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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This final Office action is in response to applicant’s communication received on July 23, 2026, wherein claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 07/23/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application has been reviewed and is accepted (See approval dated 07/23/2026). The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are geared towards the newly amended claims with newly added limitations. The newly amended claims with the newly added limitations are considered for the first time in the rejection below.
35 USC §101 discussion:
Applicant concept is towards grouping/clustering orders (warehouse type setting), assigning picking work (for order fulfillment), allocating delivery work, and then periodically re-allocating as travel and preparation statuses change. Applicant concept looks at delivery agent travel and locations and locks that agent into the currently assigned batch and removes those orders from later reallocations. Applicant’s claims recite receiving/collecting/obtaining information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. order, time, location, availability of people (agents, etc.,), items, and the like), information/data analysis/manipulation (comparing information, determining statuses, assigning/moving information around, solving for optimization, etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making (for optimizing order fulfillment in a warehouse and delivering the order). The claims are geared towards abstract idea that covers methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions (i.e. business relations in order fulfillment or customer orders including preparation and delivery of orders) and managing personal relationships (order preparation within warehouse by available agents and optimally scheduling deliveries of orders)) and mental process (observation, evaluation of information, and making assignment/reassignment decisions).
All the technical elements stated in the claims are all well-known generic/general-purpose elements used in an “apply-it” fashion – i.e. the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology or technical field (MPEP 2106.05). The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, “devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20); “user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 2-12); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 14-19)) performing generic computer/computing/technology functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions as the independent claims above to implement the abstract idea. The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, “devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20); “user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 2-12); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 14-19)). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (discussed above) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements (for example, “devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20); “user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 2-12); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 14-19)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
Applicants’ claims also do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims recite using known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, “devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20); “user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 2-12); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 14-19)). There is clearly not enough technical detail so that a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing a technical improvement. The additional elements (for example, “devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20); “user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 2-12); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 14-19)) or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Viewed as a whole, the claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, Applicants’ claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014). Also see rejection below.
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 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Note: The above §101 discussion in the “Response to Arguments” section is also incorporated into this rejection in addition to the rejection below.
Regarding Step 1 (MPEP 2106.03) of the subject matter eligibility test per MPEP 2106.03, Claims 1-12 are directed to a method (i.e., process), claims 13-19 are directed to non-transitory computer readable medium (i.e. product or article of manufacture), and claim 20 is directed to a system (i.e. machine). Accordingly, all claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention.
(Under Step 2) The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
(Under Step 2A, Prong 1 (MPEP 2106.04)) The independent claims (1, 13, 20) recite receiving/collecting/obtaining information/data (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. order, time, location, availability of people (agents, etc.,), items, and the like), information/data analysis/manipulation (comparing information, determining statuses, assigning/moving information around, solving for optimization, etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making (for optimizing order fulfillment in a warehouse and delivering the order).
The limitations of the independent claims (1, 13, 20), under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions (i.e. business relations in order fulfillment or customer orders including preparation and delivery of orders) and managing personal relationships (order preparation within warehouse by available agents and optimally scheduling deliveries of orders)) and mental process (observation, evaluation of information, and making assignment/reassignment decisions).
If a claims limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation as fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations; advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors; business relations); managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including scheduling, social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions), then it falls within the “organizing human activities” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04). If claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover the performance of the limitation as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), the claim limitations fall within the Mental process grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04).
Accordingly, since Applicant's claims fall under organizing human activities grouping and mental processes grouping, the claims recite an abstract idea.
(Under Step 2A, prong 2 (MPEP 2106.04(d))) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because but for the recitation of well-known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms (“devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20)), in the context of the independent claims (1, 13, 20), the claims encompass the above stated abstract idea (organizing human activity (managing inventory and construction sites in view of abstract information (organizing human activity (commercial interactions (i.e. business relations in order fulfillment or customer orders including preparation and delivery of orders) and managing personal relationships (order preparation within warehouse by available agents and optimally scheduling deliveries of orders)) and mental process (observation, evaluation of information, and making assignment/reassignment decisions)).
As shown above, the independent claims (1, 13, 20) recite generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations ((“devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20))) which are recited at a high level of generality performing generic/general purpose computer/computing functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations ((“devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20))). The CAFC has stated that it is not enough, however, to merely improve abstract processes by invoking a computer merely as a tool. Customedia Techs., LLC v. Dish Network Corp., 951 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The focus of the claims is simply to use computers and a familiar network as a tool to perform abstract processes (organizing human activity (commercial interactions (i.e. business relations in order fulfillment or customer orders including preparation and delivery of orders) and managing personal relationships (order preparation within warehouse by available agents and optimally scheduling deliveries of orders)) and mental process (observation, evaluation of information, and making assignment/reassignment decisions)) involving simple information exchange. Carrying out abstract processes involving information exchange is an abstract idea. See, e.g., BSG, 899 F.3d at 1286; SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167-68; Affinity Labs of Tex., LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1261-62 (Fed. Cir. 2016). And use of standard computers and networks to carry out those functions—more speedily, more efficiently, more reliably—does not make the claims any less directed to that abstract idea. See Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 222-25; Customedia, 951 F.3d at 1364; Trading Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1092-93 (Fed. Cir. 2019); SAP America, 898 F.3d at 1167; Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Electric Power Grp., LLC v. Alstom S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the additional elements (“devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
(Under Step 2B (MPEP 2106.05)) The independent claims (1, 13, 20) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of an abstract idea to a particular technological environment. The independent claims recite using known generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (“devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20)). For the role of a computer in a computer implemented invention to be deemed meaningful in the context of this analysis, it must involve more than performance of "well-understood, routine, [and] conventional activities previously known to the industry." Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014), at 2359 (quoting Mayo, 132 S. Ct. at 1294 (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted)). These activities as claimed by the Applicant are all well-known and routine tasks in the field of art – as can been seen in the specification of Applicant’s application (for example, see Applicant’s specification at, for example, figure 4 and Pages 24-25 [where Applicant recites general-purpose/generic computers/processors/etc., and generic/general-purpose computing components/devices/etc., in Applicant’s specification]) and/or the specification of the below cited art (used in the rejection below and on the PTO-892) and/or also as noted in the court cases in §2106.05 in the MPEP. Further, "the mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice at 2358. None of the hardware offers a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the system to a particular technological environment, that is, implementation via computers. Adding generic computer components to perform generic functions that are well‐understood, routine and conventional, such as gathering data, performing calculations, and outputting a result would not transform the claims into eligible subject matter. Abstract ideas are excluded from patent eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of the basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (“devices” (in independent claim 1); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 13); “computing system, processors, non-transitory computer readable storage medium, instructions encoded thereon (software/code), processors, devices” (in independent claim 20)) or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, the independent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the independent claims (1, 13, 20) do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
The dependent claims (2-12, 14-19) further define the independent claims and merely narrow the described abstract idea, but not adding significantly more than the abstract idea. The dependent claims either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself. The above rejection discussed for the independent claims fully applies to the dependent claims.
The dependent claims (2-12, 14-19) further state using obtained data/information (where the information itself is abstract in nature – e.g. order, time, location, availability of people (agents, etc.,), items, and the like), information/data analysis/manipulation (comparing information, determining statuses, assigning/moving information around, solving for optimization, etc.,) to determine more data/information, possibly obtaining more abstract information/data, and providing this determined data/information for further analysis and decision-making (for optimizing order fulfillment in a warehouse and delivering the order).
These dependent claims also cover methods of organizing human activity (commercial interactions (i.e. business relations in order fulfillment or customer orders including preparation and delivery of orders) and managing personal relationships (order preparation within warehouse by available agents and optimally scheduling deliveries of orders)) and mental process (observation, evaluation of information, and making assignment/reassignment decisions).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims and specification recite additional elements as generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (for example, “user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 2-12); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 14-19)) performing generic computer/computing/technology functions. (MPEP 2106.04). The dependent claims merely use the same general technological environment and instructions as the independent claims above to implement the abstract idea. The generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations are no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception (the above abstract idea) in an apply-it fashion using generic/general-purpose computing/technology components/elements/terms/limitations (“user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 2-12); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 14-19)). Hence, the additional elements (“user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 2-12); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 14-19)) do not integrate the abstract idea in to a practical application because they does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea – i.e. they are just post-solution/extra-solution activities.
Also, the dependent claims either individually or in combination are merely an extension of the abstract idea itself and the dependent claims (similar to the independent claims) do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims require no more than a generic computer to perform generic computer functions. The additional elements (“user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 2-12); “non-transitory computer readable storage medium, user interface, devices,” (in dependent claims 14-19)) or combination of elements in the dependent claims other than the abstract idea per se amounts to no more than: (i) mere instructions to implement the idea on a computer, and/or (ii) recitation of generic computer structure that serves to perform generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional activities previously known to the pertinent industry. Applicant is directed to the following citations and references: Digitech Image., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc. (758 F.3d 1344 (2014) discussing U.S. Patent No. 6,128,415); and (2) Federal register/Vol. 79, No 241 issued on December 16, 2014, page 74629, column 2, Gottschalk v. Benson. Viewed as a whole, dependent claims do not purport to improve the functioning of the computer itself, or to improve any other technology or technical field. Use of an unspecified, generic computer does not transform an abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Thus, the dependent claims also do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 110 USPQ2d 1976 (U.S. 2014).
Prior art discussion (not a rejection)
As per the independent claims (1, 13, 20), the closet prior art are Antonellis (US 20040210621), Pandya et al., (US 2018/0158016), and Raj et al., (US 2016/0117627). However, neither Antonellis nor Pandya nor Raj disclose the specific combined limitations of “periodically re-assigning picking tasks to the picking agents based on order preparation statuses associated with corresponding picking agents and delivery status associated with delivery agents who are responsible for delivering orders that are to be picked by corresponding picking agents, wherein the periodically re- assigning of picking tasks comprises: estimating a plurality of delivery times by applying a delivery time model to the location data of the delivery agents; and periodically re-assigning delivery tasks to the delivery agents based on order delivery statuses associated with corresponding delivery agents and picking statuses associated with orders that are to be delivered by corresponding delivery agents, wherein the periodically re-assigning of delivery tasks comprises: estimating a plurality of picking times by applying a picking time model to the plurality of orders.” Additionally, given the specific ordered combination of the claim elements in the independent claims cannot be found in the prior art (including art cited in PTO-892) and can only be found in Applicant's Specification. The prior art of record (including art cite on PTO-892) does not teach or suggest (the reference individually or in combination) Applicant's current independent claims as a whole (it is the entire claimed concept described by the limitations collectively coming together that is not rejected under prior art (the core concept is shown in the claim as a whole - limitations organized in the specific form and coming together collectively to form the concept)). Furthermore, any combination of the cited references and/or additional references to teach all of the claim elements would not be obvious and would result in impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
As per the dependent claims, these claims depend on the independent claims above and
incorporate the limitations thereof, and are therefore not rejected under prior art for at least the same
rationale as applied to the independent claims above, and incorporated herein.
Note that all the claims are still rejected under §101 rejection above and are therefore not allowable.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record on the PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. For example, some of the prior art is as follows:
Buchmann, (US 2021/0221615): Provides for operating a storage and order-picking system in accordance with a rendezvous-picking principle, wherein at locally variable picking stations goods to be picked are retrieved from source containers and delivered to target containers in accordance with picking orders, wherein the system comprises: a plurality of vehicles for transporting the source containers and the target containers within the system; a warehouse area and an action area; a locally variable picking station comprising a variable relative position within the action area which changes again and again over time dependent on a customer order; and a controlling device configured for planning and performing the rendezvous-picking process; wherein the method comprises: analyzing a plurality of customer orders, in particular for the criteria: source-container location, target-container location, and/or batch potential of the customer orders; selecting an (optimal) relative position for the variable picking station and determining transport orders for the vehicles, wherein the transport orders for the vehicles define a temporally and locally synchronized meeting (“rendezvous”) of a customer-order specific number of the source containers and of a customer-order specific number of the target containers at the selected relative position of the variable picking station; and performing the transport orders and the picking at the variable picking station.
CAI, (US 2016/0260046): Illustrates technologies for facilitating activity tracking In accordance with one aspect, sensor data is received from a wearable device. An activity type associated with a worker is recognized based on the sensor data. A fitness analysis may be performed, based on the sensor data and recognized activity type, to determine a stress level of the worker. One or more suggestions for improving the well-being of the worker may then be generated based on the stress level.
Carr et al., (US 2014/0095350): Discusses techniques for allowing a store to provide same day delivery to customers are disclosed. The techniques include receiving a delivery location for delivery of the item with a customer order, providing the delivery location to a delivery server, the delivery server comparing the delivery location to existing delivery locations for a same day delivery route, and providing potential delivery times to the store server. The techniques also include the store server correlating the possible delivery times with predetermined delivery windows, presenting to the customer potential delivery windows for the order, and receiving from the customer a selection of a delivery window.
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 concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GURKANWALJIT SINGH whose telephone number is (571)270-5392. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached on 571-270-5389. 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.
/Gurkanwaljit Singh/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights