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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment filed 02/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see Pages 9-13, filed 02/03/2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection of Claims 1-20 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on Pages 9-10 that “With respect to Step 2A, Prong One, applicant respectfully submits that the claims do not constitute an abstract idea. Claim 1, for example, positions a 9-axis motion sensor on the subject to obtain "a step frequency change with respect to a change in running speed of the subject and relating to a step length change with respect to a change in running speed of the subject," together with advanced modeling and analysis techniques applied to the technical problem of determining a subject's running style, and outputting information to the subject relating to the subject's running style type. The claims are directed to devices, methods and systems tailored specifically for determining running style types using empirical biomechanical data obtained from a 9-axis motion sensor positioned on the subject. The elements recited in the claims go beyond a simple abstract idea and instead provide a technical advancement in performance monitoring, analysis, and determination of the subject's running style type, and integrate any mathematical concepts into a practical application”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As the 9 axis sensor is utilized for data gathering operation, it is considered to be necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. acquiring data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, 9 axis sensors in wearable technology is well known in the art, as evidenced by Kaji (WO2023195461) in [0019] and Cho (US20130273939) in [0003]. The computing device is detailed as performing three operations. The first operation details calculating a principal component score from a principal component analysis model with the data from the sensor. As this is detailing a mathematical calculation, it is considered part of the judicial exception. The second operation is that of determining a running style type for the subject from a score. This operation is considered to be a mental processing step as mental processes include evaluations and judgements, and a determination of a type from a score qualifies as an evaluation and judgment. The computing device is considered to be a generic computer element. Generic computer elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94. The additional limitation of “outputting a result corresponding to the determined running style type for the subject” is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity due to the limitation detailing a generic outputting of a result that does not impose any meaningful limit on the claim, and it is well known in the art to output a result, as evidenced by Kawai (JP2007185328A) in [0032] and Winter (US20170354348) in [0073]. Thus the independent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Furthermore, the claim limitation are analogous to the interactions between the runner and a specialist who is trained in gait analysis or a physical therapist/podiatrist with expertise in running biomechanics. That is the specialist, physical therapist, or podiatrist can perform the mental processing as detailed in the limitation that yields the determination of a running style type and outputs information to the subject the results thereof.
Applicant further argues on page 10 that “It is also noted that dependent claims add additional features. For example, dependent claims 7-8 each recite that the computing device is further configured to output information recommending at least one shoe suitable for the subject, with dependent claim 8 reciting the use of a mixed Gaussian model in which the recommended one or more shoes are determined according to "which one or more of the Gaussian distributions the calculated principal component score of the subject belongs to." The comparison and determination features amount to more than abstract operations. In addition, dependent claim 16 further provides additional specific positional elements, reciting that "the motion sensor and the computing device are positioned on the subject at one or more locations selected from the group consisting of a waist and at least one arm of the subject."
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitations of Claims 7 and 8 of “recommending at least one shoe suitable…” are considered under broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification to be a mental processing abstract concept, as mental processes include evaluations and judgments, and a recommendation would fall under an evaluation and judgment. Furthermore, Applicant’s argument regards to Claim 16 with the computing device positioned on the subject is well understood, routine, and conventional in the art, as evidenced by Sazuka (US20180039751) in Figure 12 of a wearable terminal with a CPU 401 and storage unit 402 and Diggelen (US20180156920) in [0018] and Figure 1. That is, sensors incorporated with wearable technology that acquires data of the subject that wears the wearable technology is well understood in the art.
Applicant argues on Page 11 that “The MPEP states that the specification may be considered to determine whether the claims concern patent eligible improvements to technology. "In short, first the specification should be evaluated to determine if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement." MPEP Sec. 2106.04(d)(1). As noted in the present specification on page 2, lines 8-10, in most cases "there have been conventionally no clear criteria for determining whether the running style of a runner falls under the high cadence type or the long stride type." Knowing the type of running style is beneficial for enhancing running performance, including selecting suitable shoes. Specification at page 1, lines 23-26. In addition, embodiments have an improvement that they are not limited to advanced runners, but applicable to runners of various abilities. Specification page 8, line 20 to page 9, line 3 and page 23, lines 17-25. "[A]s long as the slope of the step frequency change and the slope of the step length change in the subject's running can be acquired, whether the subject falls under the high cadence type or the long stride type can be judged easily and accurately." Specification at page 23, lines 20-24. In addition, the claimed subject matter may be carried out on the subject, leading to greater efficiency. Specification at page 6, lines 6-10”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As the MPEP details in 2106.04(d)(1) that “A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Such claims are eligible at Step 2A because they are not "directed to" the recited judicial exception.” The additional elements as detailed above relate to necessary data gathering with the 9 axis sensor, generic computing elements with the computing device, and an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting to the subject a result. That is, these additional elements as detailed do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. As the determination of a runner’s style and a selection of shoe type would fall under mental processing steps due to the determination and selection being an evaluation and judgement step. The evaluation of slope of frequency changes would fall under mathematical calculations, and judging the running style off of that is further a mental processing concept as that is a judgement.
Applicant argues on Page 11 that “In addressing the Federal Circuit case Thales Visionix, Inc. V. United States, (850 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2017)), the Office Action indicated on page 5 that "Thales provides a specific sensor placement and the instant application broadly recites a data acquisition device with no specific placement." However, claim 1 recites in part "a motion sensor comprising a 9-axis In addition, dependent claim 16 recites that "the motion sensor positioned on a subject " motion sensor and the computing device are positioned on the subject at one or more locations selected from the group consisting of a waist and at least one arm of the subject." Thus, specific Thales is analogous to the present case. In Thales, the claims use data from positioned sensors to calculate an orientation of a tracked object using mathematical processing to calculate a value, as disclosed in the specification. 850 F.3d at 1348. The Federal Circuit indicated that the mathematical equations "serve only to tabulate the position and orientation information in this configuration" and "the claims here result in a system that reduces errors " 850 F.3d at 1348. The Federal Circuit further stated "[t]hat a mathematical equation is required to complete the claims method and system does not doom the claims to abstraction." 850 F.3d at 1349”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The fact patterns between Thales Visionix, Inc v. United States and the instant application are different. The Thales case details a system for tracking motion of an object with two inertial sensors where an element is adapted to receive signals from the inertial sensors and determine an orientation of the object relative to the moving reference frame. Thus the sensor placement is relevant to the determination of the orientation as it’s dependence with the moving reference frame. The instant application details determining two different slopes (frequency change divided by change in running speed and step length change divided by change in running speed), then calculates a principal component score from the slopes based on a model, and outputs a result and then recommendation. Furthermore, Thales provides a specific sensor placement and the instant application broadly recites a data acquisition device with no specific placement. The specification of the instant application details in [0023] that “FIG. 1 illustrates a basic configuration of a running style analysis system. A running style analysis system 30 is constituted by a user terminal 10, a wearable device 16, and a running style analysis server 20, for example. A user performs running while wearing a wearable device 16, such as a running watch 12 and a motion sensor 14, on an arm or the waist and acquires various detection data with the running watch 12 and the motion sensor 14. The running watch 12 and the motion sensor 14 include sensors such as a positioning module and a 9-axis motion sensor. The running speed is acquired based on the relationship between time information and position information detected by the positioning module, and the step frequency is acquired based on information detected by the 9-axis motion sensor. Also, the step length is acquired based on the running distance measured by the positioning module and the step frequency (step length=running distance+step frequency). A running log acquired by the user terminal 10 is transmitted to the running style analysis server 20 via a network 18. Accordingly, the running style is analyzed by the running style analysis server 20, and which of multiple running styles, including the high cadence type and the long stride type, the running style corresponds to is judged.”. That is, the details acquired from the sensor are not details that are restricted to the arm or waist of the individual, but could function at any position on the person and would return the same results. Thus the positional placement on the person does not impose a meaningful limit on the claim.
Applicant argues on Page 12 that “As noted in the Office Action at page 13, Step 2A, Prong Two considers "whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application." Here, if the Examiner finds that the claims are subject to a judicial exception, then Applicant respectfully submits the claims are patent eligible under Step2A, Prong Two because the elements of the claims are integrated into a practical application. The Office Action on page 13 stated that "there is no improvement to another technology or technical field." Applicant respectfully submits that as described above, there is an improvement to the technology and technical field of running analysis utilizing a device including a 9-axis motion sensor positioned on the subject. The claims, as a whole, integrate mathematical concepts into a practical application. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims improve the technology or technical field of devices for running analysis and performance using a motion sensor comprising a 9-axis motions sensor and the practical real-world problem of quickly assessing and categorizing different running styles and providing a subject with more accurate information relating to their running style. As a result, the claims constitute patent-eligible subject matter”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As detailed in the MPEP in 2106.05(a), “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception. See MPEP § 2106.04(d) (discussing Finjan, Inc. v. Blue Coat Sys., Inc., 879 F.3d 1299, 1303-04, 125 USPQ2d 1282, 1285-87 (Fed. Cir. 2018))”. As Applicant argues “The claims, as a whole, integrate mathematical concepts into a practical application. Applicant respectfully submits that the claims improve the technology or technical field of devices for running analysis and performance using a motion sensor comprising a 9-axis motions sensor and the practical real-world problem of quickly assessing and categorizing different running styles and providing a subject with more accurate information relating to their running style”, Examiner notes that the 9-axis motion sensor itself does not perform the action of the calculating a principal component score with a principal component model nor does it perform the action of determining a running style type. As the 9 axis sensor is utilized for data gathering operations, it is considered to be necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. acquiring data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Furthermore, 9 axis sensors in wearable technology is well known in the art, as evidenced by Kaji (WO2023195461) in [0019] and Cho (US20130273939) in [0003]. Furthermore, the computer running the calculation and performing the determination is considered to be a generic computer. Generic computer elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94. Thus the method does not detail an improvement to the computer’s operation itself.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The claimed invention is directed to the abstract concept of performing abstract steps without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the following abstract concepts in BOLD of
1. (Currently Amended) A running style analysis device, comprising:
a motion sensor comprising a 9-axis motion sensor positioned on a subject and adapted to obtain motion sensor data of the subject relating to a step frequency change with respect to a change in running speed of the subject and relating to a step length change with respect to a change in running speed of the subject; and
a computing device configured to:
include a principal component analysis model, based on data from a plurality of runners, to calculate a principal component score from the motion sensor data of the subject relating to the step frequency change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject and the step length change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject;
determine, based on the calculated principal component score from the motion sensor data of the subject relating to the step frequency change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject and the step length change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject, a running style type for the subject of a plurality of running style types, including a long stride type and a high cadence type; and
output to the subject a result corresponding to the determined running style type for the subject based on the calculated principal component score from the motion sensor data of the subject relating to the step frequency change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject and the step length change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject.
9. (Currently Amended) A running style analysis method, comprising:
positioning a motion sensor comprising a 9-axis motion sensor on a subject and acquiring motion sensor data from the motion sensor relating to a step frequency change with respect to a change in running speed of a subject and relating to a step length change with respect to a change in running speed of the subject;
calculating a principal component score from the motion sensor data of the subject relating to the step frequency change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject and the step length change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject, using a principal component analysis model generated in advance based on measurement values of a plurality of runners;
determining, based on the calculated principal component score from the motion sensor data of the subject relating to the step frequency change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject and the step length change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject, a running style type for the subject of a plurality of running style types, including a long stride type and a high cadence type; and
outputting to the subject a result corresponding to the determined running style type for the subject based on the calculated principal component score from the motion sensor data of the subject relating to the step frequency change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject and the step length change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject.
10. (Currently Amended) A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a running style analysis program causing a computer to implement:
acquiring motion sensor data relating to a step frequency change with respect to a change in running speed of a subject and relating to a step length change with respect to a change in running speed of the subject using a motion sensor comprising a 9-axis motion sensor positioned on the subject;
calculating a principal component score from the motion sensor data of the subject relating to the step frequency change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject and the step length change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject, using a principal component analysis model generated in advance based on measurement values of a plurality of runners;
determining, based on the calculated principal component score from the motion sensor data of the subject relating to the step frequency change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject and the step length change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject, a running style type for the subject of a plurality of running style types, including a long stride type and a high cadence type; and
outputting to the subject a result corresponding to the determined running style type for the subject based on the calculated principal component score from the motion sensor data of the subject relating to the step frequency change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject and the step length change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject.
Under step 1 of the eligibility analysis, we determine whether the claims are to a statutory category by considering whether the claimed subject matter falls within the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter identified by 35 U.S.C. 101: process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. The above claims are considered to be in a statutory category.
Under Step 2A, Prong One, we consider whether the claim recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). In the above claim, the highlighted portion constitutes an abstract idea because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, it recites limitation the fall into/recite abstract idea exceptions. Specifically, under the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, it falls into the grouping of subject matter that, when recited as such in a claim limitation, covers performing mathematics or mental steps.
Next, under Step 2A, Prong Two, we consider whether the claim that recites a judicial exception is integrated into a practical application. In this step, we evaluate whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no improvement to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; a particular machine; effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing. Examiner notes that since the claimed methods and system are not tied to a particular machine or apparatus, they do not represent an improvement to another technology or technical field. Similarly there are no other meaningful limitations linking the use to a particular technological environment. Finally, there is nothing in the claims that indicates an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself or transform a particular article to a new state.
Finally, under Step 2B, we consider whether the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because a computing device is considered to be a generic computer element. Generic computer elements are not considered significantly more than the abstract idea and do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. As recited in the MPEP, 2106.05(b), merely adding a generic computer, generic computer components, or a programmed computer to perform generic computer functions does not automatically overcome an eligibility rejection. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2359-60, 110 USPQ2d 1976, 1984 (2014). See also OIP Techs. v. Amazon.com, 788 F.3d 1359, 1364, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093-94. The additional limitation of Claims 1, and 9-10 to “outputting to the subject a result corresponding to the determined running style type for the subject” is considered to be an insignificant extra-solution activity due to the limitation detailing a generic outputting of a result that does not impose any meaningful limit on the claim and it is well known in the art to output a result, as evidenced by Kawai (JP2007185328A) in [0032] and Winter (US20170354348) in [0073]. The data acquisition device is considered necessary data gathering. The additional limitation of Claims 1 and 9-10 of the 9 axis motion sensor that obtains motion sensor data relating to a subject is considered to be necessary data gathering. As recited in MPEP section 2106.05(g), necessary data gathering (i.e. acquiring data) is considered extra solution activity in light of Mayo, 566 U.S. at 79, 101 USPQ2d at 1968; OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2015). This is further evidenced in Kaji (WO2023195461) in [0019] and Cho (US20130273939) in [0003].
Claims 2-8, 11-15, 18, and 20 further limit the abstract ideas without integrating the abstract concept into a practical application or including additional limitations that can be considered significantly more than the abstract idea.
The additional limitation of Claims 16-17 and 19 of the computing device/storage medium being positioned on the subject is considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. This is evidenced by Sazuka (US20180039751) in Figure 12 of a wearable terminal with a CPU 401 and storage unit 402 and Diggelen (US20180156920) in [0018] and Figure 1.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-20 are not rejected under a prior art rejection (35 U.S.C. 102 or 35 U.S.C. 103).
In regards to Claims 1, 9, and 10, Kawai (JP2007185328A) teaches the limitations “a motion sensor adapted to obtain motion sensor data of the subject relating to a step length change with respect to a change in running speed of the subject (calculating the stride length, i.e. step length, from the state in which the customer runs – [0012]; measurements with respect to the shoe – [0042]); and
a computing device (computer – Figure 10) configured to:
calculate a score from the motion sensor data of the subject relating to the step frequency change and the step length change (running style data determination for calculation the customer’s stride length from the state in which the customer runs and for calculating running style data related to the running style from the calculated stride length and height/leg length data stored in the customer data storage device – [0012]);
determine, based on the calculated score, a running style type for the subject of a plurality of running style types, including a long stride type (determining whether the running style is a stride running style or pitch running style – [0024]; stride running style is a running style with a wide stride, i.e. long stride type – [0030]); and
output to the subject a result corresponding to the determined running style type for the subject (selection of athletic/running shoes suitable, i.e. recommending, based on the running style, i.e. outputs a result – [0032]).”
Sazuka (US20180039751) teaches the limitations “a motion sensor positioned on a subject (wearable sensors – [0193]) and adapted to obtain motion sensor data relating to a step frequency change of the subject with respect to a change in running speed of the subject (Figure 5 details two dimensional graph that illustrates a speed-pitch [i.e. step frequency] characteristic, i.e. slope – [0143], Figure 5; Server 111 receives data – Figure 7) and relating to a step length change with respect to a change in running speed of the subject (Figure 3 details a two-dimensional graph that illustrates a relation, i.e. slope, between the speed and stride, i.e. step length, at the time of a person’s running – [0120], Figure 3; Server 111 receives data – Figure 7)”
Yeh (US20180178060) teaches the limitations “include a principal component analysis model (principal component analysis performed on the user motion – [0039]).”
Non-patent literature Goto (Goto Y., “Spatiotemporal inflection points in human running: Effects of training level and athletic modality”, 10/18/2021, PLOS One) details the relationship between the cadence (step frequency), step length, and running velocity on Figure 1 on Page 4 and Figure 2 on Page 6.
Kaji (WO2023195461) teaches the limitation “a motion sensor comprising a 9-axis motion sensor positioned on a subject (“Furthermore, instead of communicating in real time as in this embodiment, the body movement sensor may be equipped with a storage device to record the sensor's detection values, which may then be collected and analyzed on the information terminal side through post-processing. (1) Body movement sensor The waist body movement sensor 40a is attached to the back of the waist of the wearer 1 and is a sensor that detects three-dimensional displacement or rotation of the waist. This waist body movement sensor 40a is equipped with a three-axis accelerometer that measures the acceleration of an object, a three-axis gyroscope that detects the angular velocity of an object, and a three-axis magnetic sensor that measures the magnitude and direction of a magnetic field, making it possible to detect movement in nine axes. The waist body movement sensor 40a can be attached and detached to the wearer's belt or clothing using a clip or other member, allowing the sensor to be easily attached and detached for measurements, and enabling continuous measurements to be taken without imposing any burden on the wearer” – [0019])
Kawai, Sazuka, Yeh, Goto, and Kaji are silent with regards to the language of “include a principal component analysis model, based on data from a plurality of runners, to calculate a principal component score from the motion sensor data of the subject relating to the step frequency change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject and the step length change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject; determine, based on the calculated principal component score from the motion sensor data of the subject relating to the step frequency change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject and the step length change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject, a running style type for the subject of a plurality of running style types, including a long stride type and a high cadence type; output to the subject a result corresponding to the determined running style type for the subject based on the calculated principal component score from the motion sensor data of the subject relating to the step frequency change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject and the step length change with respect to the change in running speed of the subject.”
Claims 2-8 and 11-20 are dependent on Claims 1 and 9-10.
Conclusion
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 YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI whose telephone number is (571)272-3291. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:00 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Catherine Rastovski can be reached at (571) 270-0349. 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.
/YOSSEF KORANG-BEHESHTI/Examiner, Art Unit 2857