DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Procedural Summary/Response to Amendment
This is responsive to the claims filed 08/03/2026.
Examiner acknowledges receipt of Applicant’s amendments and arguments filed 05/26/2026. The arguments set forth are addressed below.
Applicant’s amendments necessitated the new ground of rejection set forth herein; therefore, this action is made Final.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Applicant’s IDS submission is acknowledged and provided herewith.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 to 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter because the claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Each of Claims 1 to 20 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. The following diagram is an overview of the steps involved. The examiner follows the two step-analysis, as described in MPEP 2106 (available at https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s2106.html).
PNG
media_image1.png
930
645
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Step 1
Step 1 of the two step-analysis considers whether the claims fall into one of the four statutory categories of invention such as a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The instant invention claims a computer-implemented method in claims 1-11, and a system in claims 12 to 20. As such, the claimed invention falls into the broad statutory categories of invention. However, claims that fall within one of the four statutory categories may nevertheless be ineligible if they encompass laws of nature, physical phenomena, or abstract ideas.
Step 2A
Step 2A has been further divided into two prongs as shown in the following diagram.
PNG
media_image2.png
681
881
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Step 2A, Prong 1
Under prong 1 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the claim recites an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomenon. The term “abstract idea” is not interpreted as a layperson might. Instead, the term “abstract idea” is interpreted as described in legal opinions by courts.
According to MPEP 2106.04(a):
the Office has set forth an approach to identifying abstract ideas that distills the relevant case law into enumerated groupings of abstract ideas. The enumerated groupings are firmly rooted in Supreme Court precedent as well as Federal Circuit decisions interpreting that precedent, as is explained in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). This approach represents a shift from the former case-comparison approach that required examiners to rely on individual judicial cases when determining whether a claim recites an abstract idea. By grouping the abstract ideas, the examiners’ focus has been shifted from relying on individual cases to generally applying the wide body of case law spanning all technologies and claim types.
The enumerated groupings of abstract ideas are defined as:
1) Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I);
2) Certain methods of organizing human activity – fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection II); and
3) Mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection III).
Here, Independent Claim 1 (and similarly recited Claims 12) recites “1. (Currently Amended) A computer-implemented method, comprising:
receiving, by a central service via an application on a mobile computing device (additional element), a first authorization indication to log a gamer profile in to a gaming console (additional element), wherein: the gamer profile comprises gamer profile data managed by the central service, the gamer profile is logged in to the application and authenticated by the central service, and
the first authorization indication includes a first location indication of a physical location of the mobile computing device;
receiving, by the central service (additional element) from the gaming console (additional element), a second authorization indication for a proximity-based login, wherein the second authorization indication includes a second location indication of a physical location of the gaming console (following rules or instructions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG; and an observation, judgement, opinion, or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
pairing, by the central service, the first authorization indication and the second authorization indication in response to determining, by the central service, proof-of-presence of the mobile computing device and the gaming console based on the first location indication and the second location indication exceeding a pairing threshold (following rules or instructions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG; and an observation, judgement, opinion, or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
in response to the pairing, authorizing, by the central service, the proximity-based login,
wherein the authorizing comprises:
logging, by the central service, the gamer profile in to the gaming console,
wherein logging the gamer profile in creates login artifacts stored on the gaming console, and
providing access to at least a portion of the gamer profile data (following rules or instructions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG; and an observation, judgement, opinion, or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and
in response to determining loss of the proof-of-presence, deauthorizing, by the central service, the proximity-based login, wherein the deauthorizing comprises:
logging, and instructing the gaming console to delete at least a portion of the login artifacts (following rules or instructions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG; and an observation, judgement, opinion, or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG).”
Claim 12 recites: “12. (Currently Amended) A system, comprising:
a central service configured to at least:
receive, via an application on a mobile computing device (additional element), a first authorization indication for a gaming console (additional element) to access a gamer profile, wherein:
the gamer profile comprises gamer profile data managed by the central service, the gamer profile is logged in to the application and authenticated by the central service, and
the first authorization indication includes a first location indication of a physical location of the mobile computing device (following rules or instructions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG; and an observation, judgement, opinion, or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
receive, from the gaming console (additional element), a second authorization indication for a proximity-based login, wherein the second authorization indication includes a second location indication of a physical location of the gaming console (following rules or instructions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG; and an observation, judgement, opinion, or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
determine proof-of-presence of the mobile computing device and the gaming console based on the first location indication and the second location indication exceeding a pairing threshold (following rules or instructions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG; and an observation, judgement, opinion, or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
in response to the proof-of-presence, authorize the proximity-based login, wherein: to authorize comprises[[:]] allow the gaming console to access at least a portion of data, and the proximity-based login creates login artifacts stored on the gaming console (additional element) (following rules or instructions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG; and an observation, judgement, opinion, or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG); and
in response to determining loss of the proof-of-presence, deauthorize the proximity-based login, wherein to deauthorize comprises:
restrict the gaming console from accessing the gamer profile and instruct the gaming console to delete at least a portion of the login artifacts (following rules or instructions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG; and an observation, judgement, opinion, or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG).”
As indicated above, the italicized portions of representative Independent Claim 1, and similarly recited Independent Claims 12 can be categorized into two groups of abstract idea: (1) certain methods of organizing human activity – managing behavior or relationships or interactions between people, including following rules or instructions and (2) mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind, including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion under 2019 PEG. The limitations of the claim recite a set of rules governing when a person may use a shared machine and when that permission ends. Controlling access to resources by verifying permissions has been held to be an abstract idea. See Ericsson Inc. v. TCL Commc’n Tech. Holdings Ltd., 955 F.3d 1317, 1326-28 (Fed. Cir. 2020)(claims to controlling access to resources by determining whether an application has the requisite permission held abstract; the claims were not directed to a specific improvement in computer functionality, but rather to the use of computers as a tool). The limitations also recite the grouping of mental processes by way of the determining, pairing, determining, steps of the claim.
Each dependent claim incorporates the abstract idea of the claim from which it depends. Claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, and 20 further recite the abstract ideas of following rules or instructions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG; and/or an observation, judgement, opinion, or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The recited limitations are:
Claim 2 and similarly recited Claim 13: (Original)… receiving, by the central service from the mobile computing device and the gaming console, continued respective location indications; and wherein the determining the loss of the proof-of-presence comprises: determining the continued respective location indications fall below a matching threshold (following rules or instructions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG; and/or an observation, judgement, opinion, or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Claim 3 and similarly recited Claim 14: (Original) … wherein the continued respective location indications comprise a different type of location indication than the first and second location indications (following rules or instructions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG; and/or an observation, judgement, opinion, or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Claim 4, and similarly recited Claim 15: (Original) … periodically polling, by the central service, the mobile computing device and the gaming console, for the continued respective location indications, wherein the continued respective location indications are received in response to the periodic polling (following rules or instructions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG; and/or an observation, judgement, opinion, or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Claim 5, and similarly recited Claim 16, (Original): … receiving, by the central service from the mobile computing device, a change indication of a possible change in location of the mobile computing device; and in response to the change indication, requesting, by the central service, the continued respective location indications from the mobile computing device and the gaming console, wherein the continued respective location indications are received in response to the request (following rules or instructions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG; and/or an observation, judgement, opinion, or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Claim 6, and similarly recited Claim 17, (Currently Amended) … wherein the authorizing further comprises: providing, by the central service to the gaming console, access to limited data of the gamer profile data based on configuration settings of the proximity- based login (following rules or instructions, which is one of certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG; and/or an observation, judgement, opinion, or evaluation, which is a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Claim 10, and similarly recited Claim 20, (Currently Amended) … wherein the deauthorizing further comprises: transmitting, from the central service to the gaming console, instructions to delete all stored gamer profile data and login artifacts
Accordingly, each of Claims 1 to 20 recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
Under prong 2 of step 2A, the examiner considers whether the additional elements in the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. To do so, the examiner looks to the following exemplary considerations, looking at the elements individually and in combination:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field ( see MPEP 2106.05(a));
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition ;
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b));
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)); and/or
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo).
