Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the communications filed on February 3, 2026. The Applicants’ Amendment and Request for Reconsideration has been received and entered.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined. Claims 1, 9-13, and 15 have been amended.
The previous rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn.
The previous rejection of claims 9-14 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ amendments necessitated any new grounds of rejection.
The previous rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 112(b) has been withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendments.
The previous rejection of claims 9-14 under 35 USC 101 has been withdrawn in view of Applicants’ amendments.
Applicants’ arguments regarding the rejections under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered but, as they are directed to the instantly amended claims, they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed February 3, 2026, has been considered by the Examiner.
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.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0258178 A1 to Cross et al. (hereinafter “Cross”), in view of US 2016/0242502 A1 to Spanks (hereinafter “Spanks”), further in view of US 2024/0195614 A1 to Andon (hereinafter “Andon”), and in further view of US 2017/0245585 A1 to Cook et al. (hereinafter “Cook”).
Claims 1, 9, and 15: Cross discloses a method for “producing a customized midsole and a customized cleat representation for an article of footwear.” (See Cross, at least Abstract). Cross further discloses:
receiving, via a graphical user interface, a selection of a sole component for the…footwear article, wherein the selection comprises a selected…structure, and wherein the graphical user interface is configured to display a plurality of…structures including the selected…structure (See Cross, at least para. [0081], graphical interface system includes a group of pre-designed customized cleat arrangements associated with various sports and/or positions; user selects one of these predesigned arrangements of cleats);
generating, based on the selected…structure, a digital version of the…footwear article including a digitally rendered sole, wherein the digitally rendered sole depicts an additively manufactured mesh component generated based on the selected…structure (See Cross, at least para. [0073], user manually selects the location of one or more cleats; FIGs. 6-7 and associated text; paras. [0075]-[0077], FIG. 6 indicates manual positioning of cleats using the interface tools; FIG. 7 displays the finished customized sole; para. [0109], knitted component of sole may have a mesh knit structure; the Examiner notes that the phrases “additively manufactured” and “generated based on the selected lattice structure appears to be non-functional descriptive matter and thus are assigned little patentable weight).
Cross does not expressly disclose that the footwear article is lattice-based and that the sole component comprises a selected lattice structure.
However, Spanks discloses an “article of footwear” that “includes an upper and a sole structure” and that the “sole structure can be manufactured using a customized cushioning sole system.” (See Spanks, at least Abstract). Spanks further discloses that the footwear article is lattice-based and that the sole component comprises a selected lattice structure (See Spanks, at least para. [0021], sole structure includes a lattice structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the customized footwear system and method of Cross the ability that the footwear article is lattice-based and that the sole component comprises a selected lattice structure as disclosed by Spanks since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “provide a custom sole structure with specialized responses to ground reaction forces.” (See Spanks, at least para. [0055]).
Neither Cross nor Spanks expressly discloses generating a digital asset comprising the digital version of the lattice-based footwear article, wherein the digital version of the lattice-based footwear article is configured to be manipulable via a user input received via the graphical user interface; and receiving,…based on manipulation of the digital asset, user input.
However, Andon discloses that when a “consumer buys a genuine pair of shoes…a digital representation of a shoe may be generated, linked with the consumer, and assigned a cryptographic token, where the digital shoe and cryptographic token collectively represent a ‘CryptoKick’. The digital representation may include a computer-generated avatar of the shoe or a limited-edition artist rendition of the shoe.” (See Andon, at least para. [0010]). Andon further discloses generating a digital asset comprising the digital version of the lattice-based footwear article, wherein the digital version of the lattice-based footwear article is configured to be manipulable via a user input received via the graphical user interface (See Andon, at least para. [0076], CryptoKick is authorized or unlocked; CryptoKick includes collectible digital shoe and a unique NFT; para. [0077], cryptographic digital asset is generated that includes a token and a public and private key pair; FIG. 6 and associated text; para. [0081], owner of digital asset can transfer trait from the digital asset to a “progeny” of the digital asset by selecting the trait); and receiving,…based on manipulation of the digital asset, user input (See Andon, at least para. [0081], owner of digital asset can transfer trait from the digital asset to a “progeny” of the digital asset by selecting the trait).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the customized footwear system and method of Cross and the lattice-based footwear of Spanks the ability of generating a digital asset comprising the digital version of the lattice-based footwear article, wherein the digital version of the lattice-based footwear article is configured to be manipulable via a user input received via the graphical user interface; and receiving,…based on manipulation of the digital asset, user input as disclosed by Andon since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a “retailer to more directly influence and/or control the nature and ultimate supply of digital objects within this virtual market.” (See Andon, at least para. [0006]).
Neither Cross nor Spanks nor Andon expressly discloses receiving, via the graphical user interface…user input to adjust a physical characteristic of the selected lattice structure; and updating, on the graphical user interface, the digital version of the lattice-based footwear article based on the user input.
