Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 21-47 are currently pending. Claims 21-38 are examined and Claims 39-40 are withdrawn. Claims 41-47 are added in the Claims filed on July 20, 2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on July 20, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by Examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of the Invention I (Claims 21-38) in the reply filed on July 20, 2026 is acknowledged. However, because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)). Hence, the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. As shown below, Claims 21-38 and 41-47 have been examined, in accordance with Applicant’s withdrawal of Claims 39-40.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 21-38 and 41-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 21 and 34, Claims 21 and 34 recite “[calculating] a mobility score based upon the data from the biosensor.” The Specification does not disclose how the mobility score is calculated based on the data obtained from the biosensor. For example, [00115] of the as-filed Specification discloses various types of data obtained from a wearable device, and [00121] of the as-filed Specification discloses that a dogs chronological age may be correlated with mobility issues. However, [00115] and [00121] of the as-filed Specification do not disclose a specific algorithm and/or set of steps explaining how the data from the biosensor and/or the chronological age of a subject is used to actually calculate a mobility score. That is, at most, the Claims and Specification disclose a set of inputs (i.e. the data from the wearable device and/or a chronological age), and an output (i.e. the mobility score), but does not disclose a specific methodology or algorithm explaining how the output is obtained from the inputs, and hence does not demonstrate that the inventor had possession of this feature at the time of filing.
Additionally, Claims 21 and 34 further recite “[determining] an age based upon the mobility score, the at least two traditional biomarkers and the at least one epigenetic marker.” [00286]-[00290] of the as-filled Specification disclose specific algorithms for calculating a phenotypic age based on chronological age and various biomarkers. However, as stated above, neither the Claims nor the Specification disclose a specific algorithm and/or set of steps explaining how the mobility is actually calculated. Hence, because the age is determined at least based on the mobility score, neither the Claims nor the Specification demonstrate that the inventor had possession at the time of filing of the determination of the age based on the mobility score, at least two traditional biomarkers, and at least one epigenetic marker feature as claimed in Claims 21 and 34.
Dependent Claims 22-33, 35-38, and 41-47 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) due to their dependence from independent Claims 21 and 34.
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 21-38 and 41-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 21-38 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 21-33 and 41-44 are drawn to a system for determining a feeding recommendation, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. machine). Claims 34-38 and 45-47 are drawn to a method for determining a feeding recommendation, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 21, which is representative of the inventive concept, recites: A system for generating a custom feeding recommendation for an individual companion animal comprising:
a biosensor, comprising a wearable device configured to measure at least one data point including physical activity comprising walking, running, resting, jumping, sleep time, sleep quality, and sleep regularity of the companion animal;
a processor configured to determine at least one of sex, neuter status, age and size of the companion animal;
a database associated with the processor; and
a program executable by the processor configured to:
receive data comprising (a) at least one digital biomarker from the biosensor including at least one data point; (b) at least two traditional biomarkers, comprising: WBC (white blood cell count), urea nitrogen, chloride, phosphorus, MCHC (mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration), MCV (mean corpuscular volume), MCH (mean corpuscular hemoglobin), RDW (red cell distribution width), eosinophils, lymphocytes, ALT (alanine aminotransferase), BUN (blood urea nitrogen), creatinine, BUN to creatinine ratio, sodium, triglycerides, platelet to lymphocyte ratio; and (c) at least one epigenetic marker including the DNA methylome;
calculate a mobility score based upon the data from the biosensor;
determine an age based upon the mobility score, the at least two traditional biomarkers and the at least one epigenetic marker; and
generate a customized feeding recommendation based on the determination, wherein the customized feeding recommendation comprises a nutrition profile configured to deliver a targeted energy level corresponding to the determined age.
The underlined limitations as shown above recite the abstract idea of a mathematical concept and/or a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite mathematical relationships, formulas, equations, and/or mathematical calculations (in this case, calculating a mobility score and determining an age include at least mathematical calculations), and/or managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case, the steps of measuring at least one data point including physical activity, determining a sex, neuter status, age, or size of a companion animal, receiving various types of marker data, calculating the mobility score based on the received physical activity data, determining an age based on the mobility score and the various marker data, and generating a customized feeding recommendation based on the determination include following rules or instructions for determining a feeding recommendation for a companion animal), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Furthermore, the abstract idea for Claim 34 is identical as the abstract idea for Claim 21, because the only difference between Claims 21 and 34 is that Claim 21 recites a system and its associated hardware structure, whereas Claim 34 recites a method.
Dependent Claims 22-33, 35-38, and 41-47 include other limitations, for example Claim 22-28, 31, and 37-38 recite particular types of data to be processed, Claim 30 recites obtaining additional types of data, Claim 35 recites evaluating the companion animal relative to a subject of the same age, Claim 36 recites determining acceleration or deceleration of phenotypic age, Claims 41 and 45 recite a particular type of animal and particular energy levels, Claims 42 and 46 recite particular nutrient levels of the nutrition profile, Claim 43 recites obtaining movement data at a sampling frequency and categorizing the movement data, and Claims 44 and 47 recite types of traditional biomarkers, but these only serve to further narrow the abstract idea, and a claim may not preempt abstract ideas, even if the judicial exception is narrow, e.g. see MPEP 2106.04, and/or do not further narrow the abstract idea and instead only recite additional elements, which will be further addressed below. Hence dependent Claims 22-33, 35-38, and 41-47 nonetheless recite the same abstract idea as independent Claims 21 and 34.
Hence Claims 21-38 and 41-47 recite the aforementioned abstract idea.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 21 and 34 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the biosensor, the processor, and the database) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the biosensor including the wearable device, the processor, and the database, which amounts to merely invoking a computer or other machinery as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see [0036]-[0037] and [00136]-[0137] of the as-filed Specification, and see MPEP 2106.05(f); and/or
generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use – for example, the claim language of the biosensor, and the types of data gathered, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Additionally, dependent Claims 22-33, 35-38, and 41-47 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception (e.g. the wearable device recited in dependent Claim 29, the various devices recited in dependent Claims 33, and 43), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the various types of data recited in dependent Claim 22-28, 30-31, 36-38, 41-42, and 44-47), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent Claims 21 and 34, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Hence Claims 21-38 and 41-47 do not include additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 21 and 34 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception because the additional elements (i.e. the non-underlined limitations above – in this case, the biosensor, the processor, and the database), as stated above, are directed towards no more than limitations that amount to mere instructions to apply the exception, generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, wherein the additional elements comprise limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The present Specification expressly disclosing that the structural additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
[0036]-[0037] and [00136] of the as-filed Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the biosensor, the processor, and the database) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems;
Relevant court decisions: The functional limitations interpreted as additional elements are analogized to the following examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec – similarly, the additional elements recite wirelessly transmitting/receiving data to/from the biosensor to the database and the processor, e.g. see [00238] of the as-filed Specification;
Performing repetitive calculations, e.g. see Parker v. Flook, and/or Bancorp Services v. Sun Life – similarly, the additional elements recite performing basic calculations (i.e. calculating a mobility score, determining a level of activity or age) and does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of the claims;
Electronic recordkeeping, e.g. see Alice Corp v. CLS Bank – similarly, the additional elements merely recite the creating and maintaining of the data on a database;
Dependent Claims 22-33, 35-38, and 41-47 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. the wearable device recited in dependent Claim 29, the various devices recited in dependent Claims 33, and 43), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the various types of data recited in dependent Claim 22-28, 30-31, 36-38, 41-42, and 44-47), and/or the limitations recited by the dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent Claims 21 and 34, and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Hence, Claims 21-38 and 41-47 do not include any additional elements that amount to “significantly more” than the judicial exception.
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, Claims 21-38 and 41-47 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Subject Matter Free From Prior Art
Claims 21-38 and 41-47 are not presently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103, and hence would be in condition for allowance if amended to overcome the rejections presented under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 101. The following represents Examiner’s characterization of the most relevant prior art references and the differences between the present claim language and the prior art references in view of 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103:
With regards to 35 U.S.C. 102 and/or 103, the following represents the closest prior art to the claimed invention, as well as the differences between the prior art and the limitations of the presently claimed invention.
Lo (US 2022/0013236) teaches a system that determines the activity level of a user based on various data received from a wearable sensor, for example sleep data, heart data, and/or temperature, levels of various chemicals, proteins, and/or cells, and data from an accelerometer, and transmits the data to a server for processing and/or analysis, e.g. see Lo [0012]-[0013], [0015], [0018], and [0020]. Additionally, the server utilizes the received data to determine a movement level of the subject, e.g. see Lo [0015], and combines the heart data with the accelerometer data to classify the user’s activity level, e.g. see Lo [0026]. However, Lo does not teach receiving at least two traditional biomarkers comprising WBC, urea nitrogen, chloride, phosphorus, MCHC, MCV, MCH, RDW, eosinophils, lymphocytes, ALT, BUN, creatinine, BUN to creatinine ratio, sodium, triglycerides, platelet to lymphocyte ratio. Additionally, Lo does not teach receiving at least one epigenetic marker including the DNA methylome. Moreover, Lo does not teach utilizing the at least two traditional biomarkers and the DNA methylome to determine the mobility score and subsequently the activity level or age. Additionally, Lo does not teach generating a customized feeding recommendation based on the determined activity level or age.
Kennedy (US 2020/0188327) teaches selecting an age-related phenotype consisting of a plurality of types including reduced mobility and modulation of DNA methylation, e.g. see Kennedy [0168]. That is, Kennedy teaches that reduced mobility and modulation of DNA methylation are factors in determining an age-related phenotype, but does not specifically teach calculating the mobility for a user and subsequently using the calculated mobility as a basis for determining an activity or age level. Additionally, Kennedy teaches a variety of additional health measures used in assessing healthspan, e.g. see Kennedy [0179], and further teaches utilizing the age-related phenotypes as a basis for selecting and administering pharmacological agents (i.e. a customized feeding recommendation), e.g. see Kennedy [0003] and [0167]. However, Kennedy does not teach that the selected measures of health used in assessing healthspan include at least two traditional biomarkers comprising WBC, urea nitrogen, chloride, phosphorus, MCHC, MCV, MCH, RDW, eosinophils, lymphocytes, ALT, BUN, creatinine, BUN to creatinine ratio, sodium, triglycerides, platelet to lymphocyte ratio. Additionally, Kennedy does not teach receiving sensor data (i.e. digital biomarkers), and using the received sensor data as one of the bases used for determining the mobility of the user.
Frangos (“Functional Aging: Integrating Functionality to a Multidimensional Assessment of Healthy Aging,” Hindawi Current Gerontology and Geriatrics Research, Volume 2023, 28 January 2023) teaches that DNA methylation changes have been studied in combination with external risk factors regarding its effect on aging, e.g. see Frangos Section 1.1 Aging and Classical Biomarkers of Age, pgs. 1-2. Frangos further teaches that a DNA methylation score may be used in combination with a composite score or index to evaluate a patient’s chronological age and mortality, and also teaches that a functional aging index including walking speed may also be used to evaluate a patient’s chronological age and mortality, e.g. see Frangos Section 1.4 Function Tests as Markers of Poor Clinical Outcomes and Mortality, pg. 4. However, Frangos does not teach that the factors used in assessing aging include at least two traditional biomarkers comprising WBC, urea nitrogen, chloride, phosphorus, MCHC, MCV, MCH, RDW, eosinophils, lymphocytes, ALT, BUN, creatinine, BUN to creatinine ratio, sodium, triglycerides, platelet to lymphocyte ratio. Additionally, Frangos does not teach generating a customized feeding recommendation based on the determined activity level or age.
Lee (“Age and Physical Activity Levels in Companion Dogs; Results From the Dog Aging Project,” J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, 2022, Vol. 77, No. 10, 1986-1993) teaches providing dog owners with a Health and Life Expectancy Survey (HLES) to assess the dog’s environment, behavior, lifestyle, diet, and health, e.g. see Lee Section DAP Survey Data, pg. 1987, and also evaluating the dog’s activity, e.g. see Lee Section Activity Measures and Predictor Variables pgs. 1987-1988. Furthermore, the DAP data is processed through regression models to determine statistical significance of predictor variables in order to ultimately determine the relationship between dog physical activity and dog age. However, Lee does not teach utilizing at least two traditional biomarkers comprising WBC, urea nitrogen, chloride, phosphorus, MCHC, MCV, MCH, RDW, eosinophils, lymphocytes, ALT, BUN, creatinine, BUN to creatinine ratio, sodium, triglycerides, platelet to lymphocyte ratio in order to determine a mobility score, determining a level of activity or age based on the mobility score, and further does not teach determining a customized feeding recommendation based on the level of activity or age.
The aforementioned references are understood to be the closest prior art. Various aspects of the claimed invention are known individually, but for the reasons disclosed above, the particular manner in which the elements of the present invention are claimed, when considered as an ordered combination, distinguishes from the aforementioned references and hence the invention recited in Claims 21-38 is not considered to be disclosed by and/or obvious in view of the inventions of the closest prior art references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed July 20, 2026, with respect to the election of Claims 21-38 with traverse have been fully considered but are not persuasive. As stated above, although Applicant has elected Claims 21-38 with traverse, Applicant provides no rationale or basis for the traversal, and hence the traversal is not persuasive. Hence, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL,
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 21-47 are currently pending, with Claims 21-38 and 41-47 being examined, and with Claims 39-40 being withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed July 20, 2026, with respect to the Objections to Claims 21 and 34 have been fully considered and, in combination with the claim amendments, are persuasive. The Objections to Claims 21 and 34 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed July 20, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 21-38 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the Claims and Specification sufficiently disclose how the mobility score and the age determination is performed, citing [0120]-[0121], [0228], [0302], and [0377]-[0388] from US 2025/0054637 (“the PG Pub.”) – Examiner disagrees.
[0119]-[0121] of the PG Pub. disclose “there is a slight reduction in the median amount of time spent walking and running for dogs with mobility issues; however, it is possible that some doges categorized as healthy senior dogs may be suffering from undiagnosed mobility issues,” and that “changes in the median daily duration and/or range of daily durations for activity and/or forward motion behaviors such as walking and/or running may be indicators of mobility issues in dogs, helping to differentiate them from healthy dogs.” That is, [0119]-[0121] of the PG Pub. disclose that there is a trend for older dogs to spend less time walking and running with age and with mobility issues, but there is a need to identify when these mobility issues arise from undiagnosed mobility conditions.
Additionally, [0228] of the PG Pub. discloses generating a summary of a study design including a wearable sensor on a subject, and analyzing trends of the subject over time, utilizing PROC GLIMMIX in SAS, version 9.4.
Furthermore, [0302] of the PG Pub. discloses various metrics may be derived and sessionized rather than treated as continuous, which makes it “possible to uncover additional layers of information, such as the regularity of certain behaviors, the sequencing of different behaviors, and the overall rhythm of an animal’s activity cycle.” That is, [0302] of the PG Pub. merely discloses that segmenting the data into discrete sessions may enable the derivation of various additional metrics, without disclosing any specific algorithm or methodology explaining how those metrics are actually derived.
Furthermore, [0377]-[0388], and particularly [0384]-[0388] of the PG Pub. disclose statistical methods for determining phenotypic age for a subject that utilizes chronological age and various biomarker values, which does represent a particular algorithm/methodology for determining “an age.” However, Examiner notes that [0377]-[0388] of the PG Pub. does not disclose utilizing a mobility score for determining the phenotypic age.
Hence, the aforementioned language discloses that age is correlated with mobility issues, analyzing trends for subjects over time, that it is desirable to sessionize obtained data, and that phenotypic age may be determined based on chronological age and various biomarkers. However, none of the cited language from the Specification disclose any specifics explaining how the mobility score is calculated. At most, the cited language from the Specification discloses that a subject’s age could have some effect on a subject’s mobility, but does not disclose an algorithm or set of steps/calculations explaining how the mobility score is actually calculated. Additionally, although Examiner acknowledges that the cited language from the Specification disclose a specific methodology for calculating a phenotypic age, the methodology does not disclose calculating the age based on the mobility score, as is currently claimed in Claims 21 and 34. Hence, the cited language from the Specification does not show that Applicants had possession of the features of the calculation of the mobility score and the calculation of the age based on the mobility score and the biomarkers and epigenetic marker, as is current claimed in Claims 21 and 34.
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 21-38 and 41-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed July 20, 2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 21-38 and 41-47 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant alleges that the claimed invention is patent eligible because the limitations of the data obtained from the wearable device and the calculation of the age integrate any abstract idea into a practical application because the data “is captured by a dedicated physical hardware layer…and directly govern a non-abstract nutritional output that automatically generates a feeding recommendation,” further citing [0220] of the PG Pub., e.g. see pgs. 13-14 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
The fact that the claims now recite that the biosensor comprises a wearable device is not dispositive regarding the determination of subject matter eligibility because, as shown above, the wearable device constitutes merely invoking the biosensor as a tool to perform the step of collecting data for the abstract ideas of a mental process and/or a certain method of organizing human activities. That is, the claims merely utilize the hardware element of the wearable device as a tool to apply the abstract idea.
Additionally, [0220] of the PG Pub. merely discloses utilizing data from wearable sensors in order to generate the customized feeding recommendation, but, as stated above with regards to the grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), this does not provide any specifics explaining how the mobility score and/or the age are determined, and further does not disclose any type of technological improvement and/or improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Hence, the claimed invention does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Applicant further alleges that the claimed invention is patent eligible because the Claims are indicated as novel and non-obvious in view of 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103, e.g. see pgs. 13-14 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
Examiner notes that “the novelty of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter,” and specifically, a finding of a lack of novelty under 35 U.S.C. 102 or obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 of a claimed invention does not necessarily indicate that claimed invention is therefore patent eligible. Because they are separate and distinct requirements from eligibility, patentability of the claimed invention under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 with respect to the prior art is neither required for, nor a guarantee of, patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. 101, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(I).
Hence, the claimed invention does not amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea.
For the aforementioned reasons, Claims 21-38 and 41-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is as follows:
Donnelly (US 20100298899) – teaches a wearable device that includes multi-axis sensors that monitor user movements and activities.
Al-Murrani (US 2007/0118295) – teaches designing a custom diet for a pet based on phenotypic data including physiological age and various biomarkers.
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 JOHN P GO whose telephone number is (703)756-1965. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm Pacific.
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, PETER H CHOI can be reached at (469)295-9171. 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.
/JOHN P GO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681
Prosecution Insights