DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in reply to correspondence filed 21 January 2026 in regard to application no. 18/835,830. Claims 4-9, 11, 14-19, 21, 23, 24, 26-30, 32, 34-38, 40-42, 44-46, 48-51, 52-56, 59, 60, 62 and 67 have been cancelled. Claims 1-3, 10, 12, 13, 20, 22, 25, 31, 33, 39, 43, 47, 52, 57, 58, 61, 63-66, 68 and 69 are pending, of which claims 2 and 3 have been withdrawn from consideration by the Examiner; the remainder are considered below.
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 .
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, 10, 12, 13, 20, 22, 25, 31, 33, 39, 43, 47, 52, 57, 58, 61, 63-66, 68 and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because each claim is directed to a system whose only components are variously labelled “logic”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of this includes embodiments consisting entirely of software per se, and the specification is clear, ¶ 195, that nothing more than software is required
Software per se does not lie within any statutory category of invention as it is a list of instructions, which is neither a process, machine, composition of matter nor an article of manufacture.
To overcome this rejection, the Examiner suggests either redrafting the claim as a "Beauregard claim", or keeping it as a system claim but explicitly including a processor and memory storing instructions; the specification adequately supports either such modification.
Claims 1, 10, 12, 13, 20, 22, 25, 31, 33, 39, 43, 47, 52, 57, 58, 61, 63-66, 68 and 69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) allowing a customer to pay a disc jockey and request a song, providing suggestions of songs to request, and communicating a selection to the disc jockey (assuming a selection was made, which is not explicit in the claim).
First, making payments is a fundamental business practice and a commercial interaction, each of which is among the "certain methods of organizing human activity" deemed abstract. Second, in the absence of computers, the process can be performed mentally and by consulting paper records. A disc jockey can have a printed list of songs she can play; a customer can hand currency to the disc jockey and verbally request a song. None of this presents any practical difficulty, and none requires any technology beyond paper records. Therefore the claims recite abstraction in the form of certain methods of organizing human activity and in the form of mental processes.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because aside from the bare inclusion of a generic computer, discussed below, nothing is done beyond what was set forth above, which does not go beyond using a generic computer as a tool to implement the abstract idea. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As the claims only manipulate data pertaining to payments, song selections and the like, they do not improve the "functioning of a computer" or of "any other technology or technical field". See MPEP § 2106.05(a). Contrary to the assertion in the specification, they do not apply the abstract idea "with, or by use of a particular machine", MPEP § 2106.05(b), as the below-cited Guidance is clear that a generic computer is not the particular machine envisioned, and the Examiner can find no authority to support the applicant's assertion that a generic computer becomes a special-purpose computer merely because it has been programmed to perform a business process.
They do not effect a "transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing", MPEP § 2106.05(c). First, such data, being intangible, are not a particular article at all. Second, the manipulation is neither transformative nor reductive; as the courts have pointed out, in the end, data are still data.
They do not apply the abstract idea "in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking [it] to a particular technological environment", MPEP § 2106.05(e), as the lack of algorithmic and technical detail in the claims is so as not to go beyond such a general linkage.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional claim limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, are insufficient to elevate the otherwise-ineligible claim to patent eligibility.
Claim 1 does not include any additional elements beyond a system including variously-labelled logic. These elements are recited at a high degree of generality and the specification does not meaningfully limit them, such that a generic computer will suffice. It only performs generic computer functions of nondescriptly manipulating data and sharing data with persons and/or other devices. Generic computers performing generic computer functions, without an inventive concept, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
The type of information being manipulated does not impose meaningful limitations or render the idea less abstract. The claim elements when considered in ordered combination - a generic computer performing a chronological sequence of abstract steps - do nothing more than when they are analyzed individually.
The dependent claims further do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea: claims 10, 12, 20, 31, 43, 62, 65, 66 and 68 consist entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight; as such, it has no impact on the eligibility analysis. Claim 13 is simply further descriptive of the type of information being manipulated. Claims 22, 27, 47, 57, 61, 63 and 64 simply recite further, abstract manipulation of data. Claims 25, 33, 39, 58 and 69 simply recite accepting input.
The claims are not patent eligible. The Examiner has thoroughly reviewed the originally filed application, including the specification and drawing sheets, and finds nothing likely sufficient to overcome this rejection.
For further guidance please see MPEP § 2106.03 – 2106.07(c) (formerly referred to as the “2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance”, 84 Fed. Reg. 50, 55 (7 January 2019)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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, 10, 13, 20, 22, 25, 31, 33, 43, 52, 57, 61, 65, 66 and 68 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Herring et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0222466, filed 16 March 2023).
With regard to Claim 1:
An entertainment management system [0015; "computer systems" perform the process] comprising:
audience interface logic configured to present an audience user interface, the audience user interface being configured for an audience member to enter a song request and to initiate a financial transaction including a payment to a DJ; [0032; a GUI is presented by which a "user may initiate [a] request"; 0033; the request is for a song to be played by a DJ; 0035; once the song has been played, a payment to the DJ is processed]
request management logic configured to manage the song request, the management including providing suggestions of songs to request to the audience member; [0074; the request can be for a "suggested song"; 0049; the system may make suggestions generally]
transaction logic configured to facilitate the financial transaction; [0035; the payment is processed, as cited above]
communication logic configured to communicate the song request to the DJ; and
DJ interface logic configured to present the song request to the DJ. [0035; the DJ receives the request]
In this and the subsequent claims, referring to software subcomponents by name, such as "audience interface logic", "request management logic", and the like, is considered mere labeling and given no patentable weight. Information which is merely transmitted or displayed and then not further processed, such as "suggestions of songs to request" or to "present the song request to the DJ", consist entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 10:
The system of claim 1, further comprising promotion logic configured to suggest a song to the audience member via the audience user interface, the suggestion of the song including a suggestion that the audience member request the song.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 13:
The system of claim 1, further comprising location logic configured to confirm a location of the audience member. [0028; "system 100 can allow a fan to enter their seat location and request"]
With regard to Claim 20:
The system of claim 1, wherein the audience interface logic is configured to present a song to the audience member, the presented song being a song to request and being on a playlist provided by the DJ. [Herring as cited above; that the DJ actually plays the song and receives compensation reads on this; as cited above, the DJ can decline to play songs not on his play list]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 22:
The system of claim 1, wherein the audience interface logic is configured to present a list of songs to the audience member, to receive a selection of a song from the list of songs from the audience member, to add the selected song to a request list, and for the audience member to send a tip to the DJ. [0035; the system provides a "catalog of songs" from which the user can make the request and pay the DJ as cited above]
With regard to Claim 25:
The system of claim 1, wherein the audience interface logic is configured for the audience member to add a comment to a song request made by another party, to up-vote the song request made by the other party, or to add a tip to the song request made by another party. [0019; an audience member may "comment" on the performance; there is no requirement that audience member be the same person who requested the song]
With regard to Claim 31:
The system of claim 1, wherein the DJ interface logic is configured to present a list of requested songs to the DJ, the list of requested songs including an amount tipped for each request or a number of audience members who have requested each song. [0044; the entertainer can view the amounts of money paid]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 33:
The system of claim 1, wherein the DJ interface logic is configured for the DJ to reject the song request and reject a tip associated with the song request. [0033; the DJ may decline the customer's request in which case, 0035, the payment is not processed]
With regard to Claim 43:
The system of claim 1, further comprising promotion logic configured to provide advertisements promoting specific songs or artists to the audience member. [0074 as cited above; a song suggestion reads on such an advertisement]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 52:
The system of claim 1, wherein the DJ interface logic is configured to provide the DJ with a beats-per-minute and musical key of the song request.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
With regard to Claim 57:
The system of claim 13, wherein the location logic is configured to determine the location of the audience member based on: a ticket receipt/number, a venue or event code, a computing device of a venue, an IP address of a venue, a local wireless network, an image, GPS, or a QR Code. [0028 as cited above in regard to claim 13; a computing device that allows a user to enter a seat location of a venue reads on a computing device "of" the venue]
With regard to Claim 61:
The system of claim 1, wherein transaction logic is configured to make a payment to the DJ depending on whether a requested or sponsored song has actually been played [0035 as cited above] as determined by performance logic, the performance logic being configured that the song has been played using a microphone. [0027; the “customer mobile device” detect sound waves using a “microphone”]
With regard to Claim 65:
The system of claim 1, wherein request management logic is configured to add a song from the playlist of a DJ to a request recommendation list for an event at which the playlist is played by the DJ. [0035 as cited above]
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight. The reference is provided for the purpose of compact prosecution.
With regard to Claim 66:
The system of claim 1, further comprising promotion logic configured to select a song to be promoted at an event based on a playlist of the DJ for the event and add the selected song to be promoted to a request recommendation list for presentation to the audience member at the event. [0074 as cited above; a song suggestion reads on such a promotion]
With regard to Claim 68:
The system of claim 1, wherein audience interface logic is configured to label sponsored content as such.
This claim is not patentably distinct from claim 1 as it consists entirely of nonfunctional printed matter which bears no functional relation to the substrate and so is considered but given no patentable weight.
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.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herring et al. in view of Vanjani (U.S. Patent No. 8,831.953).
In-line citations, where present, are to Herring.
With regard to Claim 12:
The system of claim 1, further comprising filter logic configured to filter song requests and/or other communications from the audience member and/or to the DJ.
Herring teaches the system of claim 1, including a person requesting a song from a DJ, and that the DJ may choose not to play it, [0033] but does not explicitly teach this filtering, but it is known in the art. Vanjani teaches systems for filtering objectionable content. [title] A "language filter" can "request [a] song to be skipped" if it detects "objectionable content". [Col. 7, lines 56-57; Col. 8, lines 1-2] A request for a song, or information about a song, may have been made by a user. [Col. 9, lines 56-57] Vanjani and Herring are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing music selections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Vanjani with that of Herring in order to reduce the incidence of listeners simply refusing to listen to a source of music, as taught by Vanjani; [Col. 1, lines 21-23] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply allowing the system rather than a DJ to decide whether to play a song or refuse to; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 39, 47 and 64 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herring et al. in view of Simon (U.S. Patent No. 9,985,999).
Claims 39 and 64 are similar so are analyzed together.
With regard to Claim 39:
The system of claim 1, wherein the DJ interface logic is configured for the DJ to designate locations from which the song request may be sent.
With regard to Claim 64:
The system of claim 1, wherein request management logic is configured to require that song requests come from audience devices disposed at one or more specific location.
Herring teaches the system of claim 1 including interacting with a DJ and requesting songs as cited above, but does not explicitly teach designating locations, but it is known in the art. Simon teaches a multi-user application [abstract] in which "song preferences" may be supplied, [Col. 10, line 36] and whether a particular request is honored might depend upon whether the user's "computing device" is "within a designated location". [Col. 10, line 67 to Col. 11, line 1] Simon and Herring are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for accepting requests and managing information related to song preferences.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Simon with that of Herring in order to assist with content sharing, as taught by Simon; [Col. 1, lines 26-27] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply accepting requests with the filter of Simon rather than unconditionally as in Herring; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
With regard to Claim 47:
The system or method of claim 13, wherein the location logic is configured to determine the location the audience member using a smartphone or computing device of the audience member. [id.]
Claim(s) 58 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herring et al. in view of Piccionielli (U.S. Publication No. 2013/0310122).
With regard to Claim 58:
The system of claim 1, wherein the audience interface logic is configured for the audience member to upvote a song request.
Herring teaches the system of claim 1, including managing song requests as cited above, but does not explicitly teach allowing someone to "upvote" someone else's request or suggestion, but it is known in the art. Piccionielli teaches a musical production with audience participation [title] using computers [0007] which teaches that it was then known that "audience participation" in regard to musical productions could include "expressions of approval", [0003] which is what "upvote" means. Piccionielli and Herring are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing information related to music.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Piccionielli with that of Herring as it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply receiving feedback about a song from an audience member as in Piccionielli rather than, or in addition to, someone else requesting a song as in Herring; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herring et al. in view of Schupak et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0281977).
With regard to Claim 63:
The system of claim 1, further comprising playlist logic configured to determine a location within a playlist for a requested song based on a transition score.
Herring teaches the system of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach ranking within a list, but it is known in the art. Schupak teaches a content consumption system [title] which generates a "list of songs ranked according to a number of play requests received from users". [0004; Sheet 3, Fig. 3] Schupak and Herring are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing requests to play songs.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Schupak with that of Herring in order to facilitate consumption of content, as taught by Schupak; [0004] further, it is simply a substitution of one known part for another with predictable results, simply generating and displaying the output of Schupak in place of, or in addition to, that of Herring; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Claim(s) 69 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herring et al. in view of Roth (U.S. Publication No. 2023/0252363, filed 5 February 2022).
With regard to Claim 69:
The system of claim 1, wherein the audience interface logic is configured for the audience member to add a tip to a song request made by another audience member.
Herring teaches the system of claim 1 but does not explicitly teach allowing a person to add a tip to a song requested by someone else, but it is known in the art. Roth teaches a music request system [title] in which a “patron” may “tip” a musician if “another patron had made the request” for a song being played. [0055] Roth and Herring are analogous art as each is directed to electronic means for managing gratuities in exchange for musical selections.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art just prior to the filing of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of Roth with that of Herring in order to increase the amount of tips available for a song, as taught by Roth; further, it is simply a substitution of one part for another with predictable results, simply receiving input from someone other than the requester of a song as in Roth instead of, or in addition to, receiving input from the requester as in Herring; the substitution produces no new and unexpected result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 21 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The present amendment has overcome the objections raised in the previous Office action, and those are withdrawn.
The applicant makes an argument about the Examiner’s restriction, which has been made final. As the restriction has been made final, the applicant has two choices: cancel the non-elected claims or petition the director for a reversal of the restriction. (See e.g. 37 CFR 1.181.) The present argument serves the purpose of preserving it for a possible petition, but the Examiner will not further respond to it.
In regard to § 101, a claim “recites” an abstraction if it “sets forth or describes” the abstraction. See MPEP § 2106.04(I)(A)(1). The Examiner, previously and above, summarized the abstract steps; there is no requirement known to the Examiner that the claim language needs to be quoted verbatim in the analysis.
The Examiner agrees that “logic” is not a “nonce word”, and in fact did not make the § 112(f) analysis which he would be obliged to do if he believed otherwise. The Examiner is familiar with Desjardins and, in fact, often refers to it. However, in the instant case, the Examiner finds no improvement to computer functionality, but merely the use of a generic computer to perform a commercial interaction.
The Examiner is obliged to consider claim elements both individually and as an ordered combination. MPEP § 2106.04(a). Therefore the analysis of the individual elements is not, as the applicant complains, clearly erroneous; rather, it is a portion of the overall analysis.
The Examiner has read and reread Desjardins and finds no indication that improvements to “music promotion” or “financial transactions” are supposed to be improvements to computer functionality; in fact, as to the latter, Alice seems to stand in direct opposition to that thesis. In the present claims, the Examiner sees nothing at all that could be construed in any way as an improvement to communications.
Communication of a request, positioning it in a song list, and executing a financial transaction are not technical, though the applicant is invited to provide the Examiner with any authority to the contrary. Communicating a request can be, and routinely is, done verbally or by writing on a paper; positioning a request in a song list can be done on paper, and executing a financial transaction can be done with currency, without avail of any technology at all.
The guidance the Examiners have received in regard to Desjardins require us to consider the decision “when evaluating claims related to machine learning or artificial intelligence”.1 As that is not the case in any of the present claims, what Desjardins happened to “include” is not of great relevance, as the overall decision had to do with what is, or is not, an improvement to AI or machine learning.
The claims are not patent eligible and the rejection is maintained.
In regard to the rejections made under § 102 and 103, first, the Examiner appreciates the thoughtful and detailed analysis, including a detailed analysis of the dependent claims, which is rare and commendable. One of the arguments made is that the Examiner cannot distinguish between functional and nonfunctional elements of a claim, derisively referring to the making of such a distinction as “made up stuff”. If it is made up, it is not this Examiner who made it up.
The Examiner quotes from a recent decision of the PTAB, using this particular decision because it was an appeal of this Examiner’s rejection of a case and because, being recent, it is fresh in the Examiner’s memory. In Ex Parte Yuen Hung2, the Board reminded that “[w]hen presented with a claim including nonfunctional descriptive material, an Examiner must determine whether such material should be given patentable weight… the USPTO need not give patentable weight to descriptive material absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive material and the substrate.” [pg. 18, ¶ 1, emphasis added] The Board went on to explain why the Examiner’s conclusion, that certain claim elements were unworthy of patentable weight, was correct in that specific context. So, clearly, the Examiner has the responsibility to make such a determination.
In regard to the specific claim language, Herring, like claim 1, teaches the actually claimed step: “providing suggestions of songs”. The language following, “to request to the audience member”, is merely a statement of intended use which is considered but given no patentable weight. See MPEP § 2103.
In regard to claim 10, the only actually claimed step is suggesting a song including a suggestion that the audience member request the song. The fact that the step is performed by a labelled software subcomponent is not relevant; it is quite obvious that the entire invention is software operating on a computer. So the only patentable distinction between claim 10 and claim 1 is, as the Examiner pointed out, nonfunctional printed matter, simply output which is merely transmitted or displayed and which bears no functional relation to the substrate.
In regard to claim 13, there is no specific requirement as to how a location is confirmed and the instant specification, ¶ 99, merely requires “using a smartphone or computing device of the audience member”, which is precisely how Herring does it. The fact that a person can input information that isn’t true does not distinguish the present claim from Herring, as a person typing in her seat number (correctly or incorrectly) using her device would meet both the instant specification’s use of the term and Herring’s use of it.
Regarding claim 20, “the presented song being a song to request and being on a playlist provided by the DJ” limit two things, neither of which are within the scope of the claimed system: a song and a playlist. Therefore that phrase merely limits objects outside the scope of the claimed invention, so it is not relevant whether Herring teaches it or not.
Regarding claim 25, the applicant appears to take a very narrow view of what adding a comment “to” a song request made by another party is supposed to mean. In Herring’s system, a person may make a request using Herring’s system, and then another person (or that same person) may make a comment, also using Herring’s system. Using the broadest reasonable interpretation of adding one thing to another, if person X adds a comment on a computer to which person Y (or person X) has made q request, the comment has been added to the request.
Regarding claim 31, there is no nexus between the claimed system and the part of the claim after the comma. Regarding claims 43 and 52, the language following “to provide” is nonfunctional printed matter which is considered but given no patentable weight.
Regarding claim 57, using the broadest reasonable interpretation of “of” (which is a very broad term), any computing device in a venue is “of” that venue. In regard to claim 61, the Examiner has herein incorporated the teaching of Roth to meet the additional limitations; that claim is not rejected herein under § 102(a)(2) but rather under § 103. The Examiner agrees with the applicant that the amended claim is adequately supported by the specification.
In regard to claim 65, “for an event at which the playlist is played by the DJ” purports to limit an unclaimed event and playlist; with regard to the claimed system it is merely a statement of intended use, afforded no patentable weight. The same is true of the “to be promoted” and the language following in claim 66. Claim 68 is similar to claim 10, which has already been discussed.
Regarding § 103, in regard to claims 39 and 64, there is only a trifling difference between a “song preference” and a “song request”; the former becomes the latter merely by articulating it. The limitation in claim 47 of a person providing her location has already been discussed, above. In regard to claim 58, the applicant is adopting a narrow definition of “upvoting” which the Examiner does not adopt. In regard to claim 63, a ranked list of songs inherently puts each song in a particular position.
Claims 12, 22, 27, 33 and 61 are not argued with particularity, and the Examiner refers the applicant to the discussion above regarding claim 1.
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 SCOTT C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7442. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 to 5:30.
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, Bennett Sigmond can be reached at (303) 297-4411. 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.
/SCOTT C ANDERSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3694
1 Kim, “Advance notice of change to the MPEP in light of Ex Parte Desjardins”, memorandum to the Patent Examining Corps, 5 December 2025.
2 Ex Parte Yuen Hung, PTAB Appeal 2025-002225, 23 December 2025.