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 .
1. In response to the Office Action dated on 05/29/2025, applicant(s) amend the application as follow:
Claims amended: 9 and 18
Claims canceled: none
Claims newly added: none
Claims pending: 1-21
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 09/29/20258 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant(s) has not provided an argument whether the Double Patenting rejection is proper or no-proper. Applicant(s) is advised either to provide an argument or to file an TD to overcome the Double patenting rejection.
Applicant argues “… The system disclosed in Smith appears to be directed at general data storage without disclosure of collectable objects or protective apparatus…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument. Any computer is a protective apparatus and any files and other stored in the computers are collectable objects. Applicant has not defined what is protective apparatus and collectable objects are. One ordinary skill in the art would understand, the computer is protective apparatus and files and others stored in the computer are collectable objects.
Applicant argues “St. Martin does not appear to disclose a method of receive a collectable apparatus protective apparatus and collectable object identifier…” Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant argument. When two computers communicate and handshake has been made, an authentication has been performed to allow communication and sending information. The objects has been validated to allow the computer to be stored. This limitation was disclosed by Smith.
Applicant argues “… However, St. Martin does not disclose, in the above-referenced paragraph and elsewhere, the dual authentication scheme of “authenticating, by the collectable management system, the first collectable protective apparatus identifier and the first collectable object identifier…”
Examiner respective disagreed with the above argument. See the above argument.
Since claims 12 and 21 included similar language to claim 1, arguments directed to claims 12 and 21 are the same as to claim 1.
Dependents claims 2-11, 13-20 are directed or indirect to claims 1 and 12 and all arguments are directed to the same as to claims 1 and 12.
Claim Objections
3. The amendment for claims 9 and 18 have overcome the claim objection.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the "same invention" type finds its support in
the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that "whoever invents or discovers any new and
useful process... may obtain a patent therefor... (Emphasis added). Thus, the term "same
invention," in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller V.
Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970);
In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by
canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention SO they are no longer
coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting
rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine
grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or
improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent
possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is
appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application
claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application
claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See,
e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d
1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir.
1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d
438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA
1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be
used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting
provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the
examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the
scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to
examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159.
See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to
file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR
1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory
double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be
accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the
NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1.
For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action,
see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c)
may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used.
Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in
which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or
PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely
online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-
processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal
Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/apdlving-orline/eterminal-disclaimer
4. Claim 1-21 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 17/811,052 (reference
application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from
each other because instant application in claims in both application include a first panel, the first
panel including a front side of and back size, the first panel including at least a transparent
portion; and a rear panel coupled to the first panel including at least four supporting members,
each of the at least four supporting members including a flat edge to enable positioning of the
collectable object, the flat edge of a first two of the supporting members being parallel to each
other, the flat edge of a second two of the supporting members being parallel to each other and
perpendicular to the first two of the support members, a cavity being at least between the flat
edges of the four supporting members, the cavity of holding the collection object. Instant application also includes the security feature being beneath a mask such that the security
feature is not visible from the front of the first panel; however, 052 includes a mask coupled to
the back side of the first panel, the mask being opaque and extending around a perimeter of the
back side of the first panel, the mask covering an inside of the protective apparatus between the
first panel and the second panel. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in
the art to modify the mask in the 052 to arrive the same invention as claimed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably
indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C.
102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the
statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new
ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would
be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed
invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the
claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have
been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be
negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims
the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as
of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary.
Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective
filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later
invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any
potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claim(s) 1-2, 7, 10, 12-13 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being
unpatentable over Smith (Pub. No. US 2020/0341689 A1) in view of St. Martin et al. (Pub. No.
US 2023/002768 A1)
As to claim 1, Smith discloses the method comprising:
receiving, from a first user, account identification information associated with the first
user (user account management and authentication) (paragraph 0040);
authenticating, by a collectible object management system, the first user based on the
received account identification information associated with the first user (user account
management and authentication) (paragraph 0040)
receiving, from the first user, a first collectible protective apparatus identifier (device,
paragraph 0040)) and a first collectible object identifier (paragraph 0040, object), the first
collectible protective apparatus identifier being associated with a first collectible protective
apparatus, the first collectible object identifier being associated with a first collectible object
protected by the first collectible protective apparatus (object lists and object metadata to users,
users are account and device) (paragraph 0040);
authenticating, by the collectible object management system, the first collectible
protective apparatus identifier and the first collectible object identifier (device authentication
validate objects...) (paragraph 0040);
providing, by the collectible object management system, a user interface associated with
the first collectible object (interface) (paragraph 0092).
