DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 5/12/2026. Claims 1-3, 5 are pending. Claim 1 is amended. No claims have been added. Claim 1 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/12/20216 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant has argued the 101 rejection. Specifically the “Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 does not recite a mental process because a human cannot practically perform the complex algorithmic and generative processes required to transform a text prompt into a visual image using an image generation AI, nor can a human mind dynamically change a visual state of an AI-generated image in synchronization with decreasing number of days until a delivery time period. Therefore, amended claim 1 qualifies as patent-eligible subject matter in the context of Step 2A, Prong 1.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The newly added limitations do not recite how the image generation AI transforms a prompt into an image, nor how the “visual state” is computed or synchronized with the remaining number of days. The claim recites only the result to e achieved without any technical detail as to the manner of generation or the mechanism of the transition. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation recites a desired outcome achieved by invoking an abstract idea does not make the claim any less abstract. The underlying concept appears to be presenting detailed information about a pending event as the event approaches is something that has been and can be performed by a person. The substitution of an image generation AI for a person who would otherwise select or draw the complete image does not change the character of the underlying activity, it merely automates it. The claims are directed to commercial interaction between a dealer and a customer waiting for delivery of a purchased vehicle, which information is strategically presented to manage aa customer’s expectation and experience. These claims are clearly directed to certain methods of organizing human activity.
The applicant has argued “The USPTO Guidance points out that Example 37's claim 1, which automatically moves icons on a display, is eligible because it provides "a specific manner of automatically displaying icons to the user ... resulting in an improved user interface for electronic devices." As mentioned above, amended claim 1 now recites a specific technical implementation for presenting delivery schedule detail information in the second time period, wherein the controller is configured to generate an image showing the vehicle by inputting a prompt specified by the customer into an image generation Al and present the image having a visual state that corresponds to a remaining number of days until the delivery time period.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. Example 37 is not analogous to applicant’s claims. In Example 37, the claim recited a specific defined set of steps by which the interface itself was restructured based on usage that was tracked which changed how the graphical user interface functioned and was organized. In Example 37 there was an improvement to the operation of the interface. The applicant does not claim any specific rule, algorithm, or technical step by which the visual state is computed, by which the image generation AI produces an image or by which the unfinished and completed images are related to one another. The claim only recites the inputs and the desired output which does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application, it merely invokes a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea.
The applicant has argued “Moreover, amended claim 1 further specifies that the second time period is a time period when there is no more remaining work with uncertainties affecting a delivery time period and that the delivery schedule detail information includes a detailed delivery time period with no such uncertainties.” Although arguably the invention might lead to less data uncertainties, this is merely an improvement to the data/information that is output to the user, thus an improvement to the abstract idea. This is not a technical determination but just merely describes a business logistical status with no claimed sensing/computation step for detecting that state. Applicant’s specification discloses the business problem at a high level definition not any algorithm for computing/tracking uncertainty.
The applicant has argued “In a tracking environment where such uncertainties remain, a system would necessitate complex computational processes for constant recalculation of remaining days to manage such data fluctuations, which places a significant burden on computational resources. The claimed invention avoids these technical burdens by initiating visual progression only after uncertainties are resolved (i.e., in the second time period). This configuration allows for the establishment of a simple, direct correspondence between the date/days and the image state, thereby eliminating the need for complex subroutines for recalculation and consistency maintenance. This results in a specific technical improvement where the image display control program is simplified and computer resources are optimized.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. This appears to be merely applicant’s argument. An argument on its own is not sufficient to prove a technical improvement. The applicant has no support in the originally filed disclose to back up the assertion that a system operating during a period of unresolved uncertainties would in fact require complex computational processes nor that the claimed configuration would optimize computer resources. Whether a claimed configuration provides an actual technical benefit must have some sort of support and not just assertions. Further, the claim does not recite eliminating, forgoing, or retraining from performing complex subroutines, constant recalculation, or resource intensive computation. The claim merely requires that the visual procession feature be presented only at a second time period. The alleged improvement is not to a computer or computer functionality, it is an improvement to the efficiency of implementing the abstract business idea.
