an event (profile list display, profile download, profile movement according to a terminal replacement, eUICC information acquisition of another terminal, profile deletion, profile activation, etc.) to be performed by the terminal from the user.”
Thus, KANGJIN does teach "control the display to display information related to the profile transfer based on the user input, and obtain, via the camera, information for downloading a profile, the information being displayed on the external electronic device, wherein the information related to the profile transfer includes an operation type parameter having a value indicating that the information related to the profile transfer is provided by the electronic device to download the profile”.
The examiner’s response regarding applicant’s argument for claims 8 and 14 is the same as above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
5. 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.
6. 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.
Regarding claim 1:
Step 1: Claim 1 recites an electronic device. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human interactions. The claimed invention is a method that “identify a user input which triggers a profile transfer from an external electronic device to the electronic device, control the display to display information related to the profile transfer based on the user input, and obtain, via the camera, information for downloading a profile, the information being displayed on the external electronic device”. The mere nominal recitation of a generic content electronic device and display does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, The additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements “at least one communication circuit; a camera, a display; at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor” are implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. It invokes a generic computer merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity. (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of that “identify a user input which triggers a profile transfer from an external electronic device to the electronic device, control the display to display information related to the profile transfer based on the user input, and obtain, via the camera, information for downloading a profile, the information being displayed on the external electronic device” of an electronic device. The claimed electronic device is recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a profile transfer from an external electronic device to the electronic device. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic electronic device is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
Under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the claim limitations as a whole are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitations, “identify a user input which triggers a profile transfer from an external electronic device to the electronic device, control the display to display information related to the profile transfer based on the user input, and obtain, via the camera, information for downloading a profile, the information being displayed on the external electronic device” are merely nominal recitation of a generic content electronic device does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and the methods of organizing human interactions grouping, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 1 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claims 2-7:
Claims 2-7, respectively, depend on claim 1 and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 1. Thus, claims 2-7 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 1.
Regarding claim 8:
Step 1: Claim 8 recites an electronic device. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1, The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human interactions. The claimed invention is a method that “obtain, via the camera, information related to a profile transfer from the electronic device to an external electronic device, the information being displayed on the external electronic device, control the display to display at least one phone number of the electronic device based on obtainment of the information related to the profile transfer, identify a user input related to a phone number which is a target for the profile transfer among the at least one phone number, transmit a message requesting the profile transfer to a server related to the profile transfer via the at least one communication circuit based on the user input, receive information for downloading a profile from the server via the at least one communication circuit in response to the message, and control the display to display the information for downloading the profile”. The mere nominal recitation of a generic content electronic device does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, The additional elements individually or as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional elements “at least one communication circuit; a camera; a display; at least one processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor” are implementing an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. It invokes a generic computer merely as a tool to perform the judicial exception or an existing process by using of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity. (i.e., “apply it”, MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of that “obtain, via the camera, information related to a profile transfer from the electronic device to an external electronic device, the information being displayed on the external electronic device, control the display to display at least one phone number of the electronic device based on obtainment of the information related to the profile transfer, identify a user input related to a phone number which is a target for the profile transfer among the at least one phone number, transmit a message requesting the profile transfer to a server related to the profile transfer via the at least one communication circuit based on the user input, receive information for downloading a profile from the server via the at least one communication circuit in response to the message, and control the display to display the information for downloading the profile” of an electronic device. The claimed electronic device is recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a profile transfer from an external electronic device to the electronic device. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic electronic device is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. Under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the additional element(s)/limitation(s) are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitations, “obtain, via the camera, information related to a profile transfer from the electronic device to an external electronic device, the information being displayed on the external electronic device, control the display to display at least one phone number of the electronic device based on obtainment of the information related to the profile transfer, identify a user input related to a phone number which is a target for the profile transfer among the at least one phone number, transmit a message requesting the profile transfer to a server related to the profile transfer via the at least one communication circuit based on the user input, receive information for downloading a profile from the server via the at least one communication circuit in response to the message, and control the display to display the information for downloading the profile” are merely nominal recitation of a generic content electronic device does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 8 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claims 9-13:
Claims 9-13, respectively, depend on claim 8 and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 8. Thus, claims 9-13 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 8.
Regarding claim 14:
Step 1, Claim 14 recites series of acts for identifying, providing and obtaining. Thus, the claim is directed to a process, which is one of the statutory categories of the invention.
Step 2A, Prong 1: The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human interactions. The claimed invention is a method that “identifying a user input which triggers a profile transfer from an external electronic device to the electronic device; controlling the display to display information related to the profile transfer based on the user input; and obtaining, via the camera, information for downloading a profile the information being displayed on the external electronic device”. The mere nominal recitation of a generic content electronic device does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, The claim as a whole merely describes how to generally “apply” the concept of that “identifying a user input which triggers a profile transfer from an external electronic device to the electronic device; controlling the display to display information related to the profile transfer based on the user input; and obtaining, via the camera, information for downloading a profile the information being displayed on the external electronic device” of an electronic device. The claimed electronic device is recited at a high level of generality and are merely invoked as tools to perform a profile transfer from an external electronic device to the electronic device. Simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic electronic device is not a practical application of the abstract idea.
Step 2B: the claim does not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole.
Under Step 2B, additional element(s)/limitation(s) that are insignificant extra-solution activity in step 2A, Prong 2, should be re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine whether the claim limitations as a whole are well-understood, routine, conventional activities. Specifically, the limitations, “identifying a user input which triggers a profile transfer from an external electronic device to the electronic device; controlling the display to display information related to the profile transfer based on the user input; and obtaining, via the camera, information for downloading a profile the information being displayed on the external electronic device” are merely nominal recitation of a generic content electronic device does not take the claim out of the methods of organizing human interactions grouping (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II).
When considered as a whole, these additional elements represent mere instructions to apply a judicial exception and the methods of organizing human interactions grouping, which do not provide an inventive concept. Therefore, claim 14 as a whole, is not significantly more than the abstract idea itself and is ineligible.
Regarding claims 15-20:
Claims 15-20, respectively, depend on claim 14 and are without significantly more than the judicial exception itself as explained in claim 14. Thus, claims 15-20 are rejected for the same reason as in claim 14.
7. 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.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states:
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
9. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KANGJIN et al. (KR1020220150843) (hereinafter KANGJIN, see IDS on 12/06/2024).
For convenience, herewith, the Examiner provides the machine English translation of KANGJIN. However, the machine English translation of KANGJIN does not include any paragraph and column numberings.
Regarding claims 1, 8 and 14:
As shown in figures 1-24, KANGJIN discloses an electronic device (figure 23), comprising:
at least one communication circuit (2310 in figure 23);
a camera (on page 26 of the machine English translation, KANGJIN teaches “Meanwhile, although not explicitly shown in FIG. 23, the terminal may further include at least one of a user interface for receiving a user input, a display unit for outputting information to the user, and a photographing unit (or camera) for generating an image by photographing the outside”);
a display (on page 26 of the machine English translation, KANGJIN teaches “Meanwhile, although not explicitly shown in FIG. 23, the terminal may further include at least one of a user interface for receiving a user input, a display unit for outputting information to the user, and a photographing unit (or camera) for generating an image by photographing the outside”);
at least one processor (2320 in figure 23); and
memory (2330 in figure 23) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor (see the machine English translation, page 24), cause the electronic device to:
obtain, via the camera, information related to a profile transfer from the electronic device to an external electronic device (on page 3 of the machine English translation, KANGJIN teaches “when a terminal is replaced in a communication system, it is possible to request a profile transfer from an existing or new terminal to a mobile network operator business support systems”. Also see figure 7, page 4), the information being displayed on the external electronic device (On page 3 of the machine English translation, KANGJIN teaches “when a terminal is replaced in a communication system, it is possible to request a profile transfer from an existing or new terminal to a mobile network operator business support systems”. On page 14, KANGJIN teaches “Referring to FIG. 9, in step 910, the AAC application AAC APP of the second terminal may receive an event of inputting an AAC value used for installingthe first profile in the first terminal through the UI. The AAC value may be input to the second terminal through various methods such as a QR codescan through a camera and a manual input of a user according to the method illustrated in FIG. 9, and the method is not limited thereto.” On page 19, KANGJIN teaches “The eUICC control S/W 104 May display a query asking whether to enable the profile immediately. The query may proceed before or after the profile installation.” On page 21, KANGJIN teaches “The eUICC control S/W 104 May display a query asking whether to enable the profile immediately.” On page 26, KANGJIN teaches “the terminal may further include at least one of a user interface for receiving a user input, a display unit for outputting information to the user, and a photographing unit (or camera) for generating an image by photographing the outside…… More specifically, the terminal may further include a user input unit that displays and inputs a type of an event (profile list display, profile download, profile movement according to a terminal replacement, eUICC information acquisition of another terminal, profile deletion, profile activation, etc.) to be performed by the terminal from the user”),
control the display to display at least one phone number of the electronic device based on obtainment of the information related to the profile transfer (on page 9 of the machine English translation, KANGJIN teaches “on the UI, a message for confirming the movement of the first profile to the second terminal (i.e. the deactivation and deletion of the first profile and the download of the second profile to the second terminal) to the user. In operation 413, the operator server 240 May perform backend provisioning for connecting subscriber information (quality information such as a phone number, network speed, etc. payment information, etc.) connected to the existing first profile with a second profile (e.g. ICCID_new)”),
identify a user input related to a phone number which is a target for the profile transfer among the at least one phone number (on page 12 of the machine English translation, KANGJIN teaches “In addition, a phone number (MSISDN) value connected to the first profile installed in the first terminal may be displayed together by the input AAC value. In this case, the selectable operation may be any one of the download of the second profile corresponding to the first profile pre-installed in the first terminal by the AAC value and the download of the new second profile. In addition, the subscriber information connected to the existing first profile may be downloaded for data sharing, for example, a download of a second profile for a One Person Multi Device (OPMD) service. The AAC APP may further receive an event of receiving an event of selecting one of the selectable operations from the user and then identifying the corresponding input),
transmit a message requesting the profile transfer to a server related to the profile transfer via the at least one communication circuit based on the user input (on page 3 of the machine English translation, KANGJIN teaches “there is provided a first terminal including a transceiver configured to transmit and receive a signal, and a controller configured to transmit, to a network entity, a message requesting to transmit a second profile corresponding to the first profile to the second terminal when an input for moving the first profile installed in the first terminal is received, and output information for activating the second profile in the second terminal”),
receive information for downloading a profile from the server via the at least one communication circuit in response to the message (see the machine English translation, page 3), and
control the display to display the information for downloading the profile (see the machine English translation, pages 3-4, 14, 21 and 26),
wherein the information related to the profile transfer includes an operation type parameter having a value indicating that the information related to the profile transfer is provided by the external electronic device to download the profile (see the machine English translation, page 3-8).
Regarding claims 2, 9 and 15:
KANGJIN further discloses download the profile from a server related to the profile transfer via the at least one communication circuit, based on the information for downloading the profile (figures 8 and 14, see the machine English translation, pages 4, 11, 15).
Regarding claims 3 and 16:
KANGJIN further discloses wherein the information for downloading the profile includes an address of the server (figures 8 and 14, see the machine English translation, page 15).
Regarding claims 4, 10 and 17:
KANGJIN further discloses wherein the information related to the profile transfer further includes a prefix including a set string (see the machine English translation, page 8 (identifier EID interpreted to be a prefix including a set string)).
Regarding claims 5, 11 and 18:
KANGJIN further discloses wherein the information related to the profile transfer further includes device information of the electronic device, and wherein the device information includes at least one of an international mobile equipment identity (IMEI), an embedded universal integrated circuit card (eUICC) identifier (ID) (eUICC ID: EID) (see the machine English translation, page 8), a model name, or a serial number of the electronic device.
Regarding claims 6, 12 and 19:
KANGJIN further discloses wherein the information related to the profile transfer is provided in a form of a quick response (QR) code (see the machine English translation, page 8-11).
Regarding claims 7, 13 and 20:
KANGJIN further discloses wherein the information for downloading the profile is provided in a form of a quick response (QR) code (see the machine English translation, page 8-11).
Conclusion
10. 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.
11. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR A TIMORY whose telephone number is (571)270-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/KABIR A TIMORY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631
Prosecution Insights