DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1, 3 – 16, and 18 – 20,, which are currently pending, are fully considered below.
Claims 2 and 17 are canceled.
Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 14, 15, 16, and 20 are amended.
No claims are new.
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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “none of these steps recited in features (1) and feature (2) are fully performable by the human mind or with pen and paper…” (remarks, pages 7 – 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees and addresses Applicant’s newly amended feature (1) and feature (2) in depth below.
Applicant argues that “at least the features of “determining a set of candidate keywords based on a segmentation processing” and “removing at least one noise word” recited in feature (1) and the feature of “providing (e.g. distributing) the first set of keywords and corresponding topic information” recited in feature (2) are clearly computer – implemented and evade performance in the mind,” (remarks, page 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Applicant argues that “at least the features of “determining a set of candidate keywords based on a segmentation processing” and “removing at least one noise word from the set of candidate keywords based on a relevance between the set of candidate keywords and the creation theme of the book” and “determining the first set of keywords based on a frequency of the set of candidate keywords after removal” recited in feature (1) clearly reference steps performed by the electronic device, and is as such an intrinsic part of the claimed solution, not in significant extra solution activity,” (remarks, page 8).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1, 16, and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim limitations of “determining a set of candidate keywords based on a word segmentation processing on the set of topic contents,” “removing at least one noise word from the set of candidate keywords based on a relevance between the set of candidate keywords and the creation theme of the book,” and “determining the first set of keywords based on a frequency of the set of candidate keywords after removal” fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Determining is drawn to collecting and analyzing data. Similarly, a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Removing omits words from consideration.
Accordingly, examiner maintains the previous ground of rejection, and this Office Action is made Final.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of mental processes and/or math without significantly more.
Claims 1, 16, and 20 recite:
obtaining, by the electronic device, a set of topic contents associated with a book content;
extracting, by the electronic device, a first set of keywords from the set of topic contents, the first set of keywords being associated with a creation theme of the book, wherein extracting a first set of keywords from the set of topic contents comprises:
determining a set of candidate keywords based on a word segmentation processing on the set of topic contents;
removing at least one noise word from the set of candidate keywords based on a relevance between the set of candidate keywords and the creation theme of the book; and
determining the first set of keywords based on a frequency of the set of candidate keywords after removal; and
providing, by the electronic device, the first set of keywords and corresponding topic information, the topic information indicating a topic content in the set of topic contents that matches a corresponding keyword.
Step 2A Prong One: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law or nature,
or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 1, 16, and 20 limitations of “obtaining…” “extracting…” “determining…” “removing…” “determining…” and “providing…” recite abstract ideas as mental processes. The limitations may be done as mental processes, in the human mind.
MENTAL PROCESSES MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The courts consider a mental process (thinking) that "can be performed in the human mind, or by a human using a pen and paper" to be an abstract idea. CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1372, 99 USPQ2d 1690, 1695 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As the Federal Circuit explained, "methods which can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, are unpatentable abstract ideas the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ that are open to all.’" 654 F.3d at 1371, 99 USPQ2d at 1694 (citing Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972)). See also Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs. Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1965 (2012) ("‘[M]ental processes[] and abstract intellectual concepts are not patentable, as they are the basic tools of scientific and technological work’" (quoting Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 175 USPQ at 675)); Parker v. Flook, 437 U.S. 584, 589, 198 USPQ 193, 197 (1978) (same).
Accordingly, the "mental processes" abstract idea grouping is defined as concepts performed in the human mind, and examples of mental processes include observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions.
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. See, e.g., Benson, 409 U.S. at 67, 65, 175 USPQ at 674-75, 674 (noting that the claimed "conversion of [binary-coded decimal] numerals to pure binary numerals can be done mentally," i.e., "as a person would do it by head and hand."); Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1139, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that claims to a mental process of "translating a functional description of a logic circuit into a hardware component description of the logic circuit" are directed to an abstract idea, because the claims "read on an individual performing the claimed steps mentally or with pencil and paper").
Nor do the courts distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Step 2A Prong 2: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. Claims 1, 16, and 20 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. The claim limitations of “determining a set of candidate keywords based on a word segmentation processing on the set of topic contents,” “removing at least one noise word from the set of candidate keywords based on a relevance between the set of candidate keywords and the creation theme of the book,” and “determining the first set of keywords based on a frequency of the set of candidate keywords after removal” fail to recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Determining is drawn to collecting and analyzing data. Similarly, a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Removing omits words from consideration.
