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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/23/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 recites a judicial exception, is directed to that judicial exception, an abstract idea, as it has not been integrated into a practical application and the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception. The examiner has evaluated the claims under the framework provided in the 2019 Patent Eligibility Guidance published in the Federal Register 01/07/2019 and has provided such analysis below.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are directed to one or more processors and fall within the statutory category of machines, claims 9-16 are directed to a system and fall within the statutory category of machines, and claims 17-20 are directed to a method and fall within the statutory category of processes. Therefore, “Are the claims to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?” Yes.
In order to evaluate the Step 2A inquiry “Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?” we must determine, at Step 2A Prong 1, whether the claim recites a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea and further whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2A Prong 1:
Claim 1: The limitation “generate, …, one or more representations of one or more responsive agent actions categorized corresponding to the standardized interaction modalities or the standardized categories of actions by the interaction categorization schema”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate an interaction categorization schema and mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, one or more representations of one or more responsive agent actions categorized using the interaction categorization schema.
Claim 9: The limitation “generate, …, executing one or more instruction lines of one or more interaction flows that are composed in an interaction modeling language and represent one or more flows of one or more human-machine interactions using an interaction categorization schema using syntax that incorporates standardized interaction modalities or standardized categories of actions represented by an interaction categorization schema, one or more responsive agent actions”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate an interaction categorization schema and mentally execute, with or without the use of pen and paper, one or more instruction lines of one or more interaction flows that are composed in an interaction modeling language using syntax that incorporates standardized interaction modalities or standardized categories of actions represented by an interaction categorization schema.
Claim 17: The limitation “generating, based at least on executing one or more instruction lines of one or more interaction flows that are composed using syntax that incorporates the standardized interaction modalities or the standardized categories of actions, one or more representations of one or more responsive agent actions categorized corresponding to the standardized interaction modalities or the standardized categories of actions represented by the interaction categorization schema”, as drafted, is a process that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. For example, a person can think and observe, judge and evaluate an interaction categorization schema and mentally generate, with or without the use of pen and paper, based at least on executing one or more instruction lines of one or more interaction flows that are composed using syntax that incorporates the standardized interaction modalities or the standardized categories of actions, one or more representations of one or more responsive agent actions categorized corresponding to the standardized interaction modalities or the standardized categories of actions represented by the interaction categorization schema.
Therefore, yes, claims 1, 9, and 17 recite a judicial exception.
Step 2A Prong 2:
Claim 1: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – (1) “processing circuitry”, (2) “the interpreter executing one or more instruction lines of one or more interaction flows that are composed in the interaction modeling language”, (3) “receive, by an interpreter of an interactive agent platform associated with an interactive agent, one or more representations of one or more detected user actions categorized corresponding to standardized interaction modalities or standardized categories of actions represented by an interaction categorization schema that defines standardized interactions incorporated by an interaction modeling language”, and (4) “cause, based at least on the one or more representations of the one or more responsive agent actions, presentation of a rendering of the interactive agent executing the one or more responsive agent actions.” Additional elements (1) and (2) are merely recitations of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Additional elements (3) and (4) are merely recitations of data gathering (i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity) and field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 9: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “an interpreter of an interactive agent platform associated with an interactive agent” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application and “one or more responsive agent actions that trigger presentation of a rendering of the interactive agent executing the one or more responsive agent actions”, which is merely a recitation of data gathering (i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity) which do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Claim 17: The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the following additional elements – “receiving one or more representations of one or more detected user actions categorized corresponding to standardized interaction modalities or standardized categories of actions represented by an interaction categorization schema” and “cause, based at least on the one or more representations of the one or more responsive agent actions, presentation of a rendering corresponding to execution of the one or more responsive agent actions”, which are merely recitations of data gathering (i.e., insignificant extra-solution activity) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B:
Claim 1: The claim does not recite additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, mere data gathering, and field of use/technological environment which do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9: The claim does not recite additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than generic computing components which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 17: The claim does not recite additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element amounts to no more than mere data gathering which does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Therefore, “Do the claims recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?” No, these additional elements, alone or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Having concluded analysis within the provided framework, claims 1, 9, and 17 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 2, 10, and 18 recite the additional element of “the interpreter supports classifying user actions and agent actions using the interaction categorization schema” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 2, 10, and 18 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 2, 10, and 18 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 2, 10, and 18 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 3, 11, and 19 recite the additional element of “the interpreter supports classifying human-machine interactions corresponding to standardized interaction modalities represented by the interaction categorization schema” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 3, 11, and 19 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 3, 11, and 19 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 3, 11, and 19 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 4 and 12 recite the additional element of “the interpreter supports classifying human-machine interactions into standardized categories of actions of the interaction categorization schema” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 4 and 12 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 4 and 12 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 4 and 12 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 5 recites the additional element of “the one or more interaction flows represent a flow of human-machine interactions in the interaction modeling language” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 5 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 5 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 5 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 6 and 14 recite the additional element of “the one or more interaction flows comprise at least one keyword or at least one command that represents at least one standardized human-machine interaction using the interaction categorization schema” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 6 and 14 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 6 and 14 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 6 and 14 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 7 and 15 recite the additional element of “the interpreter supports classifying at least one of an observed state of a user action, a current state of an agent or scene action, or a command to change the current state of the agent or scene action using the interaction categorization schema” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 7 and 15 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 7 and 15 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 7 and 15 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claims 8, 16, and 20 recite the additional element of “wherein the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of: a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine; a system for performing simulation operations; a system for performing digital twin operations; a system for performing light transport simulation; a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets; a system for performing deep learning operations; a system for performing remote operations; a system for performing real-time streaming; a system for generating or presenting one or more of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content; a system implemented using an edge device; a system implemented using a robot; a system for performing conversational AI operations; a system implementing one or more language models; a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs); a system implementing one or more vision language models (VLMs); a system implementing one or more multimodal language models; a system for generating synthetic data; a system for generating synthetic data using AI; a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs); a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources” which is merely a recitation of field of use/technological environment (see MPEP § 2106.05(h)) which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 8, 16, and 20 do not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claims 8, 16, and 20 fail both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claims 8, 16, and 20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim 13 recites the additional element of “the one or more interaction flows instruct one or more agent or scene actions to generate in response to one or more detected user actions” which is merely a recitation of generic computing components and functions being used as a tool to apply the abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)), which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 13 does not recite any further additional elements and for the same reasons as above with regard to integration into a practical application and whether additional elements amount to significantly more, claim 13 fails both Step 2A Prong 2 for being directed to a judicial exception that has not been integrated into a practical application and Step 2B for not amounting to significantly more. Therefore, claim 13 does not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Therefore, claims 1-20 do not recite patent eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Weider et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0231182, hereinafter “Weider”).
Claims 1, 9, and 17:
Weider discloses one or more processors comprising processing circuitry (§ 0114, Lines 6-8; One or more central processing units) to:
receive, by an interpreter of an interactive agent platform associated with an interactive agent (§ 0134, Lines 2-4; Enhanced conversational user interface 800 receives multi-modal input from users 802 and communicates with a conversational speech analyzer 804), one or more representations of one or more detected user actions categorized corresponding to standardized interaction modalities or standardized categories of actions (“domain”) represented by an interaction categorization schema that defines standardized interactions incorporated by an interaction modeling language (§ 0120, Lines 10-14; The knowledge-enhanced speech recognition may use context specific matchers that are able to identify context such as time, location, numbers, dates, categories (e.g., music, movies, television, addresses, etc.) and other context) (§ 0193, Lines 5-10; The parser may determine a context for an utterance. The context of a question or command may determine the domain and, thereby, the domain agent 156, if any, to be invoked) (§ 0155, Lines 1-5; Domain agents 156 may be data-driven, scripted or created with compiled code. Agents created with compiled code are typically built into dynamically linkable or loadable libraries) (§ 0167, Lines 1-3 and 7-12; New commands, keywords, information, or information sources can be added to any domain agent 156 by changing agent data or scripting. Thus, the modification of the domain agents 156 may range from minor data-driven updates by even the most casual users, such as specifying the spelling of words, to development of complex behavior using the scripting language as would typically be done by a domain expert);
generate, based at least on the interpreter executing one or more instruction lines of one or more interaction flows that are composed in the interaction modeling language (§ 0130, Lines 1-7 and 9-12; In order for devices to properly respond to requests and/or commands that are submitted in a natural language form, machine processable requests and/or algorithms may be formulated after the natural form questions or commands have been parsed and interpreted. Algorithms describe how the machines should gather data to respond to the questions or commands. Several requests and algorithms may need to be initiated and even these requests and algorithms may need to be chained or concatenated to achieve a complete response), one or more representations of one or more responsive agent actions categorized corresponding to the standardized interaction modalities or the standardized categories of actions by the interaction categorization schema (§ 0209, Lines 1-5; The domain agent 156, which is specific to the context of the command as disclosed in § 0196, ln. 1-3, may continue to make queries and evaluate results until a satisfactory response is constructed); and
cause, based at least on the one or more representations of the one or more responsive agent actions, presentation of a rendering of the interactive agent executing the one or more responsive agent actions (§§ 0205-0206; If no satisfactory answer can be inferred from the results of the query, the agent can ask the user for more information, typically through the speech interface, and based on the results obtained formulate new queries) (§ 0212, Lines 1-3; Once the domain agent 156 has created a satisfactory response to a question, or to a command, the agent may format that response for presentation).
