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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the claims filed on 19 June 2026. Claims 1, 3-5, 7, 9-10, 14-16, and 18 were amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending and have been examined.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 19 June 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of Patent No. 12,106,933 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Repko (U.S. 2014/0172450), hereinafter “Repko,” in view of Morris et al. (U.S. 2017/0286614), hereinafter “Morris.”
Regarding Claim 1, Repko discloses a method performed by a computing system, the method comprising:
receiving a request from a device associated with a particular patient to access a web-based portal that hosts a plurality of available computer applications that are available for a plurality of patients (See Repko [0047] patient can access system via a web portal. [0015] this includes data elements for tracking various symptoms/activities related to patient’s disease. These data elements available on the website or mobile application are understood to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “computer application.”), wherein the request includes unique credentials for the particular patient (See Repko [0024] system can require the user set up a user name and password, associated with their patient ID, in order to gain access to the system. This is an example of unique credentials.);
responsive to the request, accessing a clinical record that is associated with the particular patient based on the unique credentials (See Repko Fig. 4 and [0043] once the patient has an account on the system (including the creation of a username and password associated with their Patient ID as performed in [0024]) the system creates and provides access to a Patient Account Record that includes patient health information. [0023] the system can be implemented as an integrated with and Electronic Medical Record. Therefore, the system provides access to the clinical record of the patient associated with their unique credentials.);
determining a set of relevant computer applications from the plurality of available computer applications that are relevant to the particular patient (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease.), wherein a relevant computer application is determined based on being selected for presentation in accordance with information contained in the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease. This may be integrated with or used in conjunction with personal health record (PHR) or electronic health record (EHR) information.);
providing, via network communications (See Repko [0014] the various devices of the system are connected via a network and use network communication.) and based on the unique credentials (See Repko [0024] system can require the user set up a user name and password, associated with their patient ID, in order to gain access to the system. This is an example of unique credentials.), access to the web-based portal in a graphical user interface displayed at the device associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0047] patient can access system via a web portal. [0015] this includes data elements for tracking various symptoms/activities related to patient’s disease. These data elements available on the website or mobile application are understood to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “computer application.”);
generating a customizable dashboard, on the graphical user interface (See Repko [0015] system allows healthcare provider to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient.), … generated based on at least patient information identified within the clinical record associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease. This may be integrated with or used in conjunction with personal health record (PHR) or electronic health record (EHR) information.);
[the set of relevant computer applications are] determined to be relevant to the particular patient (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease. This may be integrated with or used in conjunction with personal health record (PHR) or electronic health record (EHR) information.);
displaying in the graphical user interface of the web-based portal at the device associated with the particular patient, a viewing area customized for the particular patient to include … [access] to the set of relevant computer applications determined to be relevant to the particular patient based on the information contained in the clinical record (See Repko [0047] patient can access system via a web portal. [0015] this includes data elements for tracking various symptoms/activities related to patient’s disease. Also, from [0015] “system allows healthcare provider 130 to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient 120.”).
Repko does not disclose:
obtaining a link for each computer application in the set of relevant computer applications, wherein a link points to the corresponding computer application within the web-based portal;
[the dashboard] includes a plurality of selectable tabs;
wherein the plurality of selectable tabs includes an app tab that is configured to contain only the links to the set of relevant computer applications …; and
in response to the app tab being selected within the graphical user interface of the web-based portal:
[the access to the set of relevant computer applications is via] a selectable icon for each of the links …;
wherein upon selection of a selectable icon, a corresponding relevant computer application is executed.
Morris teaches:
obtaining a link for each computer application in the set of relevant computer applications, wherein a link points to the corresponding computer application within the web-based portal (See Morris [0051] system can provide links for accessing apps between devices. See also [0047].);
[the dashboard] includes a plurality of selectable tabs (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons.);
wherein the plurality of selectable tabs includes an app tab that is configured to contain only the links to the set of relevant computer applications … (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons. [0075] linked apps can be listed in prominent tabs.); and
in response to the app tab being selected within the graphical user interface of the web-based portal (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons.):
[the access to the set of relevant computer applications is via] a selectable icon for each of the links … (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons for linking to target applications.);
wherein upon selection of a selectable icon, a corresponding relevant computer application is executed (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons. [0079] selection of a target app icon in the tab menu of the source app can be associated with the main or home screen of the target app, whereas selection of a data icon can be associated with another screen of the target app.).
The system of Morris is applicable to the disclosure of Repko as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing healthcare apps for patients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include icon and tab elements as taught by Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to address increasing challenges in secure and controlled management of patients' medical data (see Morris [0040]).
Regarding claim 2, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a method, wherein:
the customizable dashboard (See Repko [0015] system allows healthcare provider to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient.) [is customized with access] to the set of relevant computer applications determined to be relevant to the patient information identified in the clinical record of the particular patient (See Repko [0047] patient can access system via a web portal. [0015] this includes data elements for tracking various symptoms/activities related to patient’s disease. Also, from [0015] “system allows healthcare provider 130 to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient 120.”).
Repko does not disclose:
[the dashboard] and the app tab are customized for the particular patient by providing the selectable icons for the links.
Morris teaches:
[the dashboard] and the app tab are customized for the particular patient by providing the selectable icons for the links (See Morris [0050] system can receive input in the form of clickable tabs or icons. [0075] linked apps can be listed in prominent tabs.).
The system of Morris is applicable to the disclosure of Repko as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing healthcare apps for patients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include icon and tab elements as taught by Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to address increasing challenges in secure and controlled management of patients' medical data (see Morris [0040]).
Regarding claim 3, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a method, wherein:
determining the set of relevant computer applications is based, at least in part, upon one or more computer applications being specified as relevant within the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0015] the system allows healthcare providers to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient. [0018] the healthcare provider may select appropriate data modules for patient to track based on the patient's current health, disease state, perceived triggers, etc.).
Regarding claim 4, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a method, wherein:
determining that the set of relevant computer applications is relevant is based, at least in part, upon a clinical diagnosis, a medication, a symptom, or a family history stored in the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0015] the system allows healthcare providers to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient. [0018] the healthcare provider may select appropriate data modules for patient to track based on the patient's current health, disease state, perceived triggers, etc.).
Regarding claim 6, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a method, wherein:
a particular healthcare provider is a host of the web-based portal (See Repko [0023] system server can be integrated with the EMR used by the healthcare provider. This is understood to indicate a situation in which the healthcare provider is the host of the portal (because it is part of their EMR system).).
Regarding claim 7, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Repko does not further disclose a method, wherein:
each link for each computer application in the set of relevant computer applications is generated within the customizable dashboard.
Morris teaches:
each link for each computer application in the set of relevant computer applications is generated within the customizable dashboard (See Morris [0051] system can provide links for accessing apps between devices. See also [0047].).
The system of Morris is applicable to the disclosure of Repko as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing healthcare apps for patients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include icon and tab elements as taught by Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to address increasing challenges in secure and controlled management of patients' medical data (see Morris [0040]).
Regarding claim 8, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Repko does not further disclose a method, wherein:
the customizable dashboard is accessible via a cloud network.
Morris teaches:
the customizable dashboard is accessible via a cloud network (See Morris [0051] system can provide links for accessing apps between devices. [0056] mobile device can be in communication with servers in the Cloud.).
The system of Morris is applicable to the disclosure of Repko as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing healthcare apps for patients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include icon and tab elements as taught by Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to address increasing challenges in secure and controlled management of patients' medical data (see Morris [0040]).
Regarding claim 9-10, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claims 1-2 as discussed above. Claims 9-10 recite One or more non-transitory computer-readable media having executable instructions embodied thereon that, when executed by a processor of a computing device, cause the computing device to perform actions comprising a method that is substantially similar to the method of claims 1-2. Accordingly, claims 9-10 are rejected based on the same analysis.
Regarding claim 11, Repko in view of Morris discloses the media of claim 9 as discussed above. Repko does not further disclose a media, wherein:
receiving the request comprises receiving the request through the web-based portal via a cloud-based Unified Medical Record Network.
Morris teaches:
receiving the request comprises receiving the request through the web-based portal via a cloud-based Unified Medical Record Network (See Morris [0051] system can provide links for accessing apps between devices. [0056] mobile device can be in communication with servers in the Cloud.).
The system of Morris is applicable to the disclosure of Repko as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing healthcare apps for patients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include icon and tab elements as taught by Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to address increasing challenges in secure and controlled management of patients' medical data (see Morris [0040]).
Regarding claim 12, Repko in view of Morris discloses the media of claim 9 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a media, wherein:
the set of relevant computer applications from the plurality of available computer applications is determined to be relevant to the particular patient prior to providing access to the web-based portal in the graphical user interface at the device associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0024] after the healthcare provider interacts with the system (selecting the data elements for the patient to use, as described in [0018]) then the patient receives access to the system and the selected data items. Therefore, the relevance is determined prior to access.).
Regarding claim 13, Repko in view of Morris discloses the media of claim 9 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a media, wherein:
the set of relevant computer applications from the plurality of available computer applications is determined to be relevant to the particular patient based on at least one characteristic documented in the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease. This may be integrated with or used in conjunction with personal health record (PHR) or electronic health record (EHR) information.), wherein the at least one characteristic is a clinical diagnosis, a condition, a medication, a symptom, or a family history documented in the clinical record (See Repko [0015] the system allows healthcare providers to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient. [0018] the healthcare provider may select appropriate data modules for patient to track based on the patient's current health, disease state, perceived triggers, etc.).
Regarding claim 15, Repko in view of Morris discloses the media of claim 9 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a media, wherein:
the executable instructions for determining which of the plurality of available computer applications is relevant to the particular patient, is based, at least in part, upon one or more computer applications being specified as relevant within the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0015] the system allows healthcare providers to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient. [0018] the healthcare provider may select appropriate data modules for patient to track based on the patient's current health, disease state, perceived triggers, etc.).
Regarding claim 16, Repko in view of Morris disclose the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Claim 16 recites a system configured to perform the method that is substantially similar to the method of claim 1. This method is rejected based on the same analysis as claim 1 above. Additionally, claim 16 further recites some elements not recited in claim 1. Repko discloses these elements in a system, comprising:
a healthcare app host implemented using one or more processing units (See Repko [0048] The computers used as servers, clients, resources, interface components, and the like for the system will include processors in communication with memory, output interface, input interface, and network interface.) configured to select a plurality of available computer applications that are available for a plurality of patients for a plurality of healthcare providers (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease. This may be integrated with or used in conjunction with personal health record (PHR) or electronic health record (EHR) information.);
a web-based portal that hosts the plurality of available computer applications available for the plurality of patients (See Repko [0047] patient can access system via a web portal. [0015] this includes data elements for tracking various symptoms/activities related to patient’s disease. These data elements available on the website or mobile application are understood to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “computer application.”), wherein the plurality of available computer applications are selected by the healthcare app host (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease. This may be integrated with or used in conjunction with personal health record (PHR) or electronic health record (EHR) information.); and
wherein the system is configured to: [perform a method that is substantially the same as the method of claim 1].
Repko does not disclose:
a cloud-based server configured to provide network access to the web-based portal.
Morris teaches:
a cloud-based server configured to provide network access to the web-based portal (See Morris [0051] system can provide links for accessing apps between devices. [0056] mobile device can be in communication with servers in the Cloud.).
The system of Morris is applicable to the disclosure of Repko as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to providing healthcare apps for patients. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include icon and tab elements as taught by Morris. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to address increasing challenges in secure and controlled management of patients' medical data (see Morris [0040]).
Regarding claim 17, Repko in view of Morris discloses the system of claim 16 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a system, wherein:
the system is configured to determine the set of relevant computer applications from the plurality of available computer applications to be relevant to the particular patient based on at least one characteristic documented in the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements related to the patient’s disease. This may be integrated with or used in conjunction with personal health record (PHR) or electronic health record (EHR) information.), wherein the at least one characteristic is a clinical diagnosis, a condition, a medication, a symptom, or a family history documented in the clinical record 9See Repko [0015] the system allows healthcare providers to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient. [0018] the healthcare provider may select appropriate data modules for patient to track based on the patient's current health, disease state, perceived triggers, etc.).
Regarding claim 19, Repko in view of Morris discloses the system of claim 16 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a system, wherein:
the system is configured to access the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient and determine whether the particular patient is associated with at least one particular characteristic documented in the clinical record (See Repko Fig. 4 and [0043] once the patient has an account on the system (including the creation of a username and password associated with their Patient ID as performed in [0024]) the system creates and provides access to a Patient Account Record that includes patient health information. [0023] the system can be implemented as an integrated with and Electronic Medical Record. Therefore, the system provides access to the clinical record of the patient associated with their credentials. [0013] the system helps a physician tailor a patient’s interface with tools for tracking particular data elements. This can be based on condition and includes medication tracking. Therefore, the tools determined to be relevant to the patient can be based on medication.).
Regarding claim 20, Repko in view of Morris discloses the system of claim 16 as discussed above. Repko further discloses a system, wherein:
the system is configured to determine whether a first computer application from the plurality of available computer applications is relevant to the particular patient based, at least in part, upon the first computer application being specified as relevant within the clinical record that is associated with the particular patient (See Repko [0015] the system allows healthcare providers to select the data elements the patient will use for tracking and reporting purposes, in effect customizing the smartphone application or website for patient. [0018] the healthcare provider may select appropriate data modules for patient to track based on the patient's current health, disease state, perceived triggers, etc.).
Claims 5, 14, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Repko (U.S. 2014/0172450), hereinafter “Repko,” in view of Morris et al. (U.S. 2017/0286614), hereinafter “Morris,” and further in view of Mynhier et al. (U.S. 2016/0210427), hereinafter “Mynhier.”
Regarding claim 5, Repko in view of Morris discloses the method of claim 1 as discussed above. Repko does not further disclose a method, wherein:
the plurality of available computer applications include one or more applications that comply with a Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources standard.
Mynhier teaches:
the plurality of available computer applications include one or more applications that comply with Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources standard (See Mynhier [0085] the system can use the FHIR standard.).
The system of Mynhier is applicable to the disclosure of Repko in view of Morris as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to customizing patient user experience. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include the FHIR standard as taught by Mynhier. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to standardize information in accordance with terminologically robust standards (see Mynhier [0085]).
Regarding claim 14, Repko in view of Morris discloses the media of claim 9 as discussed above. Repko does not further disclose a media, wherein:
each of the plurality of available computer applications include one or more applications that comply with or is based upon Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources.
Mynhier teaches:
each of the plurality of available computer applications include one or more applications that comply with or is based upon a Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources standard (See Mynhier [0085] the system can use the FHIR standard.).
The system of Mynhier is applicable to the disclosure of Repko in view of Morris as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to customizing patient user experience. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include the FHIR standard as taught by Mynhier. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to standardize information in accordance with terminologically robust standards (see Mynhier [0085]).
Regarding claim 18, Repko in view of Morris discloses the system of claim 16 as discussed above. Repko does not further disclose a system, wherein:
each of the plurality of available computer applications include one or more applications that are based upon Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources.
Mynhier teaches:
each of the plurality of available computer applications include one or more applications that are based upon a Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources standard (See Mynhier [0085] the system can use the FHIR standard.).
The system of Mynhier is applicable to the disclosure of Repko in view of Morris as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to customizing patient user experience. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Repko to include the FHIR standard as taught by Mynhier. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify Repko in order to standardize information in accordance with terminologically robust standards (see Mynhier [0085]).
Response to Arguments
35 U.S.C. §101
Applicant's arguments filed 19 June 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §101 rejection of the claims, have been fully considered and are persuasive. Under Step 2A Prong Two of the analysis, the abstract idea is considered to be integrated into a practical application related to the customization of the dashboard and other GUI elements for the patient. Accordingly, the rejection has been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. §103
Applicant's arguments filed 19 June 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of the claims, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the data elements of Repko do not teach or suggest the computer applications of the present claims (see Applicant Remarks pages 15-18). This is not persuasive. The data elements of Repko are used to identify, track, and manage various actions, symptoms, and occurrences (see Repko [0013]). In other words, they are used to track various and different elements of the patients treatment. These data elements available on the website or mobile application are understood to meet the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “computer application” because they would appear as different tools for the patient to use for their treatment and health. Similarly, Applicant argues that the Morris reference does not teach the computer applications (that the are determined to be relevant to the patient) as recited in the claims (see Applicant Remarks pages 18-22). This is not persuasive because Morris is not being cited to teach this particular element of the present claim language. Morris is being cited for recited use of links and app tabs in displaying healthcare information to a patient (see at least Morris [0050], [0051] and [0075]), while Repko is cited for the determination of relevance of each app for the patient (see at least Repko [0013]). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Accordingly, the claims are rejected for being obvious in view of Repko and Morris.
Double Patenting
Applicant's arguments filed 19 June 2026, with respect to the non-statutory double patenting rejection of the claims, have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the filing of the terminal disclaimer. Accordingly, this rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Experton et al. (U.S. 20180233225) teaches a system and method for prescribing the use of specific health-care related apps to assist physicians achieve quality measures.
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 BENJAMIN L HANKS whose telephone number is (571)270-5080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/B.L.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3684
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684
Prosecution Insights