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 .
Detailed Action
In amendments dated 7/21/26, Applicant amended claims 1, 9, 12-13, and 20, canceled no claims, and added no new claims. Claims 1-20 are presented for examination.
Claim Construction
Examiner notes, in amendments from 2/19/26, amended claim 12 began with “The method of claim [1]1.” In the prior amendments to those, dated 8/20/25, claim 12 began with “The method of claim 11.” Because the entire rest of claim 12 was (properly) amended in the 2/19/26 amendments, Examiner believed the excerpted language was unclear as it appeared to incorrectly indicate prior dependency on claim 1, so Examiner construed claim 12 as still depending on claim 11. The present 7/21/26 amendments recite the same amendment for claim 12 (“The method of claim [1]1”) so the language excerpted above for claim 12 in the 2/19/26 claim now looks like it was amended but incorrectly per 37 C.F.R. 1.121(c)(2) (“The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters.”) and Applicant was attempting to change the dependency to claim 1. Examiner notes the present amendment for claim 12 uses single brackets instead of double brackets for deletion of text and is likewise incorrect per 37 C.F.R. 1.121(c)(2). Applicant’s Remarks on page 10 give no guidance on whether Examiner’s construction of claim 12 from his 4/21/26 office action as depending on claim 11 was correct but, per this amendment, Examiner now construes claim 12 to depend on claim 1.
Objections
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the fourth amendment is in the middle of the claim and recites “analyzing the first set of text to identify one or more terms in the first set of text.” MPEP 608.01(m) states “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period. Periods may not be used elsewhere in the claims except for abbreviations;” and
also in the fourth limitation, “the first set of text” lacks antecedent basis.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. This claim depends on claim 13 and recites “determining embedding-based representations of the set of terms, wherein the similarity scores indicated by the similarity profile are based upon the embedding-based representations,” and this language is also recited as the amended language in claim 13. Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to mental processes without significantly more. Independent claim 1 recites responsive to the one or more user interactions via the content item creation interface, determining a set of content items determined to be similar to content item text associated with the one or more user interactions, wherein determining the set of content items comprises determining similarity scores between the content item text associated with the one or more user interactions and sets of content item text associated with a plurality of content items, and selecting the set of content items based upon the similarity scores; determining one or more terms from the content item text associated with the one or more user interactions; determining one or more additional terms from the set of content items, wherein the one or more additional terms comprise at least one of one or more text-based terms from text of the set of content items or one or more image-based terms from one or more images of the set of content items; determining a set of terms comprising both (i) the one or more terms from the content item text associated with the one or more user interactions and (ii) the one or more additional terms from the set of content items; determining a similarity profile indicative of similarity scores associated with similarities between terms of the set of terms; determining, based upon the similarity profile, relevance scores associated with the set of terms; selecting, based upon the relevance scores, one or more search terms from among the set of terms; performing, based upon the one or more search terms, an image search using an image database; and responsive to the selection of the image via the content item creation interface, combining at least a portion of the image with a first set of content item text to generate a content item. Determining a set of content items to be similar to content item text, determining similarity scores, selecting a set of content items, determining one or more terms from the content item text, determining one or more additional terms from the set of content items, determining a set of terms, determining a similarity profile, determining relevance scores, and selecting one or more search terms from the set of terms each involve evaluation and are mental processes. Performing an image search and combining at least a portion of an image with a first set of content item text are each recited broadly and are mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. This claim recites additional elements of receiving, via the content item creation interface, one or more user interactions; and receiving, via the content item creation interface, a selection of an image of a plurality of images in the set of search results, which are each input steps and insignificant extra-solution activity, and displaying a content item creation interface via a client device; and presenting the generated content item to one or more client devices, which are each output steps and also insignificant extra-solution activity. Examiner notes specification paragraph 0041 states finding an image for inclusion in a content item may be difficult, and paragraph 0042 states “by determining and using the additional terms (e.g., image-based terms and/or text-based terms) from the set of content items to generate the image search query, the image search query may be generated with increased accuracy.” Examiner notes the claims now recite determining additional terms but said determining steps are recited broadly. Examiner does not see how the invention determining additional terms provides improvements to generate a search query with increased accuracy. Thus the claim steps still do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, the input steps and output steps are each recited broadly and amount to receiving and sending data across a network per specification paragraph 0027 and figure 1 components 106 and 108, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. Therefore the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Independent claim 13 recites determining one or more terms from content item text; determining one or more additional terms from a set of content items, wherein the one or more additional terms comprise at least one of one or more text- based terms from text of the set of content items or one or more image-based terms from one or more images of the set of content items; determining a set of terms comprising