Smith does not explicitly disclose receiving a request to upload a first digital media to the
collectible management system, the digital media being associated with the first collectible
object; and storing the first digital media to the collectible management system.
However, Martin discloses receiving a request to upload a first digital media to the
collectible management system, the digital media being associated with the first collectible
object (as the museum database matures, members of the public and of the enterprises, as well
as of other museums, may be enabled to build on the overall stored social identify of individuals
ones of the museum objects by updating descriptions, stories, experiences, pictures, video, and
many others digital in all known media formats, each assigned a unique SIO code as the file is
added, and associated both with the user adding the descriptive material and the museum
objects) (paragraph 0131); and storing the first digital media to the collectible management
system (a substantial number of objects may be instantiated to the system as having a social
identity, and may be assigned unique SIO codes. Information, including image, textual and
audio information, may be uploaded to the system to be stored and usable regarding the objects
registered) (paragraph 0048). This suggests the claim language receiving a request to upload a
first digital media to the collectible management system, the digital media being associated with
the first collectible object; and storing the first digital media to the collectible management
system. The one of the objects or objects is/are the collectable object. Therefore, it would have
been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the instant
application to modify teaching receiving a request to upload a first digital media to the collectible
management system, the digital media being associated with the first collectible object; and
storing the first digital media to the collectible management system as disclosed by Martin in
order to authenticate and store the object.
As to claim 2, Martin discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first collectible object
is stored within the first collectible protective apparatus (a substantial number of objects may be
instantiated to the system as having a social identity, and may be assigned unique SIO codes.
Information, including image, textual and audio information, may be uploaded to the system to
be stored and usable regarding the objects registered) (paragraph 0048).
As to claim 7, Martin discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the first collectible
protective apparatus identifier is a numerical identifier (object identifier) (paragraph 0116).
As to claim 10, Martin and discloses the method of claim 1 further comprising: receiving,
from a second user, account identification information associated with the second user;
authenticating, by a collectible object management system, the second user based on the
received account identification information associated with the second user; receiving, from the
second user, a second collectible protective apparatus identifier and a second collectible object
identifier, the second collectible protective apparatus identifier being associated with a second
collectible protective apparatus, the first collectible object identifier being associated with a first
collectible object protected by the first collectible protective apparatus; providing, by the
collectible object management system, a user interface associated with the second collectible
object; receiving a request to upload a second digital media to the collectible management second digital media to the collectible management system (claim is rejected under the same
reason as to combination of claim 1, the second user is another user of the system uploading
the information) (paragraph 0069).
Claim 12 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Martin disclosed a system
comprising: a first collectible protective apparatus, the first collectible protective apparatus
including a first collectible object identifier (device) (paragraph 0042)
a collectible object management system (user manager 221) (paragraph 0042);
at least one processor (computers) (paragraph 0029);
a memory (physical media) (paragraph 0029) including instructions (instruction) (paragraph 0029) to configure the at least one processor to instruct the collectible object
management system perform (user manager 221) (paragraph 0029) a method.
Claim 13 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 2.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 9.
Claim 19 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 10.
Claim 20 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 11.
Claim 21 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, Martin discloses a non-
transitory computer readable medium (physical media) (paragraph 0029) comprising
instructions (instruction) (paragraph 0029) executable by one or more processors (computers)
(paragraph 0029) to perform a method.
6. Claim(s) 4-5 and 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (Pub. No. US 2020/0341689 A1) in view of St. Martin et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0022768
A1) and further in view of Liu et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0351919 A1).
As to claim 4, both Smith and Martin disclose the method of claim 1 excepting for
wherein the collectible object identifier is located on a grading certificate. However, Liu
discloses wherein the collectible object identifier is located on a grading certificate (... it is an
object present invention to provide a gem certificate, a germ grading report and a guarantee
which are capable guaranteeing not only precious stone and precious metals which are used in
jewelry...) (col. 2, lines 10-21). This suggests the claim language wherein the collectible object
identifier is located on a grading certificate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teach of
both Smith and Martin to include wherein the collectible object identifier is located on a grading
certificate as disclosed by Liu in order to provide grading certificate.
Claim 15 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 4.