Claim 9 is a system claim corresponding to the processing circuitry of claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same reasoning.
The method of claim 17 is implemented by the processing circuitry of claim 1 and is therefore rejected with the same rationale.
Claims 2, 10, and 18:
Weider further discloses wherein the interpreter supports classifying user actions and agent actions using the interaction categorization schema (§ 0120, Lines 10-14; The knowledge-enhanced speech recognition may use context specific matchers that are able to identify context such as time, location, numbers, dates, categories (e.g., music, movies, television, addresses, etc.) and other context) (§ 0193, Lines 5-10; The parser may determine a context for an utterance. The context of a question or command may determine the domain and, thereby, the domain agent 156, if any, to be invoked).
Claims 3, 11, and 19:
Weider further discloses wherein the interpreter supports classifying human-machine interactions (§ 0193, Lines 5-10; The parser may determine a context for an utterance. The context of a question or command may determine the domain and, thereby, the domain agent 156, if any, to be invoked) corresponding to standardized interaction modalities represented by the interaction categorization schema (§ 0120, Lines 10-14; The knowledge-enhanced speech recognition may use context specific matchers that are able to identify context such as time, location, numbers, dates, categories (e.g., music, movies, television, addresses, etc.) and other context).
Claims 4 and 12:
Weider further discloses wherein the interpreter supports classifying human-machine interactions into standardized categories of actions of the interaction categorization schema (§ 0120, Lines 10-14; The knowledge-enhanced speech recognition may use context specific matchers that are able to identify context such as time, location, numbers, dates, categories (e.g., music, movies, television, addresses, etc.) and other context).
Claim 5:
Weider further discloses wherein the one or more interaction flows represent a flow of human-machine interactions in the interaction modeling language (§ 0205, Lines 15-16; If no satisfactory answer can be inferred from the results of the query, the agent can:) (§ 0206, Lines 1-3; Ask the user for more information, typically through the speech interface, and based on the results obtained formulate new queries).
Claims 6 and 14:
Weider further discloses wherein the one or more interaction flows comprise at least one keyword or at least one command that represents at least one standardized human-machine interaction (§ 0201, Lines 4-7; Based on the question, command or context and the parameters or criteria, the domain agent may create one or more queries to one or more local or external information sources) using the interaction categorization schema (§ 0120, Lines 10-14; The knowledge-enhanced speech recognition may use context specific matchers that are able to identify context such as time, location, numbers, dates, categories (e.g., music, movies, television, addresses, etc.) and other context).
Claims 7 and 15:
Weider further discloses wherein the interpreter supports classifying at least one of an observed state of a user action (“follow-up”) (§ 0126, Lines 2-11; Multi-modal communications enable displaying of non-speech search results on a graphical interface and receipt of speech commands to provide a follow-up search. For example, the user may be presented with textual search results corresponding to a name of a famous person and the user may provide a speech command to find a biography of the famous person. The system may maintain the context of the textual search results to find the biography associated with the famous person), a current state of an agent or scene action, or a command to change the current state of the agent or scene action using the interaction categorization schema.
