DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is in reply to a response filed 12 August 2026, on an application filed 15 August 2024, which is a national stage entry of an application with an international filing date of 23 January 2023, which claims foreign priority to an application filed 15 February 2022.
The Office notes that the amendment fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.121. For example, claim 43 is not listed in the claim, but has not been indicated as being canceled. As a courtesy to the applicant, the amendment has been entered and the claim is considered canceled in view of Applicant’s arguments that indicate claim 43 is canceled. However, the Applicant is reminded that future correspondence must comply with 37 CFR 1.121.
Claims 41 and 42 have been canceled.
Claim 44 has been added.
Claims 24, 25 and 35 have been amended.
Claim 44 is withdrawn as being directed to a non-elected invention.
Claims 24-40 are currently pending and have been examined.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claim 44 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 44 contains a plurality of limitations that are not recited in the rest of the claims, such as contextual information and plural location sensors.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 44 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Drawings
New drawings were received on 12 August 2026. These drawings are not accepted.
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because the drawings contain lines of insufficient weight, text of insufficient size and/or shading that make the drawings illegible, see specifically Figs. 5-14 of the drawings submitted on 12 August 2026. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 24-40 and 44 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 24-40 and 44 are within the four statutory categories. Claims 24-40 and 44 are drawn to a method of verifying an activity metric, which is within the four statutory categories (i.e. process).
Prong 1 of Step 2A
Claim 24 recites: A computer-implemented method of verifying an activity metric, the method comprising:
obtaining an unverified activity metric for an activity performed by a user, the unverified activity metric being obtained using motion data recorded by a motion sensor of a wearable electronics module while the user is performing the activity;
obtaining, from a physiological sensor associated with the wearable electronics module, physiological data for the user while performing the activity;
determining signal quality information for the physiological sensor; and
verifying the activity metric by applying a verification function that uses the physiological data to verify that the user performed the activity, and wherein the verification function verifies that the user performed the activity based on whether the signal quality information changes over time.
Claim 35 recites: A computer-implemented method of verifying an activity metric, the method comprising:
obtaining an unverified activity metric for an activity performed by a user, the unverified activity metric being obtained using motion data recorded by a motion sensor of a wearable electronics module while the user is performing the activity;
obtaining, from a physiological sensor associated with the wearable electronics module, physiological data for the user while performing the activity, the physiological data comprises heartrate variability data for the user; and
verifying the activity metric by applying a verification function that uses the physiological data to verify that the user performed the activity, wherein the verification function verifies that the user performed the activity based on whether the heartrate variability data is consistent with expected heartrate variability data for the user.
Claim 44 recites: A computer-implemented method of verifying an activity metric, the method comprising:
obtaining an unverified activity metric for an activity performed by a user, the unverified activity metric being obtained using motion data recorded by a motion sensor of a wearable electronics module while the user is performing the activity;
obtaining contextual information for the user while performing the activity, the contextual information comprising first location data obtained from a location sensor of the wearable electronics module and second location data obtained from a location sensor of a user electronic device associated with the user, and
verifying the activity metric by applying a verification function that uses the contextual information to verify that the user performed the activity, and wherein the verification function verifies that the user performed the activity based on whether the first location data and the second location data are consistent with one another.
The underlined limitations as shown above, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the abstract ideas of a certain method of organizing human activity because they recite a process that comprises managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (i.e. social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions – in this case monitoring a user while performing an activity and then verifying a collected activity metric), e.g. see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). Any limitations not identified above as part of the abstract idea(s) are deemed “additional elements,” and will be discussed in further detail below.
Dependent claims 25-34 and 36-40 include other limitations, for example claims 25-38 provide further details on the verification function and the type of data considered, 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. Additionally, any limitations in dependent claims 25-34 and 36-40 not addressed above are deemed additional elements to the abstract idea, and will be further addressed below. Hence dependent claims 25-34 and 36-40 are nonetheless directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claims 24 and 35.
Prong 2 of Step 2A
Claims 24-40 and 44 are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements (i.e. any limitations that are not identified as part of the abstract idea) amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception – for example, the recitation of the electronics module and the structural components of the computer, which amounts to merely invoking a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea, e.g. see paragraph 241 of the present Specification, 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 limiting the data to activity data, which amounts to limiting the abstract idea to the field of healthcare, see MPEP 2106.05(h); and/or
adding insignificant extrasolution activity to the abstract idea, for example mere data gathering, selecting a particular data source or type of data to be manipulated, and/or insignificant application – for example see the various citations of the sensors used for gathering data (e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Additionally, dependent claims 25-34 and 36-40 include other limitations, but these limitations also amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. claims 39 and 40 recite a digital asset and distributed ledger), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data disclosed in dependent claims 25-34 and 36-38), and/or do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited in independent claim 24, and hence also do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 24-40 and 44 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 electronics module, the data gathering sensors and the structural components of the computer), 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 insignificant extra-solution activity comprises limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, as demonstrated by:
The Specification expressly disclosing that the additional elements are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature:
Paragraph 241 of the Specification discloses that the additional elements (i.e. the electronics module and the structural components of the computer) comprise a plurality of different types of generic computing systems that are configured to perform generic computer functions (i.e. receive and process data) that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry (i.e. healthcare);
Relevant court decisions: The following are examples of court decisions demonstrating well-understood, routine and conventional activities, e.g. see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II):
i. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network); but see DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1258, 113 USPQ2d 1097, 1106 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ("Unlike the claims in Ultramercial, the claims at issue here specify how interactions with the Internet are manipulated to yield a desired result‐‐a result that overrides the routine and conventional sequence of events ordinarily triggered by the click of a hyperlink." (emphasis added));
ii. Performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("The computer required by some of Bancorp’s claims is employed only for its most basic function, the performance of repetitive calculations, and as such does not impose meaningful limits on the scope of those claims.");
iii. Electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log); and
iv. Storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Dependent claims 25-34 and 36-40 include other limitations, but none of these limitations are deemed significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the aforementioned dependent claims do not recite any additional elements not already recited in independent claim 24, and/or the additional elements recited in the aforementioned dependent claims similarly amount to mere instructions to apply the exception (e.g. 25-34 and 36-40recite a digital asset and distributed ledger), generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (e.g. the types of data disclosed in dependent claims 25-34 and 36-38), and hence do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
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 24-40 and 44 are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 24-28, 30, 31 and 33-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vieri (U.S. PG-Pub 2020/0297269 A1), hereinafter Vieri.
As per claim 24, Vieri discloses a computer-implemented method of verifying an activity metric, the method comprising (Vieri, Figs. 1 and 9 and paragraphs 94 and 95.):
obtaining an unverified activity metric for an activity performed by a user, the unverified activity metric being obtained using motion data recorded by a motion sensor of a wearable electronics module while the user is performing the activity (Vieri, paragraphs 94, 95, and 143-148, first sensor could comprise a Fitbit® for example.);
obtaining, from a physiological sensor associated with the wearable electronics module, physiological data for the user while performing the activity (Vieri, paragraphs 94, 95, and 143-148, physiological sensor could comprise a wearable device, a heart rate monitor, smart wearable gloves or eye-glasses with a PIR sensor.);
verifying the activity metric by applying a verification function that uses the physiological data to verify that the user performed the activity (Vieri, paragraphs 94, 95, and 143-148.).
This embodiment of Vieri fails to disclose, but a secondary embodiment of Vieri teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a method for:
determining signal quality information for the physiological sensor (Vieri discloses determining the signal-to-noise output of the physiological sensor data, see paragraphs 102, 103, 118-119.); and
wherein the verification function verifies that the user performed the activity based on whether the signal quality information changes over time (Vieri discloses analyzing first and second activities that are different across time based on a change in signal quality, SNR, see paragraph 119.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the embodiment of Vieri directed to tracking user activity using verification techniques with the secondary embodiment of Lu directed to using a verification function based on a change in signal quality because:
both elements were contained in the reference, although separately embodied;
the combination of the elements could be combined by one of ordinary skill in the art and each element would perform the same function as it did separately, as they are directed to similar subject matter involving verification of user activities; and
one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the results the combination were predictable due to all of the elements directed to similar subject matter regarding verification of user activities and being disclosed in the same reference.
As per claims 25-28, 30, 31, 33, 34 and 36-40, Vieri discloses claim 24, discussed above. Vieri also discloses:
25. wherein the physiological data is indicative of whether the physiological sensor is in proximity to the user, and wherein the verification function verifies that the user performed the activity based on whether the physiological data indicates that the physiological sensor is in proximity to the user (Vieri, paragraphs 95 and 148.);
26. wherein the physiological data comprises cardiac activity data for the user (Vieri, paragraphs 82 and 144.);
27. wherein the physiological data comprises heart rate data for the user (Vieri, paragraphs 82 and 144.);
28. wherein the physiological data comprises heart rate variability data for the user (Vieri, paragraphs 82 and 144: “In another application, the second metric may be produced in real time as the individual is performing the physical exertion activity, such as, for example, a heart rate when the physical exertion activity is being carried out. The individual may have a low heart rate at a first instant in time when beginning the physical exertion activity. At a later instant in time, the individual may have a higher heart rate during peak physical exertion.”);
30. wherein the physiological data comprises breathing rate data for the user (Vieri considers breathing rate to validate a metric, see paragraph 40.);
31. wherein the physiological data comprises temperature data for the user (Vieri considers temperature to validate a metric, see paragraphs 40 and 92.);
33. wherein the verification function verifies that the user performed the activity based on whether the physiological data is consistent with the activity metric (Vieri, paragraphs 94, 95, and 143-148.);
34. wherein the verification function verifies that the user performed the activity based on whether the physiological data is consistent with expected physiological data for the user (Vieri, paragraphs 94, 95, and 143-148.);
36. wherein the verification function verifies that the user performed the activity based on whether the physiological data identifies the user (Vieri, paragraphs 94, 95, and 143-148.);
37. wherein the activity metric comprises the distance travelled by the user during the activity (Vieri, sensors detect distance, see paragraph 92.);
38. wherein the activity metric comprises a number of repeated actions performed by the user during the activity (Vieri, paragraphs 94, 95, and 143-148. The Office notes that 0 and 1 are numbers.);
39. generating an award for the user based on the activity metric; wherein generating an award comprises awarding a digital asset to the user based on the activity metric (Vieri, see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 33 and 149.); and
40. transferring the digital asset to a digital wallet of the user; and storing a record of the transfer of the digital asset in a distributed ledger (Vieri, see Fig. 5 and paragraphs 33 and 149.).
Claim 35 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vieri further in view of Yuen et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2017/0038848 A1), hereinafter Yuen.
As per claim 35, Vieri discloses a computer-implemented method of verifying an activity metric, the method comprising (Vieri, Figs. 1 and 9 and paragraphs 94 and 95.):
obtaining an unverified activity metric for an activity performed by a user, the unverified activity metric being obtained using motion data recorded by a motion sensor of a wearable electronics module while the user is performing the activity (Vieri, paragraphs 94, 95, and 143-148, first sensor could comprise a Fitbit® for example.);
obtaining, from a physiological sensor associated with the wearable electronics module, physiological data for the user while performing the activity, the physiological data comprises heartrate … data for the user (Vieri, paragraphs 94, 95, and 143-148, physiological sensor could comprise a wearable device, a heart rate monitor, smart wearable gloves or eye-glasses with a PIR sensor.); and
verifying the activity metric by applying a verification function that uses the physiological data to verify that the user performed the activity, wherein the verification function verifies that the user performed the activity based on whether the heartrate … data is consistent with expected heartrate variability data for the user (Vieri, Vieri, paragraphs 82, 94, 95, and 143-148. Notes specifically paragraph 144: “In another application, the second metric may be produced in real time as the individual is performing the physical exertion activity, such as, for example, a heart rate when the physical exertion activity is being carried out. The individual may have a low heart rate at a first instant in time when beginning the physical exertion activity. At a later instant in time, the individual may have a higher heart rate during peak physical exertion.”).
Vieri fails to explicitly disclose heartrate variability data.
Yuen teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider heartrate variability data in order to provide additional methods of verifying the identity of a wearable fitness monitor (Yuen, paragraph 5.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for tracking user activity of Vieri to include consideration of heartrate variability, as taught by Yuen, therefore arriving at an apparatus for tracking user activity that can provide additional methods of verifying the identity of a wearable fitness monitor (Yuen, paragraph 5.). Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Both Vieri and Yuen are directed to the electronic sensing and monitoring of a user’s health data.
Claims 29 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Vieri further in view of Yuen.
As per claims 29 and 32, Vieri discloses claim 24, discussed above. Vieri also discloses consideration of physiological data for the user, see paragraphs 94, 95, and 143-148.);
Vieri fails to explicitly disclose:
29. capacitance data and
32. bioimpedance data.
Yuen teaches that it was old and well known in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to consider capacitance and bioimpedance data in order to provide additional methods of verifying the identity of a wearable fitness monitor (Yuen, paragraph 5.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of healthcare communications before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus for tracking user activity of Vieri to include consideration of capacitance and bioimpedance data, as taught by Yuen, therefore arriving at an apparatus for tracking user activity that can provide additional methods of verifying the identity of a wearable fitness monitor (Yuen, paragraph 5.). Moreover, merely adding a well-known element into a well-known system, to produce a predictable result to one of ordinary skill in the art, does not render the invention patentably distinct over such combination (see MPEP 2141).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12 August 2026 concerning the interpretation and rejection of claims 41-43 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103(a) have been fully considered and are deemed persuasive in view of the cancellation of these claims. Accordingly, these rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12 August 2026 concerning the rejection of the remaining claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 101, Applicant argues on pages 7-8 that the claims were improperly rejected as being non statutory because:
A. because the amended claims are not directed to an abstract idea as they recite technology,
B. the claims are directed to an improvement in the field of wearable sensor systems,
C. the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application by reciting a specific improvement as shown in B, and the claims amount to significantly more then the abstract idea as they recite a particular technological solution to a technological problem.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the statutory rejection of the claims issued above, wherein the claims are shown to be directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Regarding A., as shown above, the technology is not part of the identified abstract idea, rather the cited technology amounts to mere data gathering as shown above.
Regarding B. and C., MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, while Applicant’s argued problem is a technical problem, there is no nexus between the argued problem and the argued solution because there is no indication that the claimed invention actually solves this problem. The Applicant has identified that there is a technical problem relating to motion-sensor spoofing or manipulation; however, there is no indication that the claim actually solves this problem. Because the claim does not explicitly solve this technical problem, a practical application is not present.
With regard to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103, Applicant argues on pages 9-10 that Yuen fails to disclose examination of signal quality changes over time.
The Office respectfully disagrees. Please see the analysis of output data over the time domain and the analysis of first and second activities via analysis of signal to noise ratio (SNR) across time of paragraph 119 of Yuen.
The remainder of Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, specifically with reference to the new citation of the previously cited reference, Yuen, as necessitated by amendment, as detailed above, or because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
In conclusion, all of the limitations which Applicant disputes as missing in the applied references, including the features newly added by amendment, have been fully addressed by the Office as either being fully disclosed or obvious in view of the collective teachings of Vieri, Yuen and Nishikawa, based on the logic and sound scientific reasoning of one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention, as detailed in the remarks and explanations given in the preceding sections of the present Office Action and in the prior Office Action (15 April 2026), and incorporated herein.
Conclusion
Cited but unused relevant prior art includes:
Basta et al. (U.S. PG-Pub 2020/0221975 A1) discloses a method of gait evaluation and training with differential pressure system.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Mark Holcomb, whose telephone number is 571.270.1382. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (8-5). If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Kambiz Abdi, can be reached at 571.272.6702.
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.
/MARK HOLCOMB/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685
18 September 2026
Prosecution Insights