As to claim 5, both Smith and St. Martin disclose the method of claim 4 excepting for
wherein the grading certificate is located in an upper portion of the collectible protective
apparatus. However, Liu discloses wherein the grading certificate is located in an upper portion
of the collectible protective apparatus (fig. 3, discloses the grading report and grading is in
upper of the image). This suggests the claim limitation wherein the grading certificate is located
in an upper portion of the collectible protective apparatus. Therefore, it would have been
obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to
modify teaching of both Smith and St. Martin wherein the grading certificate is located in an upper portion of the collectible protective apparatus as disclosed by Liu in order to provide
grading certificate.
Claim 16 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 5.
7. Claim(s) 6 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith
(Pub. No. US 2020/0341689 A1) in view of St. Martin et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0022768 A1)
and further in view Willis et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0325389 A1).
As to claim 6, Smith and St. Martin disclose the method of claim 1 excepting for wherein
the first collectible protective apparatus identifier is located on a bottom edge of the first
collectible protective apparatus. However, Willis discloses wherein the first collectible protective
apparatus identifier is located on a bottom edge of the first collectible protective apparatus
(...and as mention above there may be a plurality of regions on the display in some
implementations (e.g., left edge region, a right edge region, a top edge region, a bottom edge
region) and each region may be associated with a different region name, a different destination
device and/or a different action to be performed on the object...) (paragraph 0024). This
suggests the claimed language the first collectible protective apparatus identifier is located on a
bottom edge of the first collectible protective apparatus. Therefore, it would have been obvious
to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to modify teaching of Smith
and St. Martin to include the first collectible protective apparatus identifier is located on a bottom
edge of the first collectible protective apparatus as disclosed by Willis in order to provide
information for authentication.
Claim 17 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 6.
8. Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (Pub. No. US 2020/0341689 A1) in view of St. Martin et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0022768 A1) and
further in view of Mattela et al. (No. US 10.536.092 B2).
As to claim 8, both Smith and Martin disclose the method of claim 6 excepting for
wherein the first collectible protective apparatus identifier is a bar code. However, Mattela
discloses wherein the first collectible protective apparatus identifier is a bar code authentication
data, such as unique identifier for a personal portable computing device associated with the
customer (Lo T device public identifier is at least one of: a visible MAC address, a QR code or a
bar code) (claim 4). This suggests the claim language wherein the first collectible protective
apparatus identifier is a bar code. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in
the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of both Smith
and Martin to include wherein the first collectible protective apparatus identifier is a bar code as
disclosed by Mattela in order to authenticate device.
9. Claim(s) 3 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (Pub. No. US 2020/0341689 A1) in view of St. Martin et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0022768 A1)
and further in view of Willis et al. (Pub. No. US 2014/0325389 A1).
As to claim 3, Smith and St. Martin discloses the method of claim 1 excepting for
wherein the first collectible protective apparatus comprises: a first panel, the first panel including
a front side and a back side, the first panel including at least a transparent portion; and a rear
panel coupled to the first panel, the rear panel including a front side and a back side, the front
side of the rear panel including at least four supporting members, each of the at least four
supporting members including a flat edge to enable positioning of the collectible object, the flat
edge of a first two of the supporting members being parallel to each other, the flat edge of a
second two of the supporting members being parallel to each other and perpendicular to the first
two of the supporting members, a cavity being at least between the flat edges of the four
supporting members, the cavity capable of holding the collectible object" in conjunction with
preceding claim language. However, Willis discloses wherein the first collectible protective
apparatus comprises: a first panel, the first panel including a front side and a back side, the first
panel including at least a transparent portion; and a rear panel coupled to the first panel, the
rear panel including a front side and a back side, the front side of the rear panel including at
least four supporting members, each of the at least four supporting members including a flat
edge to enable positioning of the collectible object, the flat edge of a first two of the supporting
members being parallel to each other, the flat edge of a second two of the supporting members
being parallel to each other and perpendicular to the first two of the supporting members, a
cavity being at least between the flat edges of the four supporting members, the cavity capable
of holding the collectible object" in conjunction with preceding claim language (the advertising
display panel to be installed inside the other standard display panels basically comprises a
transparent rigid fixed portion apposite another also transparent but mobile portion, one of the
two holding a mask made of opaque areas and the other a set of fragmented translucent
images...) (paragraph 0013). This suggests the claimed limitation wherein the first collectible
protective apparatus comprises: a first panel, the first panel including a front side and a back
side, the first panel including at least a transparent portion; and a rear panel coupled to the first
panel, the rear panel including a front side and a back side, the front side of the rear panel
including at least four supporting members, each of the at least four supporting members
including a flat edge to enable positioning of the collectible object, the flat edge of a first two of
the supporting members being parallel to each other, the flat edge of a second two of the
supporting members being parallel to each other and perpendicular to the first two of the
supporting members, a cavity being at least between the flat edges of the four supporting
members, the cavity capable of holding the collectible object" in conjunction with preceding
claim language. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the
ffective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Smith and St. Martin to
include wherein the first collectible protective apparatus comprises: a first panel, the first panel
including a front side and a back side, the first panel including at least a transparent portion; and
a rear panel coupled to the first panel, the rear panel including a front side and a back side, the
front side of the rear panel including at least four supporting members, each of the at least four
supporting members including a flat edge to enable positioning of the collectible object, the flat
edge of a first two of the supporting members being parallel to each other, the flat edge of a
second two of the supporting members being parallel to each other and perpendicular to the first
two of the supporting members, a cavity being at least between the flat edges of the four
supporting members, the cavity capable of holding the collectible object" in conjunction with
preceding claim language as disclosed by Willis in order to provide apparatus for used for
collection.