both (i) the one or more terms from the content item text and (ii) the one or more additional terms from the set of content items; determining embedding-based representations of the set of terms; determining a similarity profile indicative of similarity scores associated with similarities between terms of the set of terms, wherein the similarity scores indicated by the similarity profile are based upon the embedding-based representations; determining, based upon the similarity profile, relevance scores associated with the set of terms; selecting, based upon the relevance scores, one or more search terms from among the set of terms; performing a search based upon the one or more search terms; and responsive to the selection of the image in the set of search results, combining at least a portion of the image with a first set of text to generate a content item. Determining one or more terms from content item text, determining one or more additional terms from a set of content items, determining a set of terms, selecting one or more search terms from among the set of terms, and performing a search each involve evaluation and are mental processes. Determining embedding-based representations of the set of terms, determining a similarity profile, determining relevance scores, and combining at least a portion of the image with a first set or text are each recited broadly and are mental processes accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. This claim recites additional elements of receiving, from the client device, a selection of an image of a plurality of images in the set of search results, a data gathering step and insignificant extra-solution activity; sending, to a client device, a set of search results of the search; and at least one of presenting the generated content item to one or more other client devices or determining a target audience for the generated content item, which are each output steps and also insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 13 recites a processor and memory comprising processor-executable instructions, which are generic components of a computer. Examiner notes the specification recites problems in the technology as described in paragraphs 0041 and 0042 above and also notes the determining of additional terms without reciting the specific improvements of the invention that lead to generating search queries with increased accuracy. Thus the claim steps still do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, the input steps and output steps are each recited broadly and amount to receiving and sending data across a network per specification paragraph 0027 and figure 1 components 106 and 108, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The processor and memory comprising processor-executable instructions, are still generic components of a computer. Therefore the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Independent claim 20 recites selecting, based upon the first set of content item text and a plurality of sets of content item text associated with a plurality of content items, a set of content items from among the plurality of content items, wherein the plurality of content items comprise one or more additional terms from the set of content items, wherein the one or more additional terms comprise at least one of one or more text-based terms from text of the set of content items or one or more image-based terms from one or more images of the set of content items; analyzing the first set of text to identify one or more terms in the first set of text. determining, based upon the first set of content item text and the one or more additional terms, a set of terms, wherein the one or more terms are included in the set of terms; determining embedding-based representations, of the set of terms, comprising: a first embedding-based representation of a first term of the set of terms; a second embedding-based representation of a second term of the set of terms; and a third embedding-based representation of a third term of the set of terms; determining a first measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the second embedding-based representation; determining a second measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the third embedding-based representation; determining, based upon the first measure of similarity and the second measure of similarity, a similarity profile indicative of similarity scores associated with similarities between terms of the set of terms. Selecting a set of content items, determining a set of terms, determining embedding-based representations, determining a first measure of similarity, determining a second measure of similarity, and determining a similarity profile are each recited broadly and involve evaluating and thus are mental processes. Analyzing the first text to identify one or more terms is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper. This claim recites additional elements of receiving, via the content item creation interface, a first set of content item text, which is an input step and insignificant extra-solution activity; and displaying a content item creation interface via a client device; and displaying content via the content item creation interface based upon the similarity profile, which are each output steps and also insignificant extra-solution activity. Claim 20 recites a non-transitory machine-readable medium which is a generic component of a computer. Examiner notes the specification recites problems in the technology as described in paragraphs 0041 and 0042 above and also notes the determining of additional terms without reciting the specific improvements of the invention that lead to generating search queries with increased accuracy. While claim 20 recites embedding-based representations of the set of terms and measures of similarity using said embedding-based representations, Examiner did not see discussion in the specification of how this specifically leads to an improvement. Thus the claim steps still do not recite a particular improvement in any technology or function of a computer per MPEP 2106.04(d) and do not recite any unconventional steps in the invention per MPEP 2106.05(a). Therefore, the recited mental processes are not integrated into a practical application. Taking the claims as a whole, the input steps and output steps are each recited broadly and amount to receiving and sending data across a network per specification paragraph 0027 and figure 1 components 106 and 108, which are routine and conventional activities per the list of such activities in MPEP 2106.05(d) part II. The processor and memory comprising processor-executable instructions, are still generic components of a computer. Therefore the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited mental processes.
Claims 2 and 14 each recites determining, based upon the first set of content item text and a plurality of sets of content item text associated with a plurality of content items, a plurality of similarity scores associated with the plurality of sets of content item text, wherein: the plurality of sets of content item text comprises a second set of content item text of a first content item of the plurality of content items; and a first similarity score of the plurality of similarity scores is associated with a similarity between the first set of content item text and the second set of content item text (determining is recited broadly and a mental process); and selecting a set of content items from among the plurality of content items based upon the plurality of similarity scores (selecting is evaluating and a mental process). Claims 3 and 15 each recites selecting the set of content items from among the plurality of content items is based upon a determination that the set of content items are associated with highest similarity scores of the plurality of similarity scores (determining is recited broadly and a mental process). Claim 4 recites determining a first embedding-based representation of the first set of content item text, wherein the determining the plurality of similarity scores comprises determining the first similarity score based upon the first embedding-based representation and a second embedding-based representation of the second set of content item text of the first content item (determining is recited broadly and a mental process).
Claim 5 recites the image search is performed automatically and without requiring manual entry of a search query by a user after the selecting the one or more search terms (performing a search is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 6 recites wherein the one or more search terms are automatically generated from the set of terms without requiring manual entry of the one or more search terms as part of a search query by a user, thereby improving identification of images relevant to the content item text content item creation (generating search terms is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claims 7 and 18 each recites translating the first set of content item text in a first language to a translated set of content item text in a second language (translating content item text is a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and analyzing the translated set of content item text to identify one or more terms in the translated set of content item text, wherein the one or more terms are included in the set of terms (analyzing content item text is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claims 8 and 19 each recites analyzing an image of a first content item of the set of content items to determine one or more object terms of one or more objects in the image, wherein the one or more object terms are included in the set of terms (analyzing an image is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 9 recites wherein determining the one or more additional terms comprises determining a plurality of candidate additional terms from the set of content items (determining a plurality of candidate additional terms is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper), determining candidate-term similarity scores associated with similarities between the plurality of candidate additional terms and one or more terms of the content item text associated with the one or more user interactions (determining candidate-term similarity scores is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper), and selecting a subset of the plurality of candidate additional terms for inclusion in the set of terms based upon the candidate-term similarity scores (selecting a subset of the plurality of candidate additional terms involves evaluating and is a mental process). Claim 19 recites analyzing sets of content item text associated with content items of the set of content items to identify one or more terms in the sets of content item text, wherein the one or more terms are included in the set of terms (analyzing content items is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 10 recites determining, by generating a first embedding-based representation of the content item text and a plurality of embedding-based representations respectively corresponding to a plurality of stored content items, and computing similarity scores between the first embedding-based representation and the plurality of embedding-based representations using a cosine similarity measure, the set of content items based upon the similarity scores (determining a set of content items by generating an embedding-based representation and computing similarity scores is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Claim 11 recites determining embedding-based representations, of the set of terms, comprising: a first embedding-based representation of a first term of the set of terms; a second embedding-based representation of a second term of the set of terms; and a third embedding-based representation of a third term of the set of terms; determining a first measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the second embedding-based representation; and determining a second measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the third embedding-based representation (determining embedding-based representations and measures of similarity are each recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 12 recites extracting one or more text-based terms from content item text of the set of content items (extracting terms is recited and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper); and performing object detection on one or more images of the set of content items to identify one or more image-based terms associated with detected objects (detecting objects is recited and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper). Claim 16 recites determining embedding-based representations of the set of terms, wherein the similarity scores indicated by the similarity profile are based upon the embedding-based representations (determining is recited broadly and a mental process). Claim 17 recites analyzing the first set of content item text to identify one or more terms in the first set of content item text, wherein the one or more terms are included in the set of terms (analyzing a content item is recited broadly and a mental process accomplishable in the human mind or on paper).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, 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.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rathod in view of Zhang et al US 20120072220), hereafter Zhang.
displaying a content item creation interface via a client device (paragraph 0054 interface for creating publication or advertisement content items);
receiving, via the content item creation interface, a first set of content item text (paragraph 0325 create a story with content items, terms (user interactions figures 9-13));
selecting, based upon the first set of content item text and a plurality of sets of content item text associated with a plurality of content items, a set of content items from among the plurality of content items, wherein the plurality of content items comprise one or more additional terms from the set of content items, wherein the one or more additional terms comprise at least one of one or more text-based terms from text of the set of content items or one or more image-based terms from one or more images of the set of content items (paragraph 0325 create a story with content items, terms (user interactions figures 9-13)), paragraph 0325 figure 9, object keywords 960 for objects, paragraph 0325 figure 9, additional keywords 955, text-based terms for items);
analyzing the first set of text to identify one or more terms in the first set of text (paragraph 0325 figure 9, object keywords 960 for objects).
determining, based upon the first set of content item text and the one or more additional terms, a set of terms, wherein the one or more terms are included in the set of terms (paragraph 0325 figure 9, set of terms from keywords 960, additional terms 955);
determining, based upon the first measure of similarity and the second measure of similarity, a similarity profile indicative of similarity scores associated with similarities between terms of the set of terms (paragraph 0241 search with terms for media, contents, also paragraph 0325 figure 10); and
displaying content via the content item creation interface based upon the similarity profile (paragraph 0330 figure 12 displayed example 1209, 1223, also paragraph 0331 identify keywords matches with visual media items in figure 12B).
Rathod does not teach:
determining embedding-based representations, of the set of terms, comprising:
a first embedding-based representation of a first term of the set of terms;
a second embedding-based representation of a second term of the set of terms; and
a third embedding-based representation of a third term of the set of terms;
determining a first measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the second embedding-based representation;
determining a second measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the third embedding-based representation;
Zhang teaches these things:
determining embedding-based representations, of the set of terms, comprising:
a first embedding-based representation of a first term of the set of terms (paragraph 0101 determining weight vector of keywords in a text set (terms));
a second embedding-based representation of a second term of the set of terms (repetition of paragraph 0101 determining weight vector of keywords in a text set (terms)); and
a third embedding-based representation of a third term of the set of terms (repetition of paragraph 0101 determining weight vector of keywords in a text set (terms));
determining a first measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the second embedding-based representation (paragraph 0050 determine similarity of weight vectors between text sets);
determining a second measure of similarity between the first embedding-based representation and the third embedding-based representation (repetition of paragraph 0050 determine similarity of weight vectors between text sets);
It would have been obvious to have combined the functions of generating embedding-based representations of terms and determining measures of similarity between said embedding-based representations in Zhang with the content item creation techniques in Rathod as using vectors allows for more accurate similarity measurements between terms in text sets.
With respect to claim 20, Rathod also teaches a non-transitory machine readable medium (paragraph 0153 computer-readable medium containing instructions for invention).
Relevant Prior Art
During his search for prior art, Examiner found the following references to be relevant to Applicant's claimed invention. Each reference is listed on the Notice of References form included in this office action:
Zhu et al (US 10,235,387) teaches matching content items with images using keywords determined through user search history or a user’s activities, does not teach determining additional terms from content items, determining a similarity profile or similarity score with user terms, does teach performing a second image search but as part of a first search and not in a second instance using search terms based on the relevance scores (column 2 lines 51-61, column 4 lines 7-26, columns 7-9 lines 30-7 figure 2); and
Sayyadi-Harikandehe et al (US 20170031916) teaches searching for content items and considering the importance of each search word, past searches, and popularity of a content item such as a television program during a time period, does not teach determining additional terms from content items, determining a similarity profile or similarity score with user terms, does not teach performing a second image search (paragraphs 0023-0028, 0075-0076 figure 5).
Responses to Applicant’s Remarks
Regarding rejections of claims 1-5, 7-9, 11, and 13-20 for obviousness type double patenting over US Patent 12,050,658 in view of Rathod, Applicant’s amendments overcome Rathod’s teachings and these rejections are withdrawn. Regarding objection to claim 12 for unclear language, Examiner explained the earlier objection further above and notes the claim is now construed as depending on claim 1. Regarding rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102 of claims 1, 5, and 13 by Rathod, and rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 of claim 11 by Rathod in view of Zhang, claims 7, 10, and 18 by Rathod in view of Berg, and claim 12 by Rathod and Zhang in further view of Choi, Applicant’s amendments overcome Rathod’s and Zhang’s teachings, in particular selecting content items based on determined similarity scores, similarity scores indicated by a similarity profile are based upon embedding-based representations, and identifying terms in a first set of text, and these rejections are withdrawn. Regarding rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 by Rathod in view of Zhang, Applicant mentioned this rejection in his Remarks 15-16 but made no argument. Examiner believes Rathod and Zhang still teach amended claim 20 as shown in the rejection maintained above.
Regarding rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 101 for reciting mental processes without significantly more, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. On page 12 of his Remarks Applicant asserts “[e]ven assuming arguendo that certain recited determining or selecting operations involve an abstract idea, the pending claims integrate any such concept into a practical application,” and “[t]he claim therefore applies the alleged abstract concept in a specific computerized process for generating image-search terms and using those terms to retrieve images for content item creation.” On pages 12-13 Applicant asserts “[t]he Office states that the claims recite determining additional terms but do not show how determining additional terms provides improved generation of an image search query. The amended claim addresses that concern.” Examiner disagrees and notes that, while the amended claims recite additional steps including determining similarity scores and selecting content items based upon the similarity scores, these additional steps are also recited broadly and a BRI of determining similarity scores includes calculation with pen and paper. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) states "the courts do not distinguish between mental processes that are performed entirely in the human mind and mental processes that require a human to use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper or a slide rule) to perform the claim limitation," thus these steps are mental processes as shown in the rejections above. Said additional steps do not recite details showing how the invention determines those similarity scores or how the invention selects content items using those similarity scores. Thus while the claims now recite that determining additional terms from content item text is related to determining similarity scores, Examiner believes the claims still do not recite how determining additional terms provides improved generation of an image search query, which is described as a drawback in the art in specification paragraphs 0041-0042.
On pages 13-14 Applicant mentions the DDR Holdings LLC v. Hotels.com LLP case, which described a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks, which is not the case here. The claims here invoke a computer as a tool to perform generic limitations (determining similarity score, determining terms from content item text, determining additional terms from content items, determining a similarity profile, determining relevance scores, selecting the relevance scores, performing an image search, combining a portion of an image with content item text), and as the court opined in DDR Holdings, “recitation of generic computer limitations does not make an otherwise ineligible claim patent-eligible.” On page 14 Applicant discusses the Diamond v. Diehr case and the receiving and displaying limitations in the claims, which Examiner identified as insignificant extra-solution activity in the rejections above. Applicant asserts “[i]n claim 1, the interface, received interactions, similarity-score-based selection of content items, additional-term determination, similarity profile, relevance scores, selected search terms, image database search, display of image results, selected image, and generated content item are part of an ordered computerized process for generating and using an image-search query in the content item creation environment.” However, of all those activities, the interface only received user interactions and later in the claim the interface received a selection of an image. The claims do not actually recite the generation of the content item and do not actually recite the interface presenting the generated content item, and instead recite “presenting the generated content item” after the generation of the content item using the interface. Thus the interface merely links those other activities to a computer environment and does not integrate the recited mental processes into a practical application per MPEP 2106.04(d).
Also on page 14 Applicant discusses the McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games America Inc. case and asserts “[i]n McRO, the Federal Circuit found claims eligible where the claims recited a specific automated process that used claimed relationships to produce a result previously generated through human effort.” Unlike the claims in McRo, the present claims recite no rules or comparisons to said rules to improve a technology. The recited steps are broad and use a computer as a tool to perform and are not integrated into a practical application.
Conclusion
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRUCE M MOSER whose telephone number is (571)270-1718. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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.
/BRUCE M MOSER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154 9/25/26
