DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the applicant’s communication filed on 11/10/25 wherein:
Claims 1, 3-13, 15-20 are currently pending; and
Claims 2 and 14 are cancelled.
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 .
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because Figs. 1, 3A-3E and 7 are blurry and hard to read. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 1 recites a method and therefore, falls into a statutory category. Similar independent claims 13 and 20 recite a system and a computer-readable storage medium, and therefore, also fall into a statutory category.
Step 2A – Prong 1 (Is a Judicial Exception Recited?): The underlined limitations of
receiving, over a network, a collection of data, the collection of data comprising information related to at least one of real-world and digital activities within a location;
analyzing the collection of data, and determining information areas for the location, the information areas corresponding to a portion of the location, each information area being a determined partition from the collection of data;
generating a user interface (UI), the UI comprising a set of interactive components, each interactive component comprising a displayable version of at least one information area; and
communicating, over the network, to a set of devices proximately located to the location, the UI for display on the set of devices, the communication enabling functionality for accessing the information areas based on detected interactions with the displayed set of interactive components within the displayed UI;
receiving, over the network, from a device from the set of devices, input corresponding to an interactive component within the displayed UI, the input corresponding to a manipulation of the information area associated with the interactive component;
analyzing the input, and determining a type of action to perform respective to the UI; and
executing the determined action such that the displayed UI on the device from the set of devices is modified from an initial display to a modified display; and
wherein the modified display is determined by a semantic analysis.
are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, are considered certain methods of organizing human activity – commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts and marketing or sales activities or behaviors) and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions). Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A-Prong 2 (Is the Exception Integrated into a Practical Application?): This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of a network, a user interface (UI), the UI comprising a set of interactive components, and a set of devices (each of which are considered computer components). The computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea when considered both individually and as a whole. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Even when viewed in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application, and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Step 2B (Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to Significantly More than the Judicial Exception?): The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer to perform the receiving, analyzing, generating, and communicating steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 4-5, 7-12, 16-17, and 19 merely recite further additional embellishments of the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 13 as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, and these features only serve to further limit the abstract idea of independent claims 1 and 13, however none of the dependent claims recite an improvement to a technology or technical field or provide any meaningful limits.
Claims 3 and 15 further define the additional elements of a pop-up window and a new UI window. The computer elements are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even, in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
Claims 6 and 18 further define the additional elements of a tab. The computer element is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic component. Even, in combination, the additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are ineligible.
In light of the detailed explanation and evidence provided above, the Examiner asserts that the claimed invention, when the limitations are considered individually and as whole, is directed towards an abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 5 states, “wherein the updating of the UI comprises updating only the interactive component within the UI, such that a message is sent to at least the portion of the set of devices to update the interactive component,” which is confusing. If only the interactive component is updated, then Examiner is unsure as to why a message would be sent to update other devices. Examiner thinks, based on claim 4, on which claim 5 depends, that Applicant is intending this claim to mean that initially, only the UI which is being interacted with is updated, so that a message must be sent to update other devices. For the purposes of further examination, the claim will be interpreted accordingly. Claim 17 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 5. Examiner suggests modifying the language to clarify that updating the interactive component within the UI does not somehow also send the message, but that the sending of the message is a separate step. For example, the claim could be reworded to state, “wherein the updating of the UI comprises updating only the interactive component within the UI, and sending a message to at least the portion of the set of devices to update the interactive component.”
Notice
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 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 9053583), in view of Nolan et al. (US 20170293951).
Referring to claim 1:
Gross discloses a method comprising: receiving, over a network, a collection of data, the collection of data comprising information related to at least one of real-world and digital activities within a location {Gross 2:39-3:34; a patient information server 10 receives physiological data from a plurality of multi-functional patient monitor devices (PMD) 12 that monitor assigned patients (not shown) by various medical monitoring devices or sensors 14 [2:39-3:2] and the medical monitoring devices 14 transmit the generated physiological data via a body coupled network, Bluetooth, wired or wireless network, or the like to a controller 16 of the PMD 12 [3:3-34]};
analyzing the collection of data, and determining information areas for the location, the information areas corresponding to a portion of the location, each information area being a determined partition from the collection of data {Gross 4:18-57 and Fig. 2; the physiological data and historical data stored in the patient information server 10 are transmitted to a plurality of patient information display systems 44. The patient information display systems 44 monitor a plurality of patients, e.g. in a centralized, multi-patient clinical display station . . . The controller 46 can also optimize the layout of the display 50 using one or more dynamic sector layouts described in further detail below. The dynamic sector layouts utilize defined rules to layout sectors of the display 50 based on the size of the sectors, the resolution and size of the display 50, the patient data available, and a user selected clinical theme [4:18-57]};
generating a user interface (UI), the UI comprising a set of interactive components, each interactive component comprising a displayable version of at least one information area {Gross 4:18-57; The controller 26 then controls a display 30 of the patient information server 18 to display the physiological data received from the patient in the display 30 . . . The patient information server also includes an input device 32 that allows the user, such as administrative personal, to view, manipulate, select clinical themes, and/or interface with the data displayed on the display 30 [4:18-57]}; and
communicating, over the network, to a set of devices proximately located to the location, the UI for display on the set of devices, the communication enabling functionality for accessing the information areas based on detected interactions with the displayed set of interactive components within the displayed UI {Gross 3:3-34 and 4:18-57; For example, a nurse may view a plurality of patient's physiological data and historical data on the patient's bedside monitor, another patient's bedside monitor, a central monitoring station, a mobile monitoring display, a PDA, or the like . . . The patient information display systems 44 also includes an input device 52 that allows the user, such as administrative personal, to request historical patient cases and studies, to view, manipulate, select clinical themes, and/or interface with the data displayed on the display 50 [4:18-57]};
receiving, over the network, from a device from the set of devices, input corresponding to an interactive component within the displayed UI, the input corresponding to a manipulation of the information area associated with the interactive component; analyzing the input, and determining a type of action to perform respective to the UI; and executing the determined action such that the displayed UI on the device from the set of devices is modified from an initial display to a modified display {Gross 4:18-57; The patient information display systems 44 also includes an input device 52 that allows the user, such as administrative personal, to request historical patient cases and studies, to view, manipulate, select clinical themes, and/or interface with the data displayed on the display 50. The input device 52 can be a separate component or integrated into the display 50 such as with a touch screen monitor [4:18-57]}.
Gross discloses a system for displaying patient data according to a theme (abstract). Gross does not disclose wherein the modified display is determined by a semantic analysis.
However, Nolan discloses a similar system for automatic categorization using an assessment engine (abstract). Nolan discloses wherein the modified display is determined by a semantic analysis {Nolan [0047]; Invoice data 144 maybe be inputted into the system 110 by API upload 146, Email 148, direct file upload 150 or other data transfer method, producing computer accessible invoice data 152 in digital form, allowing the data 152 to be extracted into correct data fields by the Semantic Engine 154, as explained further below. The Semantic Engine 154 decomposes the invoice data 152 into meaningful fragments pertaining to actions (like reviewing or drafting) performed by the service provider and tasks/objectives, such as a type of document, (like Interrogatories or a Site Survey) that is the object of the action which the service provider performs or is the work product of the service provider. . . For example, the data output 156 of the Semantic Engine 154 may be considered preliminary output data to be reviewed by a human Expert 158, e.g., a legal expert, who understands the activities and tasks to which the invoice data 152 pertains [0047]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Gross to incorporate semantic analysis as taught by Nolan because this would provide a manner for allowing the data to be sorted into certain fields (Nolan [0047]), thus aiding the user in finding the appropriate data.
Referring to claim 4:
Gross, as modified by Nolan, discloses updating, based on the received input, the information area of the interactive component, the input comprising data entry, such that the portioned data within the information area is supplemented with the data entry; and updating, based on the updated information area, the UI on at least a portion of the set of devices {Gross 3:3-4:57 and 8:54-9:15; The PMD 12 also includes an input device 22 that allows the user, such as a system administrator, to view, manipulate, select clinical themes and/or interact with the data displayed on the display 20 [3:3-34] and The controller 46 also receives clinical theme or information [4:18-57] and As the data is received, or step 216, the display is controlled to update the displayed values. If more or less display space becomes available the selection, placement, and size of the displayed tiles becomes is dynamically and automatically adjusted as described above in a step 218. Similarly, if the patient progresses or deteriorates, a different clinical theme is selected by the above process the selection and size of the tiles is dynamically and automatically changed in a step 220. The selection or change in selection of the clinical theme can be manually selected [8:54-9:15] where the controller controls the displays to display the selected information and dynamically updates the display accordingly}.
Referring to claim 5:
Gross, as modified by Nolan, discloses wherein the updating of the UI comprises updating only the interactive component within the UI, such that a message is sent to at least the portion of the set of devices to update the interactive component {Gross 3:3-4:57 and 8:54-9:15; The controller 46 also receives clinical theme or information from which the theme can be inferred, e.g. diagnosis, ICD9 codes, location (intensive care, surgery, recovery, or the like), and the like. The controller 46 then controls a display 50 of the patient information display system 44 to display the physiological data and historical data received in the display 50 [4:18-57]}.
Referring to claim 9:
Gross, as modified by Nolan, discloses determining, based on the analysis of the collection of data, a context of data, wherein the portioned data corresponds to a determined context; determining a sorted positioning of each information area based on each information area’s respective determined context; and configuring the UI and the included set of interactive components based on the determined sorted positioning {Gross 5:33-6:63; The selected clinical theme allows the sector 60 to be populated with certain tiles 64 that specifically relate to a certain body system, disease, concept of interest, treatment, and the like. For example, if the user would like to display information relating to a patient's blood pressure, the user could select the blood pressure clinical theme and the controller 16, 26, 46 would automatically populate the sector with tiles that relate or are relevant to the patient's blood pressure rather than having to manually configure the sector with the relevant tiles [5:50-6:22]}.
Referring to claim 10:
Gross, as modified by Nolan, discloses wherein the sorted positioning of the UI is updated based on interactions from at least one of the set of devices {Gross 5:33-6:63; The sector user interface 76 allows the user to select a clinical theme and/or view and/or manipulate the data of each sector 26 displayed on the display 18, e.g. a touch screen display [6:23-33]}.
Referring to claim 12:
Gross, as modified by Nolan, discloses wherein the collection of data is provided from a plurality of devices located proximate to the location {Gross 2:39-3:34; In one embodiment, the medical monitoring devices 14 transmit the generated physiological data via a body coupled network, Bluetooth, wired or wireless network, or the like to a controller 16 of the PMD 12 [3:3-34]}.
Referring to claim 13:
Claim 13 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following additions:
Gross discloses a processor {Gross 2:39-3:34; a patient information server 10 receives physiological data from a plurality of multi-functional patient monitor devices (PMD) 12 that monitor assigned patients (not shown) by various medical monitoring devices or sensors 14 [2:39-3:2]}.
Referring to claim 16:
Claim 16 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 4.
Referring to claim 17:
Claim 17 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 5.
Referring to claim 19:
Claim 19 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 9.
Referring to claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 1, with the following additions:
Gross discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium tangibly encoded with computer-executable instructions that when executed by a processor perform a method {Gross 4:58-5:8; the patient monitoring software is carried on non-transitory tangible memory or a computer readable medium for programming of or execution by the processor [4:58-5:8]}.
Claims 3 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 9053583), in view of Nolan et al. (US 20170293951), and further in view of Gajic et al. (US 20100198622).
Referring to claim 3:
Gross, as modified by Nolan, discloses wherein the modified display comprises displaying additional information related to the data within the information area {Gross 3:3-34 and 4:18-57; The selected clinical theme allows the user to populate the sector with certain tiles that relate to a certain body system, disease, concept of interest, progression of disease or recovery, and the like [3:3-34] and view, manipulate, select clinical themes, and/or interface with the data displayed [4:18-57]}.
Gross, as modified by Nolan, discloses a system for displaying patient data according to a theme. Gross, as modified by Nolan, does not disclose wherein the display of the additional information corresponds to at least one of a pop-up window and a new UI window.
However, Gajic discloses a similar system for presentation of critical patient data (abstract). Gjic discloses wherein the display of the additional information corresponds to at least one of a pop-up window and a new UI window {Gajic [0078]; the specifics of the reports are accessed directly by clicking/touching this number and are displayed in a pop out window [0078]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Gross and Nolan to incorporate a pop out window as taught by Gajic because this would provide a manner for presenting the information in a convenient manner (Gajic [0078]), thus aiding the user in treating the patient.
Referring to claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 3.
Claims 6-8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 9053583), in view of Nolan et al. (US 20170293951), and further in view of Culver et al. (US 20120110087).
Referring to claim 6:
Gross, as modified by Nolan, discloses a system for displaying patient data according to a theme (abstract). Gross, as modified by Nolan, does not disclose wherein at least one of the interactive components comprises a tab enabling collaborating between a plurality of users, the collaboration tab comprising functionality for the plurality of users to interact in real-time via the UI.
However, Culver discloses wherein at least one of the interactive components comprises a tab enabling collaborating between a plurality of users, the collaboration tab comprising functionality for the plurality of users to interact in real-time via the UI {Culver [0186]-[0188][0694]; the representation of the task event in the system 10 may have a `communications` or `discussion` control (i.e., a button, tab or icon) that appears when communication related to the event exists [0188]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Gross and Nolan to incorporate a tab including interaction functionality as taught by Culver because this would provide a manner for associating communications with an event (Culver [0190]), thus aiding the user by making the context of the communications clear.
Referring to claim 7:
Gross, as modified by Nolan and Culver, discloses wherein the collaboration corresponds to at least one of audio calls, video calls or a combination thereof as provided via the collaboration tab {Culver [0694] and Fig. 15C; The sub-menu 1562 may also allow the current user to contact one or more of the displayed users in the summary area 1564, such as via an internal message, email, SMS text message or VoIP phone call [0694]}.