The applicant has argued “Furthermore, the system provides a technical improvement in the control and operation of an image generation Al within a tracking environment. Unlike a generic implementation that might simply present an AI-generated image, the claimed controller manages the presentation of AI assets aligned with specific data. Specifically, the claimed controller does not merely output an AI-generated image. Instead, the claimed controller controls the presentation by mapping the AI-generated output to a specific visual state that corresponds to the remaining number of days during the second time period (i.e., when uncertainties are resolved). By ensuring that the image generated by the image generation AI is appropriately and accurately presented to reflect the stabilized delivery progress, the system limits the presentation of these AI-generated images specifically to the second time period, thereby preventing the presentation of AI-generated images in an unreliable or inconsistent manner. Therefore, the claimed invention is not merely using generative Al as a tool to perform an abstract idea, but constitutes a specific technical improvement in the control and operation of Al models to ensure consistent and accurate visualization of complex supply chain statuses….By integrating the AI-driven generative process into the automated UI control logic that transitions the visual state of the vehicle, the controller provides a specialized visual feedback loop that is not a mere generic presentation of data. This dynamic UI control predicated on the resolution of system uncertainties is not a mere generic presentation of data, but a technological improvement in the field of supply chain management and status visualization technology using Al image generation. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 1 is directed to patent- eligible subject matter in the context of Step 2A, Prong 2.” The examiner respectfully disagrees. The applicant appears to be arguing merely results based language. The claim does not recite how the mapping, alignment, or verification of accuracy is performed. A claim that merely recites the desired outcome of a generically invoked AI tool without the specific means for reliably achieving that outcome does not constitute a technical improvement to the AI model or to image generation technology. At most it is using the AI software as a tool to perform the steps of the invention. The Specification is silent as to any modification to or improvement of the underlying image generation technology. It treats the AI purely as an interchangeable, conventional black box. This shows that the claim does not improve a computer or AI functionality, but merely uses existing AI technology as a tool to display information related to the abstract idea (see applicant’s specification paragraph 46). The additional elements of claim 1 a controller, a display, and an image generation AI reciting only generic inputs/outputs do not integrate the recited abstract idea into a practical application. The previous 101 rejection is maintained and updated in view of applicant’s amendments.
The applicants arguments with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) under 102 and 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of applicant amendments to the claims which include additional limitations. An updated rejection is 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 1-3, 5 are rejected under 35 USC 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea) without anything significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 5 are directed to a system. Therefore, claims 1-3, 5 are directed to patent eligible categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1:
The claim(s) recite(s) (mathematical relationships/formulas, mental process or certain methods of organizing human activity). Specifically the independent claims recite:
(a) mental process: as drafted, the claim recites a delivery tracking system that starts with an estimate then once the delivery data is locked in switches to showing an image that displays the number of days until delivery, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a controller nothing in the claim precludes the determining step from practically being performed in the human mind. For example, but for the a controller configured to language, the claim encompasses the user manually presenting delivery schedule information. The mere nominal recitation of a generic controller does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. This limitation is a mental process.
(c) certain methods of organizing human activity: The claim as a whole recites a method of organizing human activity. The claimed invention is a method that is directed to managing a commercial interaction between a vehicle dealer/ manufacturer and a customer awaiting delivery which is advertising, marketing, or sales activities and managing commercial interactions associated with sales activities or behaviors. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions between People According to the 2019 PEG, “managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people” includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions. Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2, 5, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration.
Dependent claims 3, will be evaluated under Step 2A, Prong 2 below.
Step 2A, Prong 2: Independent claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is an information processing apparatus comprising “a controller… a terminal apparatus… a display… a user interface… an image generation AI.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a generic processing device in its ordinary capacity and merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or present data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Dependent claims 2, 5, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Dependent claim 3 introduces the additional element of “wherein the controller is configured to present a plurality of panels indicating a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or present data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Therefore, the additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not sufficient to prove integration into a practical application.
Step 2B: Independent claim 1 does not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception. As can be seen above with respect to Step 2A, Prong 2, claim 1 does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claim 1 is an information processing apparatus comprising “a controller… a terminal apparatus… a display… a user interface… an image generation AI.” These additional elements are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea using a generic processing device in its ordinary capacity and merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the identified abstract idea. Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or present data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the independent claims, when considered both individually and in combination, do not comprise anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2, 5, further narrow the abstract idea identified in the independent claims and do not introduce further additional elements for consideration, which is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claim 3 introduces the additional element of “wherein the controller is configured to present a plurality of panels indicating a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information.” Use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for performing the steps of the abstract idea or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., certain methods of organizing human activity) is not anything significantly more than the judicial exception. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
The additional elements of the dependent claims, when considered both individually and in the context of the independent claims, are not anything significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, claims 1-3, 5 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1 the phrase “by means of a user interface displayed on a display" renders the claim indefinite because the applicant uses the phrase twice so it is unclear if the applicant is claiming two separate displays and/or user interfaces or if the applicant is claiming the same display and/or interfaces.
Claims 2-3, 5 are rejected based on a dependence to a previously rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barts et al. (US 20020082893 A1) in view of Balok et al. (US 20090313072 A1) in further view of Kolkin et al. (US 20240135610 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Barts teaches an information processing apparatus comprising a controller and a terminal apparatus comprising a display, wherein the terminal apparatus is used by a customer waiting for delivery of a vehicle, wherein the controller is configured to (¶ 36, 139, 718, 809-811, discloses the claimed technology, Fig. 6, 12, 30-42);
present, in a first time period, delivery schedule information for [[a]]the vehicle before delivery at a dealer by means of a user interface displayed on the display (¶ 61, discloses tracking the vehicle based on a planned schedule. ¶ 147, discloses anticipated delivery scheduling. ¶ 210, discloses an on-schedule for delivery indicator. ¶ 534-536, discloses originally planned delivery dates. ¶ 282-285, disclose various reports. ¶ 745, discloses daily routing process plans. ¶ 156, 763, See also Fig. 21-24, 26.);
and present, in a second time period after the first time period, delivery schedule detail information that is more detailed than the delivery schedule information by means of a user interface displayed on the display (¶ 40, discloses updating a delivery network. ¶ 521-522, discloses various scheduled report views. ¶ 527-533, discloses various dealer report views. ¶ 567-576, discloses vehicle status updates. ¶ 753. See also Fig. 21-24, 26, 28, 30, 34, 36, 42-43);
Barts teaches uncertainties affecting a delivery time period (¶ 534-536, 282-285, discloses database management resolving outstanding items.).
Barts does not specifically teach, however Balok teaches wherein the second time period is a time period when there is no more remaining work with uncertainties affecting a delivery time period (abstract, ¶ 44-45, discloses an ETA in days for the estimated time of arrival of a vehicle to a dealer location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Barts to include/perform wherein the second time period is a time period when there is no more remaining work with uncertainties affecting a delivery time period, as taught/suggested by Balok. This known technique is applicable to the system of Barts as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to delivering vehicles from a manufacturing plant to a dealership. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Balok would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Balok to the teachings of Barts would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such remaining days features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein the second time period is a time period when there is no more remaining work with uncertainties affecting a delivery time period would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would a more precise quantified delivery estimate.
Barts does not specifically teach, however Balok teaches wherein the delivery schedule detail information includes a detailed delivery time period with no uncertainties that affect the delivery time period (abstract, ¶ 44-45, discloses an ETA in days for the estimated time of arrival of a vehicle to a dealer location).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Barts to include/perform wherein the delivery schedule detail information includes a detailed delivery time period with no uncertainties that affect the delivery time period, as taught/suggested by Balok. This known technique is applicable to the system of Barts as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to delivering vehicles from a manufacturing plant to a dealership. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Balok would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Balok to the teachings of Barts would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such remaining days features into similar systems. Further, applying wherein the delivery schedule detail information includes a detailed delivery time period with no uncertainties that affect the delivery time period would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would a more precise quantified delivery estimate.
Barts teaches wherein the controller is configured to present an image showing the vehicle according to delivery schedule detail information (¶ 40, discloses updating a delivery network. ¶ 521-522, discloses various scheduled report views. ¶ 527-533, discloses various dealer report views. ¶ 567-576, discloses vehicle status updates. ¶ 753. See also Fig. 21-24, 26, 28, 30, 34, 36, 42-43).
Barts does not specifically teach a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information.
However, Balok teaches wherein, in the second time period, the controller is configured to present the delivery schedule detail information by causing the display to present an image showing the vehicle, the image having a visual state that corresponds to a remaining number of days until the delivery time period (abstract, ¶ 44-45, disclose ETA in days for the estimated time of arrival for a vehicle to a dealer location. ¶ 43, disclose a remaining number of days).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Barts to include/perform according to a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information, as taught/suggested by Balok. This known technique is applicable to the system of Barts as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to delivering vehicles from a manufacturing plant to a dealership. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Balok would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Balok to the teachings of Barts would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such remaining days until delivery features into similar systems. Further, applying a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would lead to good customer service and improved cost management.
Barts does not specially teach wherein, in the second time period, the controller is configured to generate a completed image of the vehicle by inputting a prompt specified by the customer into an image generation Al and change the image from an unfinished image of the vehicle to the completed image of the vehicle as the remaining number of days decreases.
However, Balok teaches discloses a remaining number of days (abstract, ¶ 44-45, disclose ETA in days for the estimated time of arrival for a vehicle to a dealer location. ¶ 43, disclose a remaining number of days). Kolkin teaches wherein, in the second time period, the controller is configured to generate a completed image of the vehicle by inputting a prompt specified by the customer into an image generation Al and change the image from an unfinished image of the vehicle to the completed image (¶ 35, 40-41, 66, disclose obtaining an original image, a prompt, and an anchor text. ¶ 132-133, 137-139, Fig. 11, disclose an incomplete visual state of the original image. ¶ 92-94, 142-145, disclose modifying depicted images. ¶ 69, discloses artificial neural networks. ¶ 40-41, 50-51, 58, 61, Fig. 3-4, discloses a modified image anchored toward a target prompt.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Barts to include/perform change the image from an unfinished image of the vehicle to the completed image of the vehicle, as taught/suggested by Kolkin. This known technique is applicable to the system of Barts as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to delivering vehicles from a manufacturing plant to a dealership. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Kolkin would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Kolkin to the teachings of Barts would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such image features into similar systems. Further, applying change the image from an unfinished image of the vehicle to the completed image of the vehicle would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system tool that would lead to a customer receiving additional information without having to call and ask and would improve customer service and cost management.
Regarding claim 2, Barts teaches wherein the first time period is during a first predetermined period from when the vehicle is transported from a manufacturing plant to the dealer (¶ 61, discloses tracking the vehicle based on a planned schedule. ¶ 147, discloses anticipated delivery scheduling. ¶ 210, discloses an on-schedule for delivery indicator. ¶ 534-536, discloses originally planned delivery dates. ¶ 282-285, disclose various reports. ¶ 745, discloses daily routing process plans. ¶ 156, 763, See also Fig. 21-24, 26.);
and the second time period is during a second predetermined period prior to a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule information (¶ 40, discloses updating a delivery network. ¶ 521-522, discloses various scheduled report views. ¶ 527-533, discloses various dealer report views. ¶ 567-576, discloses vehicle status updates. ¶ 753. See also Fig. 21-24, 26, 28, 30, 34, 36, 42-43).
Regarding claim 3, Barts teaches wherein the controller is configured to present a plurality of panels indicating delivery schedule detail information (¶ 40, discloses updating a delivery network. ¶ 521-522, discloses various scheduled report views. ¶ 527-533, discloses various dealer report views. ¶ 567-576, discloses vehicle status updates. ¶ 753. See also Fig. 21-24, 26, 28, 30, 34, 36, 42-43).
Barts does not specifically teach a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information.
However, Balok teaches a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information (¶ 44-45, disclose ETA in days for the estimated time of arrival for a vehicle to a dealer location. ¶ 43, abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Barts to include/perform a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information, as taught/suggested by Balok. This known technique is applicable to the system of Barts as they both share characteristics and capabilities, namely, they are directed to delivering vehicles from a manufacturing plant to a dealership. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Balok would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Balok to the teachings of Barts would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such remaining days until delivery features into similar systems. Further, applying a remaining number of days until a delivery time period based on the delivery schedule detail information would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would lead to good customer service and improved cost management.
Regarding claim 5, Barts teaches wherein the delivery schedule detail information includes information pertaining to a number of vehicles waiting to be delivered (¶ 424, discloses a total quantity of vehicles on hold to be delivered. ¶ 752. Fig. 19, 20, 28, 29, 31, 32, 36, 37, 41, discloses a total quantity of vehicles that are expected to arrive).
Other pertinent prior art includes Ajiki et al. (US 20070061226 A1) discloses a product inventory management system that includes a receiving management section for carrying out receiving management of products coming from a factory production line, an inventory section for stocking the products, and a shipping management section for carrying out shipping management of the products. Sone (US 7222081 B1) discloses delivery scheduling systems for continuously monitoring and updating a delivery schedule, and notifying a customer of a scheduled delivery. Jones (US 6975998 B1) which discloses a package delivery notification system and method for reporting when a vehicle is expected to deliver a package.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMIE H AUSTIN whose telephone number is (571)272-7363. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday 7am-2pm.
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 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 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.
JAMIE H. AUSTIN
Examiner
Art Unit 3625
/JAMIE H AUSTIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3625
Prosecution Insights