However, Cook discloses a “method of manufacturing articles of footwear that includes steps of providing articles to a customer, receiving evaluations of one or more structural characteristics of the articles and making new customized articles for the customer based on the evaluations of one or more structural characteristics.” (See Cook, at least Abstract). Cook further discloses:
receiving, via the graphical user interface…user input to adjust a physical characteristic of the selected lattice structure (See Cook, at least FIG. 11 and associated text; para. [0062], FIG. 11 displays application running on mobile device used by a customer to provide feedback on different structural characteristics of the shoe including cushioning and stability; para. [0063], each value on a feedback scale for a particular characteristic may correspond with a particular value of that characteristic that may be provided by a manufacturer; FIG. 21 and associated text; para. [0087], customer provides feedback about the cushioning level of the sole; customer selects a value halfway between perfect and too firm; customer selected value 2118 may be sent to the manufacturer and used as information in manufacturing a subsequent article of footwear for customer); and
updating, on the graphical user interface, the digital version of the lattice-based footwear article based on the user input (See Cook, at least FIG. 22 and associated text; para. [0087], customer provides feedback about the cushioning level of the sole; customer selects a value halfway between perfect and too firm; customer selected value 2118 may be sent to the manufacturer and used as information in manufacturing a subsequent article of footwear for customer; para. [0088], manufacturer determines the level of cushioning to apply in a new article of footwear based on the feedback received; para. [0083], cushioning is modified; FIG. 16 and associated text; para. [0080], computing system is used to provide custom sole design).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the customized footwear system and method of Cross and the lattice-based footwear of Spanks and the digital asset system and method of Andon the ability of receiving, via the graphical user interface…user input to adjust a physical characteristic of the selected lattice structure; and updating, on the graphical user interface, the digital version of the lattice-based footwear article based on the user input as disclosed by Cook since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to adapt subsequent articles of footwear to customers’ preferences as they change over time. (See Cook, at least para. [0050]).
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 3, 11, and 17: The combination of Cross and Spanks and Andon and Cook discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 15 discussed above.
Neither Cross nor Spanks expressly discloses storing the digital asset in a digital location associated with a user.
However, Andon discloses storing the digital asset in a digital location associated with a user (See Andon, at least para. [0076], CryptoKick is authorized or unlocked; CryptoKick includes collectible digital shoe and a unique NFT; para. [0077], cryptographic digital asset is generated that includes a token and a public and private key pair; token with public key and owner ID is transmitted to a distributed blockchain ledger to be recorded and validated; encrypted asset code is assigned to the user and the public and private keys are stored in the user’s digital blockchain locker).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system and method of Cross-Spanks-Andon-Cook the ability of storing the digital asset in a digital location associated with a user as further disclosed by Andon since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a “retailer to more directly influence and/or control the nature and ultimate supply of digital objects within this virtual market.” (See Andon, at least para. [0006]).
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 4: The combination of Cross and Spanks and Andon and Cook discloses all the limitations of claim 3 discussed above.
Neither Cross nor Spanks expressly discloses storing the second digital asset in the digital location associated with the user.
However, Andon discloses storing the second digital asset in the digital location associated with the user (See Andon, at least para. [0076], CryptoKick is authorized or unlocked; CryptoKick includes collectible digital shoe and a unique NFT; para. [0077], cryptographic digital asset is generated that includes a token and a public and private key pair; token with public key and owner ID is transmitted to a distributed blockchain ledger to be recorded and validated; encrypted asset code is assigned to the user and the public and private keys are stored in the user’s digital blockchain locker; para. [0100], each user has a collection of digital assets, i.e., more than one).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in system and method of Cross-Spanks-Andon-Cook the ability of storing the second digital asset in the digital location associated with the user as further disclosed by Andon since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a “retailer to more directly influence and/or control the nature and ultimate supply of digital objects within this virtual market.” (See Andon, at least para. [0006]).
Claim 5, 13, and 19: The combination of Cross and Spanks and Andon and Cook discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 15 discussed above.
Cross further discloses:
receiving, via the graphical user interface, a request to customize the selected…structure based on one or more user-selectable parameters (See Cross, at least para. [0081], user selects one of the predesigned arrangements of cleats and makes modifications to it; para. [0073], user manually selects the location of one or more cleats) ; and
updating the selected…structure based on the one or more user-selected parameters to create a customized…structure, wherein the digitally rendered sole is based on the customized lattice structure (See Cross, at least para. [0081], user selects one of the predesigned arrangements of cleats and makes modifications to it; FIGs. 6-7 and associated text; paras. [0075]-[0077], FIG. 6 indicates manual positioning of cleats using the interface tools; FIG. 7 displays the finished customized sole).