Referring to claim 8:
Gross, as modified by Nolan and Culver, discloses wherein the collaboration tab enables sharing of electronic files among the set of devices {Culver [0209]-[0218]; a document may be currently checked out by another user, it can be viewed and/or managed in particular ways [0211]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Gross and Nolan to incorporate a tab including interaction functionality as taught by Culver because this would provide a manner for associating communications with an event (Culver [0190]), thus aiding the user by making the context of the communications clear.
Referring to claim 18:
Claim 18 is rejected on a similar basis to claim 6.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. (US 9053583), in view of Nolan et al. (US 20170293951), and further in view of Martin et al. (US 20090182580).
Referring to claim 11:
Gross, as modified by Nolan, discloses a system for displaying patient data according to a theme (abstract). Gross, as modified by Nolan, does not disclose receiving, over the network, a request to access an interactive component within the UI; determining, based on the request, a type of access permission for the interactive component, wherein the enabled access to the information area associated with the requested interactive component is based on the determined type of access permission.
However, Martin discloses a similar system for aggregating and dissemination medical data (abstract). Martin discloses receiving, over the network, a request to access an interactive component within the UI; determining, based on the request, a type of access permission for the interactive component, wherein the enabled access to the information area associated with the requested interactive component is based on the determined type of access permission {Martin [0062][0066]-[0068][0080]; the process identifies (at 620) metadata tags that restrict access to received data. In this manner, some embodiments are able to manage access rights to a data component by different medical care members of the medical care provider. These metadata tags identify who or what has permission to access the particular data component [0067]}.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system disclosed in Gross and Nolan to incorporate access permissions as taught by Martin because this would provide a manner for managing access rights to a data component (Martin [0067]), thus aiding the user by ensuring the patients’ data is protected.
Response to Arguments
Examiner thanks Applicant for pointing out the support for the claim amendments.
Drawings
Examiner notes Applicant’s intent to submit formal drawings. As is indicated above, this requirement cannot be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 101
Step 2A, Prong One – There is a Judicial Exception Recited
Applicant argues that claim 1 describes concrete architecture including a processor, network, etc., which Applicant alleges is “not a mental process or abstract organizational method, but a specific technological system for coordinated multi-device interaction.” Examiner respectfully disagrees. The computer devices (i.e., the processor, network, etc.) used in the claims are generic, as is discussed above, and are addressed as additional elements (see above). The Supreme Court has recognized that claims can recite an abstract idea, even if the claims are performed on a computer. Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675 (concluding that the algorithm could be performed mentally even though the claims were carried out via “existing computers long in use”). Here, as is identified above, the claims are directed to an abstract idea, in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity.
Step 2A, Prong Two – Not Integrated into a Practical Application
Applicant argues claim 1 integrates the abstract idea into a “specific technological application: coordinated, real-time propagation of UI state across multiple endpoints constrained by physical proximity and data-driven location partitions.” Remarks 7. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The courts have found practical applications when an additional element provides an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field. See MPEP 2106.04(d). In this case, the claims do not provide such an improvement, nor does Applicant does not identify such an improvement. Rather, as is explained above, the additional elements include a network, a user interface (UI), the UI comprising a set of interactive components, and a set of devices (each of which are considered computer components). These computer components are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processing device performing generic computer functions), such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Step 2B – The Claims Do Not Provide Significantly More
Applicant argues the “claimed arrangement improves computer functionality through coordinated state management across endpoints with real-time updates and interaction-driven enablement.” Remarks 8. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Again, it is the additional elements which must be considered to determine whether they amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. MPEP 2106.05. Applicant’s “coordinated state management across endpoints with real-time updates and interaction-driven enablement” is directed to the abstract idea, not the additional elements. As such, claim is not patent eligible, as when viewed individually, and as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112
Applicant states that the language of claims 5 and 17 “clearly describes a two-step process.” Examiner respectfully disagrees, for the reasons stated in the rejection, above. Examiner suggests modifying the language to clarify that updating the interactive component within the UI does not somehow also send the message, but that the sending of the message is a separate step. For example, the claim could be reworded to state, “wherein the updating of the UI comprises updating only the interactive component within the UI, and sending a message to at least the portion of the set of devices to update the interactive component.”
Claim Rejections – 35 USC 102/103
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose the amended claim language, particularly regarding the semantic analysis. Examiner has provided new art which teaches this limitation (see above).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARRIE S GILKEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7119. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30-4:30 CT and Friday 7:30-12 CT.
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.
/CARRIE S GILKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626