Claim 14 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 3.
10. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith (Pub.
No. US 2020/0341689 A1) in view of St. Martin et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0022768 A1) and
further in view of Sitriek et al. (Pub. No. US 2012/0284605 A1).
As to claim 11, Smith and St. Martin disclose the method of claim 1 excepting receiving,
from a third user, a request to view the first digital media associated with the first collectible
object and providing to the third user access to view the first digital media, the third user not
having access to change the first digital media without the first collectible protective apparatus
identifier and the first collectible object identifier. However, Sitriek discloses receiving, from a
third user, a request to view the first digital media associated with the first collectible object and
providing to the third user access to view the first digital media, the third user not having access
to change the first digital media without the first collectible protective apparatus identifier and the
first collectible object identifier (memory storing data for each one of the plurality of users in a respective one of a plurality of data layers for a at least one said subgroup of users, for use in
generating a first combined display presentation, for viewing by only those said users in the
subgroup of users) (paragraph 0176). This suggests the claim language receiving, from a third
user, a request to view the first digital media associated with the first collectible object and
providing to the third user access to view the first digital media, the third user not having access
to change the first digital media without the first collectible protective apparatus identifier and the
first collectible object identifier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in
the art before the effective filing data of to modify teaching of Smith and St. Martin to include
receiving, from a third user, a request to view the first digital media associated with the first
collectible object and providing to the third user access to view the first digital media, the third
user not having access to change the first digital media without the first collectible protective
apparatus identifier and the first collectible object identifier as disclosed by Sitriek in order to
view the object.
11. Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Smith
(Pub. No. US 2020/0341689 A1) in view of St. Martin et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0022768 A1)
and further in view of Lee et al. (Pub. No. US 2023/0218979 A1).
As to claim 9, both Smith and St. Martin disclose the method of claim 3 excepting for
wherein the collectible protective apparatus further comprises: a security feature between the
first panel and the second panel, the security feature including at least one of an NFC chip and
an RFID chip, the security feature being beneath a mask such that the security feature is not
visible from the front of the first panel, wherein the NFC chip or the RFID chip provide the first
collectible protective apparatus identifier. However, Lee discloses wherein the collectible
protective apparatus further comprises: a security feature between the first panel and the
second panel, the security feature including at least one of an NFC chip and an RFID chip, the
security feature being beneath a mask such that the security feature is not visible from the front
of the first panel, wherein the NFC chip or the RFID chip provide the first collectible protective
apparatus identifier (a security feature between the first panel and the second panel, the
security feature including at least one of an NFC chip and an RFID chip, the security feature
being beneath the mask such that the security feature is not visible from the front and of the first
panel (claim 4.). This suggests the claimed limitation wherein the collectible protective
apparatus further comprises: a security feature between the first panel and the second panel,
the security feature including at least one of an NFC chip and an RFID chip, the security feature
being beneath a mask such that the security feature is not visible from the front of the first
panel, wherein the NFC chip or the RFID chip provide the first collectible protective apparatus
identifier. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the
affective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of Smith and St. Martin to
include wherein the collectible protective apparatus further comprises: a security feature
between the first panel and the second panel, the security feature including at least one of an
NFC chip and an RFID chip, the security feature being beneath a mask such that the security
feature is not visible from the front of the first panel, wherein the NFC chip or the RFID chip
provide the first collectible protective apparatus identifier as disclosed by Lee in order
communication with other device.
Claim 18 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 9.
Conclusion
12. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154