Cross does not expressly disclose that the structure is a lattice structure.
However, Spanks discloses that the structure is a lattice structure (See Spanks, at least para. [0021], sole structure includes a lattice structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system and method of Cross-Spanks-Andon-Cook the ability that the structure is a lattice structure as further disclosed by Spanks since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “provide a custom sole structure with specialized responses to ground reaction forces.” (See Spanks, at least para. [0055]).
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 6, 14, and 20: The combination of Cross and Spanks and Andon and Cook discloses all the limitations of claims 5, 13, and 19 discussed above.
Cross further discloses wherein the one or more user-selectable parameters comprises at least one of a shape of the selected lattice structure, a color of the selected lattice structure, and user information (See Cross, at least para. [0080], customized cleat arrangement may be determined based on measuring and pressure mapping customer’s foot).
Claims 14 and 20 are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim 7: The combination of Cross and Spanks and Andon and Cook discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Neither Cross nor Spanks expressly discloses storing the digital asset in a digital storage location associated with a user; and providing, via the graphical user interface, access to any digital assets, including the digital asset, owned by the user.
However, Andon discloses:
storing the digital asset in a digital storage location associated with a user (See Andon, at least para. [0076], CryptoKick is authorized or unlocked; CryptoKick includes collectible digital shoe and a unique NFT; para. [0077], cryptographic digital asset is generated that includes a token and a public and private key pair; token with public key and owner ID is transmitted to a distributed blockchain ledger to be recorded and validated; encrypted asset code is assigned to the user and the public and private keys are stored in the user’s digital blockchain locker); and
providing, via the graphical user interface, access to any digital assets, including the digital asset, owned by the user (See Andon, at least Fig. 11 and associated text; para. [0102], each user device is linked to their own digital locker that permits the user to access their securely stored digital assets from the blockchain; each asset may be represented as a separate digital card on the user’s device and has its own unique attribute set).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system and method of Cross-Spanks-Andon-Cook the ability of storing the digital asset in a digital storage location associated with a user; and providing, via the graphical user interface, access to any digital assets, including the digital asset, owned by the user as further disclosed by Andon since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a “retailer to more directly influence and/or control the nature and ultimate supply of digital objects within this virtual market.” (See Andon, at least para. [0006]).
Claim 8: The combination of Cross and Spanks and Andon and Cook discloses all the limitations of claim 1 discussed above.
Cross further discloses receiving, via the graphical user interface, a request to manufacture the lattice-based footwear article (See Cross, at least para. [0053], once the customer has finished designing the article of footwear, the finalized design may be submitted to factory through the Internet);
Neither Cross nor Spanks expressly discloses determining, based on one or more restriction conditions associated with the digital asset, whether the request is authorized; and transmitting, responsive to determining that the request is authorized, an authorization to a manufacturing system, wherein the authorization includes the digital asset.
However, Andon discloses:
determining, based on one or more restriction conditions associated with the digital asset, whether the request is authorized (See Andon, at least paras. [0108]-[0109], when user purchases CryptoKick on an NFT marketplace with the CryptoKick digital asset representing a one of a kind sneaker design, rules engine grants the holder of the digital asset with the ability to have a predetermined number of physical units products that match the likeness of the digital asset produced; rules engine may restrict the ability to request physical units be produced until one or more predefined conditions are met; if the user satisfies all the necessary conditions, rules engine authorizes the production of a quantity of physical shoes based on the CryptoKick); and
transmitting, responsive to determining that the request is authorized, an authorization to a manufacturing system, wherein the authorization includes the digital asset (See Andon, at least para. [0109], if the user satisfies all the necessary conditions, rules engine authorizes the production of a quantity of physical shoes based on the CryptoKick; once this authorization is received, the host system provides the user with a portal through which the user can execute an order for production and delivery of the physical shoes via the manufacturer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system and method of Cross-Spanks-Andon-Cook the ability of determining, based on one or more restriction conditions associated with the digital asset, whether the request is authorized; and transmitting, responsive to determining that the request is authorized, an authorization to a manufacturing system, wherein the authorization includes the digital asset as further disclosed by Andon since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a “retailer to more directly influence and/or control the nature and ultimate supply of digital objects within this virtual market.” (See Andon, at least para. [0006]).
Claims 12 and 18: The combination of Cross and Spanks and Andon and Cook discloses all the limitations of claims 11 and 17 discussed above.
Neither Cross nor Spanks expressly discloses generating a second digital asset representative of the selected lattice structure; and storing the second digital asset in the digital location associated with the user.
However, Andon discloses:
generating a second digital asset representative of the selected lattice structure (See Andon, at least para. [0076], CryptoKick is authorized or unlocked; CryptoKick includes collectible digital shoe and a unique NFT; para. [0077], cryptographic digital asset is generated that includes a token and a public and private key pair; para. [0100], each user has a collection of digital assets, i.e., more than one); and
storing the second digital asset in the digital location associated with the user (See Andon, at least para. [0076], CryptoKick is authorized or unlocked; CryptoKick includes collectible digital shoe and a unique NFT; para. [0077], cryptographic digital asset is generated that includes a token and a public and private key pair; token with public key and owner ID is transmitted to a distributed blockchain ledger to be recorded and validated; encrypted asset code is assigned to the user and the public and private keys are stored in the user’s digital blockchain locker; para. [0100], each user has a collection of digital assets, i.e., more than one).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system and method of Cross-Spanks-Andon-Cook the ability of generate a second digital asset representative of the selected lattice structure; and store the second digital asset in the digital location associated with the user as further disclosed by Andon since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a “retailer to more directly influence and/or control the nature and ultimate supply of digital objects within this virtual market.” (See Andon, at least para. [0006]).
Claim 18 is rejected for similar reasons.
Claims 2, 10, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cross in view of Spanks, further in view of Andon, further in view of Cook as applied to claims 1, 9, and 15 above, and further in view of US 2006/0150399 A1 to Koyama (hereinafter “Koyama”).
The combination of Cross and Spanks and Andon and Cook discloses all the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 15 discussed above.
Neither Cross nor Spanks expressly discloses generating a second digital asset comprising a second digital version of the lattice-based footwear article.
However, Andon discloses generating a second digital asset comprising a second digital version of the lattice-based footwear article (See Andon, at least para. [0076], CryptoKick is authorized or unlocked; CryptoKick includes collectible digital shoe and a unique NFT; para. [0077], cryptographic digital asset is generated that includes a token and a public and private key pair; para. [0100], each user has a collection of digital assets, i.e., more than one).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the system and method of Cross-Spanks-Andon-Cook the ability of generating a second digital asset comprising a second digital version of the lattice-based footwear article as further disclosed by Andon since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to allow a “retailer to more directly influence and/or control the nature and ultimate supply of digital objects within this virtual market.” (See Andon, at least para. [0006]).
Neither Cross nor Spanks nor Andon nor Cook expressly discloses receiving, via the graphical user interface, an additional selection of an upper structure for the lattice-based footwear article; and updating the digital version of the lattice-based footwear article to include the digitally rendered sole coupled to a digitally rendered upper, wherein the digitally rendered upper depicts the upper structure.
However, Koyama discloses an “automatic manufacturing-vending machine for sandals” that includes “a sole housing portion housing a plurality of soles for sandals according to a plurality of sizes, an upper housing portion housing a plurality of uppers for sandals according to a plurality of sizes, a size selecting portion for a user to select a desirable size of soles and uppers, a size selecting portion for a user to select a desirable size of soles and uppers, a compensation paying portion for a user to pay compensation for manufacturing and vending desirable sandals, an attaching mechanism portion for attaching uppers desired by a user to soles desired by the user, and a sandal ejecting portion for ejecting sandals formed by attaching the uppers to the soles by the attaching mechanism portion into a takeout opening from which a user can take out the same, and these are housed in a housing.” (See Koyama, at least Abstract). Koyama further discloses:
receiving, via the graphical user interface, an additional selection of an upper structure for the lattice-based footwear article (See Koyama, at least FIG. 3a and associated text; para. [0032], user is prompted to select an upper for a pair of sandals); and
updating the digital version of the lattice-based footwear article to include the digitally rendered sole coupled to a digitally rendered upper, wherein the digitally rendered upper depicts the upper structure (See Koyama, at least FIGs. 3c and 4b and associated text; para. [0034], sandal image consisting of a sole and an upper is displayed on the screen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the customized footwear system and method of Cross and the lattice-based footwear of Spanks and the digital asset system and method of Andon and the footwear customization system and method Cook the ability of receiving, via the graphical user interface, an additional selection of an upper structure for the lattice-based footwear article; and updating the digital version of the lattice-based footwear article to include the digitally rendered sole coupled to a digitally rendered upper, wherein the digitally rendered upper depicts the upper structure as disclosed by Koyama since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to enable “manufacturing and selling desired footwear to users who desire footwear immediately on the spot.” (See Koyama, at least para. [0004]).
Claims 10 and 16 are rejected for similar reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2024/0220952 A1 to Najmr is directed to updating an item associated with a non-fungible token.
US 2024/0042328 A1 to Meyers et al. is directed to updating an image of a game character that is associated with a non-fungible token according to experience in game play.
US 12,003,622 B1 to Anderson et al. is directed to updating an image of a non-fungible token and storing the new image to a blockchain.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE MARIE GEORGALAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1258 E.S.T.. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Marissa Thein can be reached on 571-272-6764. 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.
/Anne M Georgalas/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
Prosecution Insights