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
Status of Claims
The following is a Final Office Action in response to Applicant’s amendment received 08/26/2026.
In accordance with Applicant’s amendment, claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 12, 14-15, 18, and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed on 07/28/2026 has been considered.
Response to Amendment
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1-2, 9-10, and 15-16 is withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
Response to Arguments
Response to §101 arguments: Applicant’s arguments (Remarks at pgs. 13-16) concerning the §101 rejection of claims 1-20 have been considered, but are not persuasive.
Applicant first argues that the claims are not directed to the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping as “managing personal behavior or interactions” and that “responding to an input from a single user operating an interface is not the management of personal behavior, relationships, or interactions between people” (Remarks at pg. 13).
In response, the Examiner first emphasizes that the selection by a user is an explicitly recited claim limitation, and furthermore this steps forms the basis for the subsequent steps directly tied to the user selection. Furthermore, in so far as applicant suggests that interactions must occur between users (i.e., two or more users), the Examiner notes that an interaction involving a single person is sufficient to fall within the realm of “certain methods of organizing human activity (including a single person and a computer), as noted in the FAQs related to the 2019 PEG.
PNG
media_image1.png
616
815
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Next, referring to Step 2A Prong Two, applicant argues primarily in support of the amendment to claim 1 (Remarks at pg. 14), which is believed to be fully addressed in the updated §101 rejection set forth in the instant office action. Nevertheless, it is noted that the amendment to claim 1 merely adds generic computing elements (terminal comprising one or more processors and a display, user interface), which are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because this is similar to simply adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). See also, Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”).
Applicant further argues that “claims 1, 9, and 15 as amended do not recite a mental process” and that “A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand these recited operations as requiring computational testing against potentially large data sets that cannot be performed mentally” (Remarks at pg. 14), and cites par. [0071] of the Specification (which refers to real-time recalculation and updating), suggesting that “A human cannot mentally recalculate precision, recall, or rule-similarity metrics across historical service data for every candidate condition each time a user makes a selection” (Remarks at pg. 15).
Applicant’s argument’s is unpersuasive because it relies on applying a narrower interpretation than the claim language requires by seeking to import limitations from the specification, which is impermissible. In particular, the Examiner notes that applicant’s claims do not recite or inherently require “large data sets” ore teal time recalculation/updating of the evaluation indicators as suggested by applicant, and therefore such details from the Specification do not act as a limitation on the conditions, rules, service data, or other data or processing thereof as recited in the claims, e.g., the data involved in “testing a degree of reasonableness of the temporary rule based on historical service data” or “retesting a degree of reasonableness…” as recited in amended claim 1. See Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also, CollegeNet, Inc. v. Apply Yourself Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (while the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims).
Furthermore, the Step 2A Prong One analysis of the §101 rejection explains why each of claim steps set forth activity that falls under the “mental processes” abstract idea grouping, which applicant has not specifically discussed or rebutted. Notably, applicant’s arguments fail to specifically point out any supposed errors in the findings set forth in the Step 2A1 analysis, which provides reasons why each of the limitations is interpreted as setting forth or describing activity falling under one or more of the abstract idea groupings. Therefore, applicant’s arguments under Step 2A1 are not persuasive.
In response to applicant’s citation to the CAFC’s Core Wireless decision (Remarks at pg. 15), the Examiner emphasizes that, in the Core Wireless decision, the CAFC recognized that the claims recited a specific improvement over prior art systems via the improved user interface for summarizing applications, citing the specification's support for the improvement particularly to electronic devices with small screens and the noted deficiency of prior art interfaces related to the functioning of the computer, such as the prior art interfaces' requirement for a user "to scroll around and switch views many times to find the right data/functionality." In contrast, Applicant's claims and specification do not identify any comparable technological deficiency in the prior art that is resolved by Applicant’s invention. Applicant’s claims are not directed to a solution that can be analogized to the computer-rooted solution under consideration in Core Wireless, but instead rely on a generic computer (one or more processors, display, user interface) to implement the claims, though without yielding any discernible improvement to the computer or any other technological elements or technical field.
Applicant argues that claim 1 of Example 37 of the Subject Matter Eligibility (published in the October 2019 Update) is directly instructive, suggesting that “Claims 1, 9, and 15 as amended recite an analogous combination: a user selection received in a user interface, a processor that determines a temporary rule for each candidate condition and tests it against historical service data, and the automatic, dynamic recalculation, re-sorting, and updated display of the resulting evaluation indicator for each candidate condition in response to a change in the user’s selection” (Remarks at pg. 16). The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
In response, the Examiner points out that claim 1 of Example 37 was deemed eligible because “automatically moving the most used icons to a position on the GUI closest to the start icon of the computer system based on the determined amount of user” and the “determining” step preceding the automatic movement of the icons are steps performed automatically by a processor, which yielded a specific improvement to a user interface. In contrast, Applicant’s amended claim 1 merely recites the involvement of a user interface for insignificant extra-solution activity to facilitate display of each condition, the evaluator indicator, and at least part of the candidate conditions and corresponding evaluation indicators. Neither applicant’s claims nor applicant’s Speficiation describe or suggest that the claimed or disclosed invention provides an improvement to a user interface, nor is any such improvement discernible by one skilled in the art.
For the reasons provided above and the reasons set forth below in the updated §101 rejection, the amendments and arguments are not sufficient to overcome the 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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-patentable subject matter. The claims are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The eligibility analysis in support of these findings is provided below, in accordance with the subject matter eligibility guidance set forth in MPEP 2106.
With respect to Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.03), it is first noted that the claimed method (claims 1-8), computer-implemented device (claims 9-14), and non-transitory computer-readable medium (claims 15-20) are each directed to a potentially eligible category of subject matter (i.e., process, machine, and article of manufacture). Accordingly, claims 1-20 satisfy Step 1 of the eligibility inquiry.
With respect to Step 2A Prong One of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04), it is next noted that the claims recite an abstract idea that falls under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” abstract idea grouping by reciting limitations describing steps for managing personal behavior or interactions (user based condition selection and rule determination for executing a service), and steps that, but for the generic computer implementation, may be implemented as “Mental Processes” (e.g., observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion). The limitations reciting the abstract idea as set forth in independent claim 1 are identified in bold text below, whereas the additional elements are presented in plain text and are separately evaluated under Step 2A Prong Two and Step 2B:
displaying, in a user interface on the display, each condition used to construct a rule and an evaluation indicator corresponding to the condition, wherein the evaluation indicator represents a degree of reasonableness of rule construction using the condition (The “displaying” step describes activity for managing personal behavior or interactions because this step displayed pursuant to eliciting a response/selection from a user; and furthermore, but for the generic computer implementation, the “displaying” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to display the condition/indicator with pen and paper. In addition, the “displaying” step may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network));
determining, in response to a selection operation of a user, conditions selected by the user from candidate conditions; determining, for each candidate condition, a temporary rule based on the candidate condition and the conditions already selected by the user (The “determining” steps describe activity considered managing personal behavior or interactions because these steps directly tied to the user selection; and furthermore, but for the generic computer implementation, the “determining” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
testing a degree of reasonableness of the temporary rule based on historical service data (The “testing” step describes activity considered managing personal behavior or interactions because this directly tied to the user selection and corresponding condition/rule; and furthermore, but for the generic computer implementation, the “testing” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
determining, based on the degree of reasonableness of the temporary rule, an evaluation indicator corresponding to the candidate condition (The “determining” step describes activity considered managing personal behavior or interactions because this activity is directly tied to the user selection and corresponding condition/rule; and furthermore, but for the generic computer implementation, the “determining” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
displaying, in the user interface, the evaluation indicator corresponding to the candidate condition (The “displaying” step describes activity for managing personal behavior or interactions because the displaying is performed in conjunction with a response/selection from a user and in the relation to operation of a user; and furthermore, but for the generic computer implementation through the “user interface,” the “displaying” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to display the condition/indicator with pen and paper. In addition, the “displaying” step may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network));
in response to a change in the conditions already selected by the user, redetermining the temporary rule for each candidate condition, retesting a degree of reasonableness of the redetermined temporary rule based on the historical service data, and recalculating and updating the evaluation indicator corresponding to the candidate condition (The “redetermining” step describes activity considered managing personal behavior or interactions because this activity is directly tied to the user selection and testing/evaluation of corresponding condition/rule; and furthermore, but for the generic computer implementation, the “redetermining” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
sorting the candidate conditions based on the evaluation indicator corresponding to the candidate condition (The “sorting” step describes activity considered managing personal behavior or interactions because this activity is directly tied to the user selection and evaluation of corresponding condition/rule; and furthermore, but for the generic computer implementation, the “redetermining” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion);
displaying, in the user interface, at least part of the candidate conditions and corresponding evaluation indicators based on a result of the sorting (The “displaying” step describes activity for managing personal behavior or interactions because the displaying is performed in accordance with a response/selection by a user; and furthermore, but for the generic computer implementation with a “user interface,” the “displaying” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion to display the condition/indicator with pen and paper. In addition, the “displaying” step may be considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network));
determining a target rule in response to a determining operation of the user (The “determining” step describes activity considered managing personal behavior or interactions because this activity is directly tied to the user selection and corresponding condition/rule and to the operation of a user; and furthermore,” but for the generic computer implementation, the “determining” could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion); and
when an invocation instruction for invoking the target rule is received, executing a service based on the target rule and service data corresponding to the invocation instruction (This step describes activity considered managing personal behavior or interactions because this activity is directly tied to the user selection and corresponding condition/rule; and furthermore, but for the generic computer implementation, this step could be implemented as mental activity such as by observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion).
Independent claims 9 and 15 recite similar limitations as those set forth in claim 1 as discussed above, and have therefore been determined to recite the same abstract idea as claim 1.
With respect to Step 2A Prong Two of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.04(d)), the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 include additional elements directed to a terminal comprising one or more processors and a display (claim 1), a user interface (claims 1, 9, and 15), computer-implemented device, one or more processors, and one or more tangible non-transitory machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform one or more operations (claim 9) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations (claim 15). The additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions (software) to perform the abstract idea, similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent), which merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment). See MPEP 2106.05(f) and 2106.05(h). Even if the displaying steps are considered as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is not enough to amount to a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(g).
Accordingly, because the Step 2A Prong One and Prong Two analysis resulted in the conclusion that the claims are directed to an abstract idea, additional analysis under Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry must be conducted in order to determine whether any claim element or combination of elements amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With respect to Step 2B of the eligibility inquiry (as explained in MPEP 2106.05), it has been determined that the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Independent claims 1, 9, and 15 include additional elements directed to a terminal comprising one or more processors and a display (claim 1), a user interface (claims 1, 9, and 15), computer-implemented device, one or more processors, and one or more tangible non-transitory machine-readable media storing one or more instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, perform one or more operations (claim 9) and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing one or more instructions executable by a computer system to perform operations (claim 15). These additional elements have been evaluated, but fail to add significantly more to the claims because they amount to using generic computing elements or instructions/software to perform the abstract idea, which merely serves to tie the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (generic computing environment), similar to adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent). Notably, the Specification describes a litany of generic computing devices suggesting that virtually any computing device under the sun could be used to implement the invention (See, e.g., Spec. at par. [0145], noting for example that “A typical implementation device is a computer. Specifically, the computer can be, for example, a personal computer, a laptop computer, a cellular phone, a camera phone, a smartphone, a personal digital assistant, a media player, a navigation device, an email device, a game console, a tablet computer, a wearable device, or a combination of any of these devices”). Accordingly, the generic computer implementation merely serves to link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. See, e.g., Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. 2347, 110 USPQ2d 1976; Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
Regarding the user interface, this element encompasses nothing more than an interface of a generic computer. See, e.g., Affinity Labs of Texas LLC v. DirecTV LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257-1258 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (mere recitation of a GUI does not make a claim patent-eligible); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank, 792 F.3d 1363, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (“the interactive interface limitation is a generic computer element”).
Even if the displaying steps are considered as additional elements, these activities at most amount to insignificant extra-solution activity accomplished via receiving/transmitting data, which is well-understood, routine, and conventional activity and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the claims. Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
In addition, when taken as an ordered combination, the ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Therefore, when viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea or that, as an ordered combination, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 recite the same abstract idea(s) as recited in the independent claims, and have been determined to recite further details/steps falling under the “Certain methods of organizing human activity” and/or “Mental Processes” abstract idea groupings discussed above along with the same generic computing elements recited in the independent claims which, merely serve the purpose of tying the invention to a particular technological environment and which, as discussed above, is insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or add significantly more to the claims. The additional displaying activities (claims 2, 10, and 15-16) are considered insignificant extra-solution activity, which is not enough to amount to a practical application (MPEP 2106.05(g)), and such extra-solution activity has also been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional, and thus insufficient to add significantly more to the abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.05(d) - Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network).
The ordered combination of elements in the dependent claims (including the limitations inherited from the parent claim(s)) add nothing that is not already present as when the elements are taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide generic computer implementation. Accordingly, the subject matter encompassed by the dependent claims fails to amount to a practical application or significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Allowable over the prior art
Claim 1-20 are allowable over the prior art. The closest prior art reference of record, LeGro et al. (US 2007/0088639), is directed to an auditing system with interactive rule construction user interface. LeGro et al. teaches several limitations pertinent to the claimed subject matter recited by independent claims 1/9/15 including, for example, displaying, in a user interface on the display, each condition used to construct a rule and an evaluation indicator corresponding to the condition, wherein the evaluation indicator represents…rule construction using the condition (LeGro et al. at Abstract and pars. 20 and 39); determining, in response to a selection operation of a user, conditions selected by the user from candidate conditions (LeGro et al. at pars. 21-22, 32, and 39); determining, for each candidate condition, a temporary rule based on the candidate condition and the conditions already selected by the user (LeGro et al. at Abstract and pars. 21, 39-44, and 50); displaying, in the user interface, the evaluation indicator corresponding to the candidate condition (LeGro et al. at pars. 47-50 and Figs. 7-8); determining a target rule in response to a determining operation of the user (LeGro et al. at par. 48). However, LeGro et al. and the other prior art references of record do not teach or render obvious the combination of limitations directed to: in response to a change in the conditions already selected by the user, redetermining the temporary rule for each candidate condition, retesting a degree of reasonableness of the redetermined temporary rule based on the historical service data, and recalculating and updating the evaluation indicator corresponding to the candidate condition; sorting the candidate conditions based on the evaluation indicator corresponding to the candidate condition; displaying, in the user interface, at least part of the candidate conditions and corresponding evaluation indicators based on a result of the sorting, as recited and arranged in combination with the other limitations in independent claims 1/9/15, thereby rendering claims 1-20 as allowable over the prior art. However, claims 1-20 are not allowed because they stand rejected under 35 USC §101 as discussed above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
H. Xu, L. Ren and W. Wang, "A Service Selection Method Based on Ordinal Classification for Historical Records," in IEEE Transactions on Services Computing, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 1321-1333, 1 May-June 2022: discloses a service selection method based on classification of historical records.
Williams et al. (US Patent No. 6,934,696): discloses a customer rule system/method for expert systems.
Dresdner et al. (US Patent No. 8,954,371): discloses features for dynamic selection of rules, including testing facts against conditions within rules (see, e.g., col. 9 lines 12-28).
Junker et al. (US 2015/0170069): discloses features for transforming generalized rules in a rule management system, including conditions of specific rules consisting of logical tests (par. 9).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Timothy A. Padot whose telephone number is 571.270.1252. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:30 - 5:30. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Brian Epstein can be reached at 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 an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/TIMOTHY PADOT/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
10/06/2026
Prosecution Insights