Claims 8, 16, and 20:
Weider further discloses wherein the one or more processors are comprised in at least one of:
a control system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a perception system for an autonomous or semi-autonomous machine;
a system for performing simulation operations;
a system for performing digital twin operations;
a system for performing light transport simulation;
a system for performing collaborative content creation for 3D assets;
a system for performing deep learning operations;
a system for performing remote operations (§ 0147, Lines 17-21; Algorithms typically result in actions taken by the system 90 itself, or to a remote device or data source, through the network interface to the Internet or other data interface);
a system for performing real-time streaming;
a system for generating or presenting one or more of augmented reality content, virtual reality content, or mixed reality content;
a system implemented using an edge device;
a system implemented using a robot;
a system for performing conversational AI operations (§ 0134, Lines 2-4; Enhanced conversational user interface 800 that receives multi-modal input from users 802 and communicates with a conversational speech analyzer 804);
a system implementing one or more language models (§ 0134, Lines 17-20; Conversational speech analyzer 804 also may include a semantic knowledge-based model that analyzes the textual message and detects command components);
a system implementing one or more large language models (LLMs);
a system implementing one or more vision language models (VLMs);
a system implementing one or more multimodal language models (§ 0134, Lines 2-4; Enhanced conversational user interface 800 that receives multi-modal input from users 802 and communicates with a conversational speech analyzer 804);
a system for generating synthetic data;
a system for generating synthetic data using AI;
a system incorporating one or more virtual machines (VMs);
a system implemented at least partially in a data center; or
a system implemented at least partially using cloud computing resources.
Claim 13:
Weider further discloses wherein the one or more interaction flows instruct one or more agent or scene actions (“follow-up search”) to generate in response to one or more detected user actions (§ 0126, Lines 2-11; Multi-modal communications enable displaying of non-speech search results on a graphical interface and receipt of speech commands to provide a follow-up search. For example, the user may be presented with textual search results corresponding to a name of a famous person and the user may provide a speech command to find a biography of the famous person. The system may maintain the context of the textual search results to find the biography associated with the famous person).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive:
Applicant argues on pages 11-13 that Weider’s code or logic, rather than the programming language itself, defines the standardized interaction modalities or standardized categories of actions and that the claimed standardized interactions are defined at the language level via the interaction categorization schema rather than being merely implemented as code composed in any programming language. Further, Applicant argues that the fact that a responsive agent action is generated is not proof that it is categorized at all because it is not established how domain-specific response generation is represented or categorized. The examiner disagrees with both arguments. The claims do not differentiate between the standardized interactions being defined at the language level via the interaction categorization schema rather than being merely implemented as code composed in any programming language. The only requirement is that an interaction categorization schema defines standardized interactions incorporated by an interaction modeling language. Weider’s domain agents 156, which uses an interaction categorization schema that defines standardized interactions as detailed in the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 17 above, may be data-driven, scripted or created with compiled code, which are typically built into dynamically linkable or loadable libraries. Thus, either of Weider’s scripting or programming language reasonably reads on the claimed interaction modeling language. Further, Weider’s domain agents are invoked based on the context or domain associated with the question or command, which inherently demonstrates responsive agent actions are categorized based on context or domain (see Weider, § 0194, Lines 1-3 and § 0196, Lines 1-3).
Applicant argues on pages 13-17 that (1) the claimed generating is expressly tied to an interpreter, execution of instruction lines, and execution by a physical machine, so it cannot properly be characterized as a mental process, (2) using standardized interaction modalities or standardized categories of actions promotes a number of technological benefits such as configurability, interoperability, and making a designer’s life easier by reducing their cognitive load in developing an interactive system. The examiner disagrees. Regarding (1), the interpreter, execution of instruction lines, and execution by a physical machine are recitations of generic computing components or functions. The pertinent limitations are processes that, but for the recitation of generic computing components, under their broadest reasonable interpretations, cover performance of the limitations in the mind. Regarding (2), data gathering is not an improvement either individually or in combination with the other additional elements of each respective independent claim and does not realize the improvements cited by applicant.
For these reasons, the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 USC 101 and 35 USC 102 are respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0253765 (Degani et al.) – Provide a language for modeling interactions between humans and machines.
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 NAM T TRAN whose telephone number is (408)918-7553. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7AM-3PM EST.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
/NAM T TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights