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 .
Claim(s) 1 and 3-5 are pending for examination. Claim 1 has been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. This action is Final.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 with respect to the IDS Reference have been fully considered and are persuasive. The examiner has reconsidered the foreign reference JP 2022-062636 as the English Equivalent (US 2022/0114656 A1) has been identified and noted by Applicant via the previously submitted IDS(s).
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 with respect to the Objection to the Title have been fully considered and are persuasive; therefore, the Objection to the Title has been withdrawn as the title has been amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 with respect to the 101 rejection have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: “Claims 1-5 are rejected under §101 because the claims are allegedly directed to abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses these rejections.
Independent claim 1 recites:
"determining, based on output from a position sensor integrated with the terminal apparatus, a current position of the terminal apparatus;
receiving, by the controller via a communication interface, location information and group information of a plurality of stations from an information processing device to store the location information and the group information of each station in a memory, each station being selected based on the current position of the terminal apparatus "
Thus, in claim 1, a hardware based position sensor is present, and the stations displayed are selected based on the current location of the terminal apparatus. Under Step 2A, prong one, claim 1 does not recite an abstract idea, because the above-noted features are not methods of organizing human activity, mental processes, or mathematical relationships. For at least this reason, claim 1 is subject matter eligible.”
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes that “determining a current position of the terminal apparatus; receiving a location information and group information of a plurality of stations, each station being selected based on the current position of the terminal apparatus” are noted to be limitations that fall under the abstract idea as identified in the rejection below. The aforementioned limitations recite Certain Methods of Organizing human activity in the form of marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations and/or further recite Mental Processes, the claim covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The examiner respectfully notes the features of “based on output from a position sensor integrated with the terminal apparatus” and “receiving, by the controller via a communication interface, form an information processing device to store the location information and the group information of each station in a memory” are noted to be the recitation of generic computer components. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant Argues: Furthermore, under Step 2A, prong two, a practical application is achieved. As described in paragraph 46 of the specification, "according to the present embodiment, the relationship between the user-selected station and other stations can be provided visually, so the user can easily understand the relationship between each station. Thus, the present embodiment improves the technology for improving the convenience of the service of renting out mobile objects in that the user can easily understand the relationship between the station selected by the user and other stations." This is a practical application because it provides concrete benefits for users, and does not amount to an abstract idea. Therefore, claim 1 is subject matter eligible. Claims 3-5 are likewise eligible due to at least their dependency from claim 1. All §101 rejections should be withdrawn.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner respectfully notes as identified below in the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection and as paraphrased by applicant “understand[ing] the relationship between the station selected by the user and other stations” is noted to be part of the abstract idea. Thus, the improvement is within the abstract idea itself. The examiner respectfully notes that the elements of “based on output from a position sensor integrated with the terminal apparatus” and “receiving, by the controller via a communication interface, form an information processing device to store the location information and the group information of each station in a memory” and further use of a “display” are noted to be additional elements used to apply the abstract idea as paraphrased by applicant, i.e., “understand the relationship between the station selected by the user and other stations”. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration. These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the examiner finds this argument not persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 11/28/2025 with respect to the 103 rejection have been considered and are moot in view of new grounds of rejection; however, the examiner notes the following:
Applicant Argues: Miyata does not disclose a configuration in which each station is displayed in a uniform mode prior to a user selection.
Furthermore, Miyata discloses only that stations belonging to the same group can be selected after a station is selected, and does not disclose a configuration in which, when a second station belongs to a second group different from the first group, displaying stations belonging to the second group in a third mode.
Accordingly, claim 1 is not anticipated by Miyata, as agreed to during the interview.
Examiner’s Response: The examiner respectfully notes Miyata discloses “when a second station... belongs to a second group different from the first group, displaying stations belonging to the second group in a third mode,” see Miyata ⁋⁋[0081]-[0082] - For example, when the user selects one of the second stations 52 as the first selection station, the output unit 24 displays the station information to disable the user from selecting one of the first stations 51 as the second selection station. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, when the output unit 24 displays stations on a map, the output unit 24 may display the stations such that the first stations 51 and the second stations 52 are different in display aspect from each other. Specifically, the output unit 24 may display the stations to enable the user to distinguish between selectable and unselectable stations. In FIG. 4, the first stations 51 are displayed with a dashed outline to indicate that they are unselectable. The second stations 52 are displayed with a solid outline to indicate that they are selectable. This makes it easy for the user to recognize that only the second stations 52 (B-1, B-2, B-3) are selectable. The examiner respectfully notes newly cited reference Kim teaches the features of uniform mode and when a second station is subsequently selected. Therefore, the examiner notes this argument is not persuasive and/or moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: claim(s) 1-5 are directed to a process. Therefore, the claims are directed to statutory subject matter under Step 1 (Step 1: YES). See MPEP 2106.03.
Prong 1, Step 2A: claim 1, taken as representative, recites at least the following limitations that recite an abstract idea:
A method
determining
receiving
displaying
in response to a user selecting a station, displaying,
when a second station subsequently selected by the user belongs to a second group different from the first group, displaying,
displaying
wherein the first mode, the second mode, and the third mode are distinguished by color, shape, brightness, or any combination thereof.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II), in that they recite "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations. The broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1 includes determining a current position of the terminal apparatus; receiving a location information and group information of a plurality of stations each station being selected based on the current position of the terminal apparatus; displaying, thus, claim 1, falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas as they recite “commercial interactions" or in the form of marketing or sales activities or behaviors and/or business relations.
The above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas, enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), in that they recite as concepts performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. That is, other than reciting for claim 1, i.e., terminal apparatus w/ controller, output from a position sensor integrated with the terminal apparatus, receiving via an communication interface from an information processing device storing, and display; nothing in these claim element(s) precludes the step(s) from practically being performed in the mind. For example, the broadest reasonable interpretation of these limitations for claim 1 includes determining a current position of the terminal apparatus; receiving a location information and group information of a plurality of stations each station being selected based on the current position of the terminal apparatus; displayingrenting out and returning the one or more mobile objects in a uniform mode; in response to a user selecting a station, displaying each station belonging to a first group to which a first station initially selected by the user belongs in a first mode; when a second station subsequently selected by the user belongs to a second group different from the first group, displaying each station belonging to the second group in a third mode; and displaying, which, encompass steps that a user can manually perform in the human mind or by a human using a pen and paper. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Accordingly, these claims recite an abstract idea. (Prong 1, Step 2A: YES). The types of identified abstract ideas are considered together as a single abstract idea for analysis purposes.
Prong 2, Step 2A: Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05(f)), (2) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Claim 1, recites i.e., terminal apparatus w/ controller, output from a position sensor integrated with the terminal apparatus, receiving via an communication interface from an information processing device storing, and display. These additional elements are described at a high level in Applicant’s specification without any meaningful detail about their structure or configuration (see Applicant’s Specification, ⁋⁋[0012-[0013]). These elements in the steps are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and merely invoke such additional elements as a tool to perform the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
As such, under Prong 2 of Step 2A, when considered both individually and as a whole, the limitations of claim 1 are not indicative of integration into a practical application (Prong 2, Step 2A: NO). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Since claim 1 recites an abstract idea and fails to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, claim 1 is “directed to” an abstract idea under Step 2A (Step 2A: YES). See MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B: The recitation of the additional elements is acknowledged, as identified above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A. These additional elements do not add significantly more to the abstract idea for the same reasons as addressed above with respect to Prong 2 of Step 2A.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of for claim 1, i.e., terminal apparatus w/ controller, output from a position sensor integrated with the terminal apparatus, receiving via an communication interface from an information processing device storing, and display; thus, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component and do not add anything that is not already present when they are considered individually or in combination. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Therefore, under Step 2B, there are no meaningful limitations in claim 1 that transform the judicial exception into a patent eligible application such that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (Step 2B: NO). See MPEP 2106.05.
Accordingly, under the Subject Matter Eligibility test, claim 1 is ineligible.
Regarding Claims 3-5, claims 3-5 further defines the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims and hence are abstract for at least the reasons presented above w/ respect to “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” as the claims recite further concepts of "commercial interactions" or "legal interactions" include agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors, and business relations i.e., further features related to a service or renting out one or more mobile objects and/or further recite “Mental Processes” as the claims recite further concepts that can be performed in the human mind, including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions. These dependent claim does not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application; as such elements are recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts not more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component(s). Even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and do no not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, the aforementioned claims are not patent-eligible.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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, 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) 1 and 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyata et al. (US 2022/0114656 A1) and Walkin (US 8,930,837 B2) and Kim et al. (US 2015/0008845 A1).
Regarding Claim 1;
Miyata discloses a method performed by a terminal apparatus that provides a service of renting out one or more mobile objects, the terminal apparatus including a controller (FIG. 1 and [0021]-[0022]), the method comprising:
determining [a range] of the terminal apparatus ([0058] - When the user desires a point located within a prescribed range as the point for renting the mobile object 30 to the user or the point for the user to return the mobile object 30, the operation entity can rent the mobile object 30 to the user only when the station or stations managed by the operation entity is present within the prescribed range);
receiving, by the controller via a communication interface, a location information and group information of a plurality of stations form an information processing device to store the location information and the group information of each station in a memory, each station being selected based on the [range] terminal apparatus ([0022] and [0051]-[0054] and [0058] - In the case where a user applies for rental of the mobile object 30 in the system according to the comparative example, the user can select the station for renting the mobile object 30 or the station for returning the mobile object 30 only from the stations managed by the operation entity using the pertinent system. When the user desires a point located within a prescribed range as the point for renting the mobile object 30 to the user or the point for the user to return the mobile object 30, the operation entity can rent the mobile object 30 to the user only when the station or stations managed by the operation entity is present within the prescribed range. In the case where a station managed by another operation entity is located within the prescribed range including the points that the user desires as the point for renting the mobile object 30 to the user and the point for the user to return the mobile object 30, the user needs to apply for rental of the mobile object 30 again in another system that is used by another operation entity. The mobile object management system 1 according to the present embodiment increases the possibility that any one of the operation entities is present with the prescribed range including the points that the user desires as the point for the user to rent the mobile object 30 and the point for the user to return the mobile object 30. Therefore, it becomes easier for the user to complete application for the mobile object 30 in a single system.)
displaying, on a screen of the terminal apparatus by the controller, the plurality of stations that serve as locations for renting out and returning the one or more mobile... (FIG. 2 and [0022] and [0051]-[0054]- Each of the operation entities basically stores the mobile objects 30 in the stations managed by each of the operation entities, that is, in the stations belonging to the identical station group. When renting the mobile object 30 to a user, each of the operation entities basically rents the mobile object 30 to the user on condition that the station for renting the mobile object 30 to the user and the station for the user to return the mobile object 30 belong to the identical station group and [0071] and [0081]-[0082]);
in response to a user selecting a station, displaying, by the controller, each station belonging to a first group to which a first station initially selected by the user belongs in a first mode ([0081]-[0082] - For example, when the user selects one of the second stations 52 as the first selection station, the output unit 24 displays the station information to disable the user from selecting one of the first stations 51 as the second selection station. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, when the output unit 24 displays stations on a map, the output unit 24 may display the stations such that the first stations 51 and the second stations 52 are different in display aspect from each other. Specifically, the output unit 24 may display the stations to enable the user to distinguish between selectable and unselectable stations. In FIG. 4, the first stations 51 are displayed with a dashed outline to indicate that they are unselectable. The second stations 52 are displayed with a solid outline to indicate that they are selectable. This makes it easy for the user to recognize that only the second stations 52 (B-1, B-2, B-3) are selectable);
when a second station ... belongs to a second group different from the first group, displaying, by the controller, each station belonging to the second group in a third mode ([0081]-[0082] - For example, when the user selects one of the second stations 52 as the first selection station, the output unit 24 displays the station information to disable the user from selecting one of the first stations 51 as the second selection station. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, when the output unit 24 displays stations on a map, the output unit 24 may display the stations such that the first stations 51 and the second stations 52 are different in display aspect from each other. Specifically, the output unit 24 may display the stations to enable the user to distinguish between selectable and unselectable stations. In FIG. 4, the first stations 51 are displayed with a dashed outline to indicate that they are unselectable. The second stations 52 are displayed with a solid outline to indicate that they are selectable. This makes it easy for the user to recognize that only the second stations 52 (B-1, B-2, B-3) are selectable); and
displaying, by the controller, each station that does not belong to either the first group or the second group in a second mode ([0071] - The first stations 51 are displayed as A-1, A-2, A-3. The second stations 52 are displayed as B-1, B-2, B-3. The number of the station groups is not limited to two. The number may be three or more and [0081]-[0082]),
wherein the first mode, the second mode, and the third mode are distinguished by color, shape, brightness, or any combination thereof ([0071] and [0081]-[0082] and [0085] - For example, the output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable by differentiating colors or shapes of the figures representing the stations. The output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable by differentiating colors or shapes of the characters representing the stations. The output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable by differentiating text describing the stations.)
Miyata fails to explicitly disclose
determining, based on output from a position sensor integrated with the terminal apparatus, a current position of the terminal apparatus;
receiving ... based on the current position of the terminal apparatus;
displaying, ... in a uniform mode
when a second station subsequently selected by the user belongs to a second group different from the first group, displaying...
However, in an analogous art, Walkin teaches
determining, based on output from a position sensor integrated with the terminal apparatus, a current position of the terminal apparatus (col. 8, lines 36-55 - Particular embodiments may determine the user's location based on location data from social networking system being continuously received by a special purpose client application that is configured to continuously capture location data of a mobile device of the first user. Particular embodiments may record data, including but not limited to, the latitude and longitude of the user, the altitude of the user, the horizontal and vertical accuracy levels of the location information, the current speed and direction of the user's travel, the timestamp of when a particular location was recorded, and the source of the location data on the mobile device, for example, from a GPS chip, WiFi, Bluetooth hardware, Cellular ID, or a software solution incorporating one or more of the above signals)
receiving ... based on the current position of the terminal apparatus (col. 9, lines 45-60 - Particular embodiments may retrieve one or more second locations in response to the search query, where the one or more second locations correspond to geographic coordinates, as illustrated in step 240. Sophisticated...For example, relevance of a particular second location may be based in part on the distance between the first location and the second location.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Walkin to the determining/receiving based on range of Miyata to include determining, based on output from a position sensor integrated with the terminal apparatus, a current position of the terminal apparatus; [and] receiving ... based on the current position of the terminal apparatus;
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Walkin to Miyata to do so as it provides / allows easy to use visual interface for map search with respect to location based services (Walkin, col. 1, lines 53-56 and col. 19, lines 59-60).
However, in an further analogous art, Kim teaches concepts of
displaying, on a screen of the terminal apparatus by the controller, the plurality of “sets” that serve as locations ... in a uniform mode (FIG. 25-26 and [0202]-[0203] - Referring to FIG. 25, a third menu 333 for selecting one specific group from among the plural groups may be displayed in the third region 330 of the graphic user interface. If the third menu 333 is selected, as shown in FIG. 26, a group selection screen 340 for selecting one specific group from among the plural groups may be displayed in one region of the graphic user interface);
in response to a user selecting a [set], displaying, by the controller each “set” belonging to a first group (FIG. 25-26 and [0202]-[0203] and [0207] - At this time, among the lighting icons displayed in the first region of the graphic user interface, the display status of the lighting icons included in the selected group, such as the size or the color, may be changed so that the lighting icons corresponding to the selected group may be distinguished from other lighting icons);
when a second “set” subsequently selected by the user belongs to a second group different from the first group, displaying... (FIG. 25-26 and [0202]-[0203] and [0205] - The symbol icons 341 may stand for the plural groups and may be used to select the plural groups, respectively and [0207] - At this time, among the lighting icons displayed in the first region of the graphic user interface, the display status of the lighting icons included in the selected group, such as the size or the color, may be changed so that the lighting icons corresponding to the selected group may be distinguished from other lighting icons and [0208] - After that, the power on-off operation or the brightness control of the lighting devices corresponding to the selected group can be collectively performed by using one of the first menu 331 and the second menu 332 included in the graphic user interface.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim to the determining/displaying of station/groups of Miyata in view of Walkin to include displaying, on a screen of the terminal apparatus by the controller, the plurality of “sets” that serve as locations ... in a uniform mode; in response to a user selecting a [set], displaying, by the controller each “set” belonging to a first group; when a second “set” subsequently selected by the user belongs to a second group different from the first group, displaying...
One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Kim to Miyata in view of Walkin to do so as it provides / allows easy to control user interface (as gleaned from, Kim, [0007] and [0010]).
Regarding Claim 3;
Miyata in view of Walkin and Kim disclose the method to claim 1.
Miyata further discloses further comprising displaying, among the one or more stations that belong to the one or more groups other than the first group, a station that satisfies a predetermined condition in the first mode (FIG. 2 and FIG. 4 and [0022]and [0051]-[0054] and [0081][0082] - For example, when the user selects one of the second stations 52 as the first selection station, the output unit 24 displays the station information to disable the user from selecting one of the first stations 51 as the second selection station. For example, as shown in FIG. 4, when the output unit 24 displays stations on a map, the output unit 24 may display the stations such that the first stations 51 and the second stations 52 are different in display aspect from each other. Specifically, the output unit 24 may display the stations to enable the user to distinguish between selectable and unselectable stations. In FIG. 4, the first stations 51 are displayed with a dashed outline to indicate that they are unselectable. The second stations 52 are displayed with a solid outline to indicate that they are selectable. This makes it easy for the user to recognize that only the second stations 52 (B-1, B-2, B-3) are selectable and [0141]-[0143] - The station groups may be configured such that only the stations managed by one operation entity belong to one station group. The station groups may be configured such that the stations managed by a plurality of operation entities belong to one station group). As construed one or more stations that belong to the one or more groups other than the first group (i.e., operation entity A, etc.) can be selectable as they are under higher round scheme.
Regarding Claim 4;
Miyata in view of Walkin and Kim disclose the method to claim 1.
Miyata further discloses further comprising displaying each of the plurality of stations in a manner that a recommendation degree for each of the plurality of stations is distinguishable ([0085] - The output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable with the presence of hatching, and may also display the stations so as to be distinguishable with different display aspects. For example, the output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable by differentiating colors or shapes of the figures representing the stations. The output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable by differentiating colors or shapes of the characters representing the stations. The output unit 24 may display the stations so as to be distinguishable by differentiating text describing the stations).
Regarding Claim 5;
Miyata in view of Walkin and Kim disclose the method to claim 1.
Miyata further discloses further comprising: identifying, when the first station is selected by the user, stations for each of which the recommendation degree is to be reset, among the plurality of stations (FIG. 9 – Which is Selected Rental or Return Station (i.e., recommendation degree is to be reset) and [0084]-[0085] and [0118]-[0119] and [0121]-[0121]); and redisplaying each of stations for which the recommendation degree has been reset, in a manner that a recommendation degree for each of the stations for which the recommendation degree has been reset is distinguishable, based on recommendation degrees after being reset (FIG. 9 – Which is Selected Rental or Return Station (i.e., recommendation degree is to be reset) and [0084]-[0085] and [0118]-[0119] and [0121]-[0121]).
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 ASFAND M SHEIKH whose telephone number is (571)272-1466. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7a-3p (MDT).
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, JESSICA LEMIEUX can be reached at (571)270-3445. 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.
/ASFAND M SHEIKH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3626