Integration of a Judicial Exception Into A Practical Application 2106.04(d)
The Supreme Court has long distinguished between principles themselves (which are not patent eligible) and the integration of those principles into practical applications (which are patent eligible). See, e.g., Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 80, 84, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1968-69, 1970 (2012) (noting that the Court in Diamond v. Diehr found ‘‘the overall process patent eligible because of the way the additional steps of the process integrated the equation into the process as a whole,’’ but the Court in Gottschalk v. Benson ‘‘held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle’’). Similarly, in a growing body of decisions, the Federal Circuit has distinguished between claims that are ‘‘directed to’’ a judicial exception (which require further analysis to determine their eligibility) and those that are not (which are therefore patent eligible), e.g., claims that improve the functioning of a computer or other technology or technological field. See Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 209 USPQ 1 (1981); Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972). See, e.g., MPEP § 2106.06(b) (summarizing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 118 USPQ2d 1684 (Fed. Cir. 2016), McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 120 USPQ2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and other cases that were eligible as improvements to technology or computer functionality instead of being directed to abstract ideas).
The Supreme Court and Federal Circuit have identified a number of considerations as relevant to the evaluation of whether the claimed additional elements demonstrate that a claim is directed to patent-eligible subject matter. The list of considerations here is not intended to be exclusive or limiting. Additional elements can often be analyzed based on more than one type of consideration and the type of consideration is of no import to the eligibility analysis. Additional discussion of these considerations, and how they were applied in particular judicial decisions, is provided in MPEP § 2106.05(a) through (c) and MPEP § 2106.05(e) through (h).
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2); [AltContent: rect]
Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
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, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
The courts have also identified limitations that did not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application:
Merely reciting the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(h).
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to
significantly more than the abstract idea?
No. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
THE SEARCH FOR AN INVENTIVE CONCEPT MPEP 2106.05(I)
The second part of the Alice/Mayo test is often referred to as a search for an inventive concept. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 217, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1981 (2014) (citing Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 71-72, 101 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (2012)).
An inventive concept "cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself." Genetic Techs. Ltd. v. Merial LLC, 818 F.3d 1369, 1376, 118 USPQ2d 1541, 1546 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See also Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 21-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 78, 101 USPQ2d at 1968 (after determining that a claim is directed to a judicial exception, "we then ask, ‘[w]hat else is there in the claims before us?") (emphasis added)); RecogniCorp, LLC v. Nintendo Co., 855 F.3d 1322, 1327, 122 USPQ2d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ("Adding one abstract idea (math) to another abstract idea (encoding and decoding) does not render the claim non-abstract"). Instead, an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 27-18, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As to claim 2, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 above. In addition, the claims recite ‘determining a set of candidate keywords based on a word segmentation processing on the set of topic contents; removing at least one noise word from the set of candidate keywords based on a relevance between the set of candidate keywords and the creation theme of the book; and determining the first set of keywords based on a frequency of the set of candidate keywords after removal.” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 1 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 2 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 3, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. In addition, the claims recite “obtaining a predetermined set of noise words, the set of noise words comprising a plurality of keywords indicated to be irrelevant to the creation theme of the book, and removing the at least one noise word from the set of candidate keywords that matches the set of noise words (obtaining and removing words can be done by a human).” The limitation merely describes the abstract idea of those claims without amounting to significantly more or reciting any practical application. As such, any obtaining does not carry patentable weight since they are steps not required to be performed by the claims. See MPEP §2111.04.
As to claim 4, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 above. In addition, the claims recite “extracting a second set of keywords associated with the first keyword from a plurality of topic contents that matches the first keyword, wherein a frequency of co-occurrence of the first keyword and the second set of keywords in the plurality of topic contents is higher than a threshold; and providing the second set of keywords in association with the first keyword.” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 1 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 4 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 5, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 above. In addition, the claim recites “wherein the topic information corresponding to a target keyword in the first set of keywords comprises at least one of the following: a title of at least one target topic content matching the target keyword; interaction information of the at least one target topic content; a picture associated with the at least one target topic content” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 1 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 5 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 6, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. In addition, the claim recites “displaying a viewing page of the topic content corresponding to the topic information based on a selection of the topic information.” displaying words can be done by a human).” The limitation merely describes the abstract idea of those claims without amounting to significantly more or reciting any practical application. As such, any obtaining does not carry patentable weight since they are steps not required to be performed by the claims. See MPEP §2111.04.
As to claim 7, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 above. In addition, the claim recites “determining a popularity of the first set of keywords based on interaction information of the set of topic contents; and providing popularity information associated with the first set of keywords, the popularity information indicating a change of the popularity of the first set of keywords over a predetermined period.” These features do not recite any function being performed besides determining and providing data. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 1 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 7 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 8, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 above. In addition, the claim recites “releasing a book associated with a second keyword based on a selection of the second keyword in the first set of keywords by a creator (releasing a book can be done by a human).” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 1 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 8 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 9, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. In addition, the claim recites “obtaining description information about a book to be released of a creator; and providing a promotion content associated with the book to be released in a target page associated with the creator based on the description information (obtaining and providing words can be done by a human).” The limitation merely describes the abstract idea of those claims without amounting to significantly more or reciting any practical application. As such, any obtaining does not carry patentable weight since they are steps not required to be performed by the claims. See MPEP §2111.04.
As to claim 10, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 above. In addition, the claim recites “receiving a selection of at least one keyword in the first set of keywords by the creator; and determining the description information about the book to be released based on the at least one selected keyword.” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 1 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 10 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 11, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 10 above. In addition, the claims recite “presenting a new book guidance page to the creator in response to a creation content of a released book of the creator exceeding a threshold; and obtaining the description information about the book to be released of the creator via the new book guidance page.” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 11 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 11 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 12, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 9 above. In addition, the claims recite “obtaining the description information of the created book based on a selection regarding an unreleased created book by the creator (obtaining and removing words can be done by a human).” The limitation merely describes the abstract idea of those claims without amounting to significantly more or reciting any practical application. As such, any obtaining does not carry patentable weight since they are steps not required to be performed by the claims. See MPEP §2111.04.
As to claim 13, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 above. In addition, the claims recite “a name of the book to be released; and or a summary of the book to be released.” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 1 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 13 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 14, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 1 and 9 above. In addition, the claims recite “wherein the target page comprises a viewing page of a released target book of the creator (a human can create a target or viewing page).” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 14 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 14 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 15, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. In addition, the claims recite “wherein the target book is determined from a set of books released by the creator based on a predetermined condition, and the predetermined condition comprises a completion status of a book and or an amount of created content of a book (obtaining and removing words can be done by a human).” The limitation merely describes the abstract idea of those claims without amounting to significantly more or reciting any practical application. As such, any obtaining does not carry patentable weight since they are steps not required to be performed by the claims. See MPEP §2111.04.
As to claim 17, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claims 16 above. In addition, the claims recite ‘determining a set of candidate keywords based on a word segmentation processing on the set of topic contents; removing at least one noise word from the set of candidate keywords based on a relevance between the set of candidate keywords and the creation theme of the book; and determining the first set of keywords based on a frequency of the set of candidate keywords after removal.” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 16 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 17 is directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
As to claim 18, the claims are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 above. In addition, the claims recite “obtaining a predetermined set of noise words, the set of noise words comprising a plurality of keywords indicated to be irrelevant to the creation theme of the book, and removing the at least one noise word from the set of candidate keywords that matches the set of noise words (obtaining and removing words can be done by a human).” The limitation merely describes the abstract idea of those claims without amounting to significantly more or reciting any practical application. As such, any obtaining does not carry patentable weight since they are steps not required to be performed by the claims. See MPEP §2111.04.
As to claim 19, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as claim 16 above. In addition, the claims recite “extracting a second set of keywords associated with the first keyword from a plurality of topic contents that matches the first keyword, wherein a frequency of co-occurrence of the first keyword and the second set of keywords in the plurality of topic contents is higher than a threshold; and providing the second set of keywords in association with the first keyword.” These features do not recite any function being performed. As such, they at best merely further describe the abstract idea, mental or math, being performed in claim 16 without any practical application or amounting to significantly more.
Additionally, because the features merely describe the data without any added functionality, the features of claim 19 are directed to non-functional descriptive material and do not carry patentable weight. See MPEP §2111.05.
Conclusion/Contact Information
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL whose telephone number is (571)270-3034. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALEXANDRIA Y BROMELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 June 13, 2026
Prosecution Insights