Conversely, considerations not indicative of integration include adding words “apply it” (or equivalent) with the judicial exception or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea. (MPEP 2106.05(f)); adding insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)), or generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Here, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 1, and 12 recite the additional elements of, for example, a central service, an application on a mobile computing device, gaming console, receipt of authorization indications and the location indications by the central service, IoT devices, etc.. The central service, application on a mobile computing device, and the gaming console are recited at high level of generality that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014).
The receiving, pairing, authorizing, and determining steps of the claims are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation for the use of the judicial exception and similarly are recited at a high level of generality. Thus, these limitations are a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g), See also selecting a particular source and type of data to be manipulated where “Selecting information, based on types of information and availability of information in a power-grid environment, for collection, analysis and display, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1354-55, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1742 (Fed. Cir. 2016)).
Even when the limitations are viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the organizing activities needed to be performed, using the one of more computer components as tools. The additional elements do no more than confine the abstract access-control rules to a computer environment and supply the data on which those rules operate. There is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Latric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality).
Furthermore, the additional elements do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
Accordingly, Claims 1 and 12 as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and these claims are directed to the judicial exception. Thus, Claims 1, 12 and their dependent claims lack the eligibility requirements of Step 2 Prong II.
Step 2B
Finally, under step 2B, the examiner evaluates whether the additional elements:
add a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present (MPEP 2106.05(d)); or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present (MPEP 2106.05(d) and Berkheimer Memo, April 20, 2018). Thus, the additional elements evaluated under Step 2A are re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if they are more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Claims 1 and 12 do not recite additional elements, individually or in combination, that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. As discussed above with respect to the lack of a practical application, the additional elements in the claim (i.e. central service, gaming console, an application on a mobile computing device, IoT devices, etc.) amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components used as tools. These additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable a game to be conducted by performing the basic functions of: (i) receiving, processing, and storing data, (ii) automating mental tasks and (iii) receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Further, under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be reevaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
Here, the determining, receiving, authorizing, and pairing steps of the claims are deemed to be data gathering and data presentation extra-solution activity. Court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that these limitations are well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as they are here). See storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv) and then to present or display said information is well known as in presenting offers and gathering statistics (MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii).
The limitations added by the dependent claims do not supply an inventive concept for the same reasons above. Gathering further data of the same kind, gathering a different type of data, gathering data on a schedule or upon a trigger, specifying the informational content of the data gathered, and erasing more data rather than less are each conventional at the level of generality recited. Therefore, these limitations remain insignificant extra-solution activity even upon reconsideration, and do not amount to significantly more.
Accordingly, a conclusion that the step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer.
Thus, Claims 1 and 12, and their dependent claims remain ineligible.
Response to Arguments/Remarks
Applicant’s arguments filed 05/26/2026 with the amendments have been fully considered.
On pages 10-11, regarding the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, these arguments are persuasive and that rejection is withdrawn. The rejection of Claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Jung in view of Martin is withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to Independent Claims 1 and 12. Independent Claim 1 as amended requires “… the gamer profile comprises gamer profile data managed by the central service … wherein logging the gamer profile in creates login artifacts stored on the gaming console, and providing access to at least a portion of the gamer profile data; … deauthorizing, by the central service, … and instructing the gaming console to delete at least a portion of the login artifacts.” Independent Claim 12 recites corresponding requirements. Neither Jung nor Martin, alone or in combination, discloses the amended Claim language.
On pages 9-10, Applicant addresses the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 101. Examiner respectfully disagrees and has found these arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that prior action failed to indicate the sub-grouping of the abstract idea (Remarks, pp. 9-10). The sub-grouping is now identified expressly as (1) managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules) – categorized in the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity; and (2) concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) – categorized in the grouping of mental processes.
Applicant argues that “… the recited steps are not a set of steps or rules followed by a person or a computer … rather, claim 1 recites new functionality that allows a user to leverage a mobile device application login to facilitate a proximity-based login on a gaming console” (Remarks, p. 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 is a set of rules in that the claim states what is to be done upon the occurrence of specified conditions. For example, the claim recites “… pairing, by the central service, the first authorization indication and the second authorization indication in response to determining, by the central service, proof- of-presence of the mobile computing device and the gaming console based on the first location indication and the second location indication exceeding a pairing threshold … in response to the pairing, authorizing, by the central service, the proximity-based login … in response to determining loss of the proof-of-presence, deauthorizing, by the central service, the proximity-based login … and instructing the gaming console to delete at least a portion of the login artifacts.”
Regarding the new functionality feature that Applicant recites, that is directed to novelty rather than eligibility. A claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. In Ultramercial, which was affirmed by the Supreme Court, it was found that a novel abstract idea is no less abstract (Ultramercial unpersuasively argued that “abstract ideas remain patent-eligible under §101 as long as they are new ideas, not previously well known, and not routine activity”), and that an abstract idea which is “not tied to any particular novel machine or apparatus” is not sufficient to demonstrate patent-eligibility. Though the prior art does not demonstrate the abstract idea game method, the Ultramercial court rejected this as a reason to find claims directed to an abstract idea patent-eligible in the absence of “something more.”
Applicant argues that “the Office Action has provided a blanket dismissal of every element of
claim 1 as being at the same time directed to the abstract idea (See p. 6) and additional elements
directed to data gathering extra-solution activity (See p. 8). The Office Action has fallen into the trap of allowing the exception to swallow the rule with this oversimplification of the claims and high level of abstraction untethered to the claim language, as warned against by the Federal Circuit. Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 2015-1244 (Fed. Cir. May 12, 2016).” (Remarks p. 9-10).
Here the present rejection/analysis does not treat the limitations as such. The limitations forming the exception are identified and consist of the receiving…a first authorization, receiving…a second authorization, pairing, determining, authorizing, and deauthorizing. The additional elements are separately identified and consist of the central service, the application, mobile computing device, gaming console, and artifact storage and deletion. Also, the claims in Enfish here are distinguishable from the claims of this case. The claims in Enfish were held not to be directed to an abstract idea because the self-referential table was a specific improvement to the way computers operate, in that the database itself functioned differently and better. See Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft, 822 F.3d 1327, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, the gaming console logs a profile in and out in the ordinary way. The mobile application authenticates in the ordinary way and the central service exchanges messages in the ordinary way. What the claim changes is when and on what condition the access is granted and withdrawn, not how any component operates.
Applicant argues that “even if claim 1 were deemed to be directed to an abstract idea, which the Applicant does not agree with or concede, claim 1 improves computer technology and integrates any possible abstract ideas into a practical application. Improvements are explained throughout the filed specification and particularly at paragraph [0029]. Such improvements are included in claim 1, which recites elements that provide a secure, efficient, temporary proximity-based login that improves security of user profiles by automatically logging the user out of the temporarily used gaming console based on a behind-the-scenes confirmation that the associated mobile device is no longer in the vicinity of the gaming console. Upon determining the temporary proximity-based login is no longer valid, the proximity-based login is deactivated and certain data is removed from the gaming console to limit unnecessary resource usage and improve security. Further, memory and resource usage are reduced by expediting the login process using the authentication previously obtained by the user via the mobile device application. These elements elevate claim 1 to a practical application that improves technology in a concrete manner” (Remarks, p. 10, citing specification paragraph [0029]).
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, the asserted improvement that Applicant recites is an improvement to the abstract idea itself and not a change in how a computer or a network functions. Revoking a person’s access when that person is no longer present is better characterized as access-control. An eligible improvement must be to the computer or technology as a tool, not merely a better result obtained by using the computer as a tool. See Custommedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Benefits that flow from the performing the abstract idea are not technological improvements. (See BSG Tech, 899 F.3d at 1288 - an improvement to the data or information stored by a database is not an improvement to the operational functionality of the database itself).
Secondly, the improvement recited is not reflected in the claims. Under MPEP §2106.05(a), after the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. Here, Claim 1 recites no mechanism by which memory or resource usage is reduced. It does not recite any measure of storage or processing saved, any comparison to a conventional login, or any technique by which the prior application authentication “expedites” the console login. The asserted efficiency is argued, not claimed.
Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 is maintained.
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 SHAUNA-KAY HALL whose telephone number is (571)270-1419. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-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, Xuan Thai can be reached at (571) 272-7147. 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.
/S.N.H/Examiner, Art Unit 3715
/XUAN M THAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3715
Prosecution Insights