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 .
Examiner has amended the rejection to make it more clear and addressed issues that applicant(s) was/were concerned. No new rejection was made.
1. In response to the Office Action dated on 10/02/2025, applicant(s) amend the application as follow:
Claims amended: none
Claims canceled: 1-20
Claims newly added: none
Claims pending: 21-40
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “thus, applicant respectfully request that these rejections be held in abeyance for the time being…”
Examiner will hold the rejection for the time being. Furthermore. Claim 35 did carry similar concept of claim 1 where inferred categories for the indicated supplemental content item to select a plurality of the indicated supplemental content items for inclusion in the response to the content provider which is one of the option that can be select from the optional language.
Applicant argues “for at least because the cited combination of references fails to teach or suggest such inference of categories…”
Examiner respectfully disagree with the above argument. The inference categories are rule-based categories which similar to content selection logic 115 then obtains content from the supplemental content.... (paragraph 0014).
Applicant argues “Kang’s filtering according to a filtering condition defined by the user does not corresponding…”
Examiner respectfully disagree with the above argument. The recited apply “an inter-item category constraint” is broad and not clearly what it mean until further in the claim which purposes of inter category constraint is rule to exclude the similar content item. Therefore, Kang filtering concept to provide similar content item to be returned to the process providing supplemental content item.
Applicant argues “thus the cited references do not teach Applicant’s claim 1 when the claim read as a whole…”
Examiner respectfully disagreed with the above argument. The Bandit discloses the concept using constraint to select information which requires deduplication of the content. Applicant claim language directed to the similar concept of reduce the likelihood of the two content items similar to each other.
Applicant argues “at least the similar reason above for claim 21, the cited combination fails to teach or suggest … matter of claim 28…”
Please see the explanation for claim 21.
Applicant argues “on page 15 of the action claim 35…”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. The claim language might me little different in beginning; however, the inferred categories remained the same. Please see the amended rejection below and the explanation to claim 1.
Applicant argues ‘over the pages 5-7 of the action a portion of Applicant’s recited subject matter is alleged a mental process performable by a human mind.
Examiner respectfully disagrees with the above argument. Per claim language, “analyzing, based on at least in part on logic for inferring categories of supplemental content items, response metadata or the indicated supplemental content items form the responses from the first and second supplemental content servers to infer categories for the at least some of the indicated supplemental content items” is a mental step which can performed by the mind.
Applicant also argues “in Example 46, claims 2 and 3 are eligible (despite reciting abstract idea, “mental steps”) because it recites other meaningful limitation…”
Examiner respectfully disagree with the above argument. First the claim language is different. Second the claim direct to a mental process; however, the additional limitations such as preparing, applying and transmitting are the additional processing step which is insignificant to amount significantly more.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the "right to exclude" granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto- processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspio.gov/patents/apoly/apolving-orline/eterminal-disclaimer
3. Claims 21-40 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,153,606 B1. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both application direct to the same subject matter prepare, responsive to receipt of responses comprising indications of supplemental content items from first and second supplemental content servers, a response to a request from a content provider including supplemental content items from both the first supplemental content server and the second supplemental content server, wherein prepare the response comprises: analyze, based at least in part on logic for inferring categories of supplemental content items, response metadata or the indicated supplemental content items from the responses from the first and second supplemental content servers to infer categories for the at least some of the indicated supplemental content items; apply an inter-item category constraint using the inferred categories for the indicated supplemental content items to select a plurality of the indicated supplemental content items for inclusion in the response to the content provider, wherein said apply the inter-item category constraint using the inferred categories reduces a likelihood of any two supplemental content items included in the response having a same category; and transmit the response to the content provider. Patent 606 also includes in response to a request from a content provider for supplemental content to be integrated with content provided by the content provider, request supplemental content from a first supplemental content server and a second supplemental content server and receive respective responses from the first and second supplemental content servers indicating supplemental content items, wherein at least one of the respective responses does not specify categories for at least some of the indicated supplemental content items. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to remove additional elements from 606 to arrive the same invention.
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.
4. Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 (See MPEP 2106)
Claims 21-40 are directed to a method, a system and a tangible , non-transitory computer readable medium which belongs to a statutory class.
Claims 21 and 28, the limitation
"analyze, based at least in part on logic for inferring categories of supplemental content items, response metadata or the indicated supplement content items form the responses from the first and second supplemental content servers to infer categories for the at least some of the indicated supplemental content items" which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims are directed to a system including one or more processors and corresponding memory and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including program instructions which executes by processor are the generic computer components performing the abstract idea. The user is performing the mental steps of selecting inputted information for processing, by using the computer as a generic tool. See MPEP 2106. 04. (a)(2).III.C. , 2106.05(a),2106.05(c)-(d) II.
“Prepare, responsive to receipt of responses comprising indications of supplement content items from first and second supplemental content servers, a response to a request form a content provider including supplemental content items from both the first supplemental content server and the second supplemental content server” is the process for obtaining information according the requester.
“Apply an inter-item category constraints using the inferred categories for the indicated supplemental content item to select a plurality of the indicated supplemental content items for inclusion in the response to the content provider, wherein said apply the inter-item category constraints using the inferred categories reduces a like hood of any two supplemental content items included in the response having a same category, and transmit the response to the content provider” is the processing step of executing the query to retrieve data.
“Transmitting the response to the content provider” is a process for providing formation to the requester.
The limitation is thus insignificant extra-solution activity. Limitations that the courts have found not to be enough to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception include: i. Adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, e.g., a limitation indicating that a particular function such as creating and maintaining electronic records is performed by a computer, as discussed in Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2360, 110 USPQ2d at 1984 (see MPEP § 2106.05(f). 2106.05(g)--Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
Claim 35
Claim 35, the limitation
"analyze, based at least in part on logic for inferring categories of supplemental content items, response metadata or the indicated supplement content items form the responses from the first and second supplemental content servers to infer categories for the at least some of the indicated supplemental content items" which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by Mental Process, but for the recitation of generic computer components. Nothing in the claim element precludes the steps from practically being performed in the human mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by mental process, but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
Claims are directed to a system including one or more processors and corresponding memory and one or more non-transitory computer-readable media including program instructions which executes by processor are the generic computer components performing the abstract idea. The user is performing the mental steps of selecting inputted information for processing, by using the computer as a generic tool. See MPEP 2106. 04. (a)(2).III.C. , 2106.05(a),2106.05(c)-(d) II.
“Prepare, responsive to receipt of responses comprising indications of supplement content items from first and second supplemental content servers, a response to a request form a content provider including supplemental content items from both the first supplemental content server and the second supplemental content server.”
“Dropping one or more of the indicated supplemental content items that remain uncategorized after said analyzing, wherein said dropping reduces a likelihood of any two supplemental content items included in the response having a same category” is the process eliminating/deduplicating data.
“Applying frequency information indicating a frequency of one or more of the indicated supplemental content items or of the inferred categories for the indicated supplemental content items to select a plurality of the indicated supplemental content items for inclusion in the response to the content provider, wherein said applying frequency information indicating a frequency of one or more of the indicated items or of the inferred” is the process for processing the information using inferred categories (rule-based category) to provide information.
Step 2B:
The conclusions for the mere implementation using a computer are carried over and does not provide significantly more.
Looking at the claim as a whole does not change this conclusion and the claim is ineligible.
As to claims 22, 29 and 36, the limitation "provide an interface for receiving specification of the logic for inferring categories of supplemental content items; and receive, via the interface, specification of the logic for inferring categories of supplemental content items; and said analyze is based at least in part on the logic for inferring categories, whose specification was received via the interface" is only further defined what interface can do and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claims 23, 30 and 37, the limitation "the one or more processors and corresponding memory are configured to: provide an interface for receiving specification of the inter-item category constraint; and receive, via the interface, specification of the inter-item category constraint; and said apply is based at least in part on the inter-item category constraint, specification of which was received via the interface) is only further defined what interface is and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
Claims 24 and 31, the limitation "wherein the interface for receiving specification of the inter-item category constraint supports receiving specification of a variable amount of certainty with respect to the inter-item category constraint" is only further defined what the interface use for and insignificantly to amount significantly more.
As to claims 25, 32 and 39, the limitation "analyze response metadata, or the indicated supplemental content items to infer categories for the at least some of the indicated supplemental content items, comprises: analyze the response metadata or the indicated supplemental content items via a heuristics-based analyzer that uses one or more rules to infer the categories, or via application of machine learning model to the response metadata or supplemental content items to infer the categories" is abstract is idea and mental process.
As to claims 26, 33 and 40, the limitation "analyze response metadata comprising tags describing the respective supplemental content item to infer a category for the respective supplemental content item; analyze interactive links in the respective supplemental content item to infer a category for the respective supplemental content item; determine an identifier for a respective supplemental content item, and infer a category for the respective supplemental content item from an entry in an index of supplemental content items and corresponding categories; or determine an identifier for a respective supplemental content item, and request a category associated with the identifier from another system" is an abstract idea.
As to claims 27 and 34, the limitation "one or more uncategorized supplemental content items unable to be categorized within an analysis time constraint, the respective supplemental content retrieval service is configured to, in addition to said apply an inter-item constraint to the one or more first supplemental content items to prepare a response, randomly select one or
more of the uncategorized supplemental content items for the response" is the additional element which is insignificant to amount significantly more.
As to claim 38, the limitation "applying frequency information to select a plurality of the indicted supplement content items for inclusion in the response to the content provider comprises selecting at least one of the indicated supplemental content item from a category, for which selection frequency is below a selection frequency threshold" is the additional element which is insignificant to amount significantly more.
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 inventio as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
5. Claim(s) 21-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over BANTI et al. (Pub. No. US 2016/0253429 A1) in view of Kang et al. (Pub. No. US 2018/0067997 A1).
As to claim 21 (New) BANTI discloses a system, comprising:
one or more processors (processor 603) (paragraph 0056) and corresponding memory (memory) (paragraph 0056) configured to implement a service configured to:
prepare, responsive to receipt of responses comprising indications of supplemental content items from first and second supplemental content servers, a response to a request from a content provider including supplemental content items from both the first supplemental content server and the second supplemental content server (supplemental content 124A and 124B are obtained from the supplemental content providers 109a and 109b) (paragraph 0014), wherein prepare the response comprises:
analyze, based at least in part on logic for inferring categories of supplemental content items, response metadata or the indicated supplemental content items from the responses from the first and second supplemental content servers to infer categories for the at least some of the
indicated supplemental content items (content selection logic 115 then obtains content from the supplemental content....) (paragraph 0014).
BANTI does not explicitly discloses apply an inter-item category constraint using the inferred categories for the indicated supplemental content items to select a plurality of the indicated supplemental content items for inclusion in the response to the content provider, wherein said apply the inter-item category constraint using the inferred categories reduces a likelihood of any two supplemental content items included in the response having a same category; and transmit the response to the content provider. Kang discloses apply an inter-item category constraint using the inferred categories for the indicated supplemental content items to select a plurality of the indicated supplemental content items for inclusion in the response to the content provider, wherein said apply the inter-item category constraint using the inferred categories reduces a likelihood of any two supplemental content items included in the response having a same category; and transmit the response to the content provider (the data reducer 22 is configured to receive the data processed by the data processing apparatuses 30, delete data, performing filtering according to a filtering condition defined by the user, and perform data materialization of integrating the data subject to the query processing to transit the data to the client 10) (paragraph 036). This suggests the data reducer to reduce/eliminate duplication according to the user defined rule (constraints). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of BANTI to include the data reducer to reduce/eliminate duplication according to the user defined rule (constraints) as disclosed by Kang in order to provide deduplicate supplemental data.
As to claim 22 (New) BANTI discloses the system of claim 21, wherein: the one or more processors and corresponding memory are configured to: provide an interface for receiving specification of the logic for inferring categories of supplemental content items; and receive, via
the interface, specification of the logic for inferring categories of supplemental content items; and said analyze is based at least in part on the logic for inferring categories, whose specification was received via the interface (user interface 254) (paragraph 0032).
As to claim 23 (New) BANTI discloses the system of claim 22, wherein: the one or more processors and corresponding memory are configured to: provide an interface for receiving specification of the inter-item category constraint; and receive, via the interface, specification of the inter-item category constraint; and said apply is based at least in part on the inter-item category constraint, specification of which was received via the interface (user interface 254) (paragraph 0032).
As to claim 24. (New) BANTI discloses the system of claim 23, wherein the interface for receiving specification of the inter-item category constraint supports receiving specification of a variable amount of certainty with respect to the inter-item category constraint (compatibility rules 224) (paragraph 0026).
As to claim 25. (New) BANTI discloses the system of claim 21, wherein said analyze response metadata, or the indicated supplemental content items to infer categories for the at least some of the indicated supplemental content items, comprises: analyze the response metadata or the indicated supplemental content items via a heuristics-based analyzer that uses one or more rules to infer the categories (the content selection logic 115 may obtain supplemental content 124 only form supplemental 124 only from supplemental content provider 109...) (paragraph 0014), or via application of machine learning model to the response metadata or supplemental content items to infer the categories.
As to claim 26. (New) PANTI discloses the system of claim 21, wherein said analyze response metadata, or the indicated supplemental content items to infer categories for the at least some of the indicated supplemental content items comprises: analyze response metadata comprising tags describing the respective supplemental content item to infer a category for the respective supplemental content item; analyze interactive links in the respective supplemental content item to infer a category for the respective supplemental content item; determine an identifier for a respective supplemental content item, and infer a category for the respective supplemental content item from an entry in an index of supplemental content items and corresponding categories; or determine an identifier for a respective supplemental content item, and request a category associated with the identifier from another system (the supplemental content providers 109 may be selected based at least in part on a compatibility rule 224 that defines whether supplemental content 124 from a first supplemental content provider 109 is permitted to be rendered in association with supplemental content 124 from a second supplemental content provider 109) (paragraph 0035).
As to claim 27. (New) DANTI discloses the system of claim 21, wherein for one or more uncategorized supplemental content items unable to be categorized within an analysis time constraint, the respective supplemental content retrieval service is configured to, in addition to said apply an inter-item constraint to the one or more first supplemental content items to prepare a response, randomly select one or more of the uncategorized supplemental content items for the response (the supplemental content providers 109 may be selected based at least in part on a compatibility rule 224 that defines whether supplemental content 124 from a first supplemental content provider 109 is permitted to be rendered in association with supplemental content 124 from a second supplemental content provider 109) (paragraph 0035).
Claim 28 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, BANTI discloses a method (method) (paragraph 0044).
Claim 29 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 22.
Claim 30 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 23.
Claim 31 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 24.
Claim 32 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 25.
Claim 33 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 26.
Claim 34 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 27.
Claim 35 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 1, DANTI discloses one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (memory) (paragraph 0056) storing program instructions (instructions) (paragraph 0056) executable on or across one or more processors (processor 603) (paragraph 0056)
prepare, responsive to receipt of responses comprising indications of supplemental content items from first and second supplemental content servers, a response to a request from a content provider including supplemental content items from both the first supplemental content server and the second supplemental content server (supplemental content 124A and 124B are obtained from the supplemental content providers 109a and 109b) (paragraph 0014), wherein prepare the response comprises:
analyze, based at least in part on logic for inferring categories of supplemental content items, response metadata or the indicated supplemental content items from the responses from the first and second supplemental content servers to infer categories for the at least some of the
indicated supplemental content items (content selection logic 115 then obtains content from the supplemental content....) (paragraph 0014).
BANTI does not explicitly disclose dropping one or more of the indicated supplemental content items that remain uncategorized after said analyzing, wherein said dropping reduces a likelihood of any two supplemental content items included in the response having a same category or applying frequency information indicating a frequency of one or more of the indicated supplemental content items or of the inferred categories for the indicated supplemental content items to select a plurality of the indicated supplemental content items for inclusion in the response to the content provider, wherein said applying frequency information indicating a frequency of one or more of the indicated items or of the inferred and responding to the content provider with the response. Kang discloses dropping one or more of the indicated supplemental content items that remain uncategorized after said analyzing, wherein said dropping reduces a likelihood of any two supplemental content items included in the response having a same category or applying frequency information indicating a frequency of one or more of the indicated supplemental content items or of the inferred categories for the indicated supplemental content items to select a plurality of the indicated supplemental content items for inclusion in the response to the content provider, wherein said applying frequency information indicating a frequency of one or more of the indicated items or of the inferred and responding to the content provider with the response (the data reducer 22 is configured to receive the data processed by the data processing apparatuses 30, delete data, performing filtering according to a filtering condition defined by the user, and perform data materialization of integrating the data subject to the query processing to transit the data to the client 10) (paragraph 036).. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify teaching of BANTI to include dropping one or more of the indicated supplemental content items that remain uncategorized after said analyzing, wherein said dropping reduces a likelihood of any two supplemental content items included in the response having a same category or applying frequency information indicating a frequency of one or more of the indicated supplemental content items or of the inferred categories for the indicated supplemental content items to select a plurality of the indicated supplemental content items for inclusion in the response to the content provider, wherein said applying frequency information indicating a frequency of one or more of the indicated items or of the inferred and responding to the content provider with the response as disclosed by Kang in order to provide deduplicate supplemental data and return to the requester.
Claim 36 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 22.
Claim 37 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 23.
As to claim 38, BANTI discloses the one or more non-transitory computer-readable media of claim 37, wherein: said applying frequency information to select a plurality of indicted supplement content items for inclusion in the response to the content provider comprises selecting at least one of the indicated supplemental content item from a category, for which selection frequency is below a selection frequency threshold (ranked) (paragraph 0050).
Claim 39 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 25.
Claim 40 is rejected under the same reason as to claim 26.
Conclusion
6. 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 BAOQUOC N TO whose telephone number is (571)272-4041. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 6PM.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
BAOQUOC N. TO
Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/BAOQUOC N TO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights