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
The response filed 8/17/2026 was received and considered.
Claims 21-40 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s remarks (p. 7) requesting that the rejection under non-statutory double patenting be held in abeyance are acknowledged.
Applicant’s remarks (pp. 7-8) suggest that the references of record fail to teach the amended limitation “edit the first field of PII to include a note stored in the first field of PII that the first field of PII has been removed from the database”. However, Austin teaches removing protected health information from a database (such as for compliance with HIPAA, ¶20) and teaches adding case-type tag data (such as [First Name], ¶22) with the added benefit of indicating what type of data was removed (¶21), where the data is placed in the first field of the PII (add back a case-type tag (e.g. [name]) in place of the removed information, ¶21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Horton such that the server is additionally configured to edit the first field of PII (such as to include case-type tag data) to include a note stored in the first field of PII that the first field of PII has been removed from the database to indicate what type of data was removed, as taught by Austin. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims are not yet in condition for allowance.
Applicant’s remarks (pp. 9-12) refer to the arguments addressed in the previous section. Therefore, the Examiner respectfully maintains that the claims are not yet in condition for allowance.
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.
Claims 21-22, 28-29 and 31-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,404,757 B1 to Horton et al. (Horton) in view of US 2010/0095349 A1 to Motoyama, US 20030182332 A1 to McBrearty et al. (McBrearty) and US 2019/0236310 A1 to Austin et al. (Austin).
Regarding claim 21, Horton discloses a server device (data access service, col. 5, lines 23-26) for protecting personal information, comprising: a transceiver configured for operable communication with at least one client over a communication network (data access service communicates with client, col. 6, lines 47-49); a processor including a memory configured to store computer-executable instructions, which, when executed by the processor (col. 23, lines 11-19), cause the server device to: store a database including one or more fields of personally identifiable information (PII) including a first field of PII (structured record store including personal information, col. 8, lines 33-39; see also col. 7, lines 54-65); generate a query for the database to request access to the first field of PII of the one or more fields of PII (requests can include intended use, col. 11, lines 13-18, col. 14, lines 56-60); provide access to the first field of PII (determine whether client is allowed to access data, col. 15, lines 1-3; see also col. 7, lines 16-31; entries provided to client, col. 7, lines 44-46). Horton lacks storing an expiration date for the first field of PII and lacks the server device to: query the expiration date of the first field of PII to determine if the first field of PII has expired; when the first field of PII has not expired, provide access to the first field of PII and when the first field of PII has expired, generate and execute a database function to render the first field of PII unreadable. However, Motoyama teaches adhering to document retention policies to reduce liability (¶4) by storing retention data (deletion criteria, for example, such that a document must be deleted after one year, ¶67; evaluating retention policy can include generation expiration dates, Fig. 3B, 356 and ¶70) and teaches a device configured to: query the expiration date of a document to determine if the document has expired (identify document retention policy; determine whether deletion criteria is satisfied, ¶67); when the document has not expired, provide access to the document (apply security policy and provide access, ¶73, ¶77) and when the document has expired, generate and execute a database function to render the document unreadable (based upon application of the document retention policy, determining the document should not be retained and deleting the document, ¶72). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Horton to include storing retention data for the first field of PII and such that the server device is to: query an expiration date of the first field of PII to determine if the first field of PII has expired; when the first field of PII has not expired, provide access to the first field of PII and when the first field of PII has expired, generate and execute a database function to render the first field of PII unreadable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to adhere to a document retention policy at least to reduce liability in storing the PII, as taught by Motoyama. As modified, Horton stores retention data, such as a time period, rather than an explicit expiration date. However, McBrearty, in an analogous art (document retention policy), teaches that it was known to store data with an expiration date field (¶30), and comparing the expiration date to the current date (for example, claim 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Horton to store an expiration date for the first field of PII. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to utilize a known alternative data point to determine if the PII is expired, as taught by McBrearty. As modified, Horton lacks the server to: edit the first field of PII to include a note stored in the first field of PII that the first field of PII has been removed from the database. However, Austin teaches removing protected health information from a database (such as for compliance with HIPAA, ¶20) and teaches adding case-type tag data (such as [First Name], ¶22) with the added benefit of indicating what type of data was removed (¶21). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Horton such that the server is additionally configured to edit the first field of PII (such as to include case-type tag data) to include a note stored in the first field of PII that the first field of PII has been removed from the database. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to indicate what type of data was removed, as taught by Austin.
Regarding claim 33, the claim is similar in scope to claim 21 and is therefore rejected using a similar rationale.
Regarding claims 22 and 34, Horton discloses wherein the database is a relational database (col. 5, lines 62-66).
Regarding claim 28, Horton discloses wherein the instructions further cause the server device to store one or more allowed uses for the first field of PII (annotations associated with the data entries may be obtained and include restrictions on the proper use of the data entries, col. 4, lines 38-40; intended use for the data is as part of a research effort related to the use of a class of products (e.g., adult products such as alcohol or cigarettes), the intended use may be mapped to a privacy policy that prohibits the research effort from using data entries collected from minors, col. 4, lines 46-51; see also col. 6, lines 31-38).
Regarding claim 29, Horton, as modified, discloses wherein the query to request access to the first field of PII includes a planned use for the first field of PII (client may submit requests to the data access service via a client interface which may include a set of parameters that specifies the data requested as well as one or more parameters specifying the intended use of the data, col. 14, lines 56-61), and wherein the instructions further cause the server device to determine if the planned use matches the one or more allowed uses (processing the data entries to determine whether the client is allowed access to the data, col. 15, lines 1-3; in some cases, no access is granted, and then the system denies 618 the request in any suitable manner, such as by providing a generic error code (e.g., E_FAIL), a specific error code (e.g., E_INCOMPATIBLE_USE), col. 19, lines 4-7).
Regarding claim 31, Horton, as modified, teaches wherein the first field of PII is stored in a first table (col. 7, lines 54-60), and wherein the instructions further cause the server device to store the one or more allowed uses for the first field of PII in one or more instances of a second table (annotations stored in a row of a second database table, col. 7, lines 60-64), wherein each instance of the second table is associated with an allowed use of the one or more allowed uses for the first field of PII (annotations include privacy policy, col. 8, lines 33-47 and restrictions on proper use, col. 4, lines 35-43), wherein the first table and the second table are different (the row of the second table includes a reference to where the data is stored (e.g., a foreign key), col. 7, lines 60-65).
Regarding claim 32, Horton, as modified, teaches wherein the instructions further cause the server device to render the first field of PII unreadable by at least one of deleting contents of the first field of PII (as modified by Motoyama, based upon application of the document retention policy, determining the document should not be retained and deleting the document, Motoyama ¶72), overwriting the first field of PII, removing all use cases for the first field of PII, and irreversibly modifying the first field of PII to prevent reading of the PII.
Claims 23 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton, Motoyama, McBrearty and Austin, as applied to claims 21 and 33, in view of US 2022/0035952 A1 to Brannon et al. (Brannon).
Regarding claims 23 and 35, Horton, as modified, lacks wherein the database function renders the first field of PII unreadable while leaving the expiration date readable. However, Brannon, in an analogous art (protecting sensitive data within privacy management systems), teaches that it was known to delete expired data (data is expired or has been unused for too long and/or is associated with a process of system that is no longer in use, the system may delete the piece of data, ¶300), while preserving metadata for use in audits to determine how the system collects, uses, and/or stores such data while removing the potential for exposure of the actual data (¶300). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Horton such that the database function renders the first field of PII unreadable while leaving the expiration date readable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to remove the potential for exposure of the PII, while maintaining the expiration for auditing purposes, as taught by Brannon.
Claims 24 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton, Motoyama, McBrearty and Austin, as applied to claims 21 and 33, in view of US 2021/0096957 A1 to Rahman et al. (Rahman).
Regarding claims 24 and 36, Horton, as modified, lacks wherein the instructions further cause the server device to store the date of execution of the database function that rendered the first field of PII unreadable. However, Rahman, in an analogous art (maintaining sensitive patient data, ¶20) teaches a system configured to receive a request to delete one or more fields (¶26) of PII (health information, ¶29); generate a database function to render the one or more fields of PII unreadable (data is marked as deleted, prevented from being viewed or queried, ¶26); execute the database function to render the one or more fields of PII unreadable (data is marked as deleted, prevented from being viewed or queried, ¶26); and record the deletion, including a timestamp of the deletion (¶23), in a deletion log (in complying with retention rules, ¶29, the system records deletion actions in a deletion log, ¶23, ¶29, ¶42). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Horton such that the instructions further cause the server device to store the date of execution of the database function that rendered the first field of PII unreadable. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to enable auditing of the deletion, as taught by Rahman.
Claims 25 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton, Motoyama, McBrearty and Austin, as applied to claims 21 and 33, in view of US 2022/0164469 A1 to Scott et al. (Scott).
Regarding claims 25 and 37, Horton, as modified, lacks wherein the instructions further cause the server device to: receive a request to delete the first field of PII; and store a date that the request to delete the first field of PII was received. However, Scott, in an analogous art (maintaining user data, in conformance with regulations, ¶2), teaches that it was known to submit a request for removal of personal information (right to erasure, ¶3; user initiates erasure request, ¶90) and store a date that the request to delete the first field of PII was received (store details of erasure request in erasure request storage, including a time stamp indicating when the request was received, ¶92, ¶93). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Horton such that the instructions further cause the server device to: receive a request to delete the first field of PII; and store a date that the request to delete the first field of PII was received. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to comply with a right to erasure and to log activity for compliance verification, as taught by Scott.
Claims 26-27 and 38-39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton, Motoyama, McBrearty and Austin, as applied to claims 21 and 33, in view of US 2020/0117824 A1 to Upadhyay et al. (Upadhyay).
Regarding claims 26 and 38, Horton, as modified, lacks wherein each field of PII of the one or more fields of PII has an associated expiration date. However, Upadhyay, in an analogous art (controlling access to a database of fields comprising PII, ¶66) teaches that it was known to set consent rules for PII and specifically teaches field-based consent handling (¶67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Horton such that each field of PII of the one or more fields of PII has an associated expiration date. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to designate expiration of PII at the granularity of fields, as taught by Upadhyay.
Regarding claims 27 and 39, Horton, as modified, lacks wherein the associated expiration date is based upon one or more of a type of PII, how the PII was collected, wherein the PII was collected, and when the PII was collected. However, Upadhyay, in an analogous art (controlling access to a database of fields comprising PII, ¶66) teaches that it was known to set a data retention policy based at least on when or where the data was collected (for example “above, the retention rules engine might set a rule providing that "if personal data for which a marketing consent was obtained in Germany has been stored for 6 years, automatically delete”, ¶67) or the type of data (“Marketing data has not been accessed for 5 years, prompt for possible deletion”, ¶67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Horton such that the associated expiration date is based upon one or more of a type of PII, how the PII was collected, wherein the PII was collected, and when the PII was collected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to set a retention policy using known business or legal requirements, as taught by Upadhyay.
Claims 30 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Horton, Motoyama, McBrearty and Austin, as applied to claim 33, in view of US 2014/0075571 A1 to Jackson et al. (Jackson).
Regarding claim 30, Horton, as modified, lacks wherein the first field of PII is encrypted in the database, and wherein the instructions further cause the server device to decrypt the first field of PII when the planned use for the first field of PII matches the one or more allowed uses. However, Jackson, in an analogous art (protecting personal data via intended use), teaches that it was known to store personal information in a database in encrypted form, apply an access policy and provide the results of authorized queries in decrypted form (¶¶66-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Horton such that the first field of PII is encrypted in the database and to include decrypting the first field of PII when the planned use for the first field of PII matches the one or more allowed uses. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to secure the PII at rest and increase security, as taught by Jackson.
Regarding claim 40, Horton, as modified, teaches wherein the query to request access to the first field of PII includes a planned use for the first field of PII (client may submit requests to the data access service via a client interface which may include a set of parameters that specifies the data requested as well as one or more parameters specifying the intended use of the data, col. 14, lines 56-61), and wherein the method further comprises: storing one or more allowed uses for the first field of PII (annotations associated with the data entries may be obtained and include restrictions on the proper use of the data entries, col. 4, lines 38-40; intended use for the data is as part of a research effort related to the use of a class of products (e.g., adult products such as alcohol or cigarettes), the intended use may be mapped to a privacy policy that prohibits the research effort from using data entries collected from minors, col. 4, lines 46-51; see also col. 6, lines 31-38); determining if the planned use matches the one or more allowed uses (processing the data entries to determine whether the client is allowed access to the data, col. 15, lines 1-3; in some cases, no access is granted, and then the system denies 618 the request in any suitable manner, such as by providing a generic error code (e.g., E_FAIL), a specific error code (e.g., E_INCOMPATIBLE_USE), col. 19, lines 4-7). As modified, Horton lacks wherein the first field of PII is encrypted in the database and lacks decrypting the first field of PII when the planned use for the first field of PII matches the one or more allowed uses. However, Jackson, in an analogous art (protecting personal data via intended use), teaches that it was known to store personal information in a database in encrypted form, apply an access policy and provide the results of authorized queries in decrypted form (¶¶66-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify Horton such that the first field of PII is encrypted in the database and to include decrypting the first field of PII when the planned use for the first field of PII matches the one or more allowed uses. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification to secure the PII at rest and increase security, as taught by Jackson.
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.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-22, 28-29 and 33-34 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims of U.S. Patent No. 12,174,993, in view of US 2010/0095349 A1 to Motoyama and US 20030182332 A1 to McBrearty et al. (McBrearty). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the patent claims anticipate the instant claims, with additional distinctions addressed in the correspondence table. Further, a skilled artisan would have considered removal of limitations from the patent claims to achieve the instant claims an obvious variation for reasons of breadth.
18/999,903
12,174,993
21
1 - The patent claim lacks the claimed device to: store an expiration date for the first field of the PII; query the expiration date of the first field of PII to determine if the first field of PII has expired; when the first field of PII has not expired, provide access to the first field of PII; when the first field of PII has expired, generate and execute a database function to render the first field of PII unreadable. However, Motoyama teaches adhering to document retention policies to reduce liability (¶4) by storing retention data (deletion criteria, for example, such that a document must be deleted after one year, ¶67; evaluating retention policy can include generation expiration dates, Fig. 3B, 356 and ¶70) and teaches a device configured to: query the expiration date of a document to determine if the document has expired (identify document retention policy; determine whether deletion criteria is satisfied, ¶67); when the document has not expired, provide access to the document (apply security policy and provide access, ¶73, ¶77) and when the document has expired, generate and execute a database function to render the document unreadable (based upon application of the document retention policy, determining the document should not be retained and deleting the document, ¶72). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patent claim to include storing retention data for the first field of PII and such that the server device is to: query an expiration date of the first field of PII to determine if the first field of PII has expired; when the first field of PII has not expired, provide access to the first field of PII and when the first field of PII has expired, generate and execute a database function to render the first field of PII unreadable to adhere to a document retention policy at least to reduce liability in storing the PII, as taught by Motoyama. As modified, the patent claim stores retention data, such as a time period, rather than an explicit expiration date. However, McBrearty, in an analogous art (document retention policy), teaches that it was known to store data with an expiration date field (¶30), and comparing the expiration date to the current date (for example, claim 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the patent claim to store an expiration date for the first field of PII to utilize a known alternative data point to determine if the PII is expired, as taught by McBrearty.
22
2
23
24
25
26
27
28
14
29
15
30
31
32
33
1 - The patent claim lacks the claimed device to: store an expiration date for the first field of the PII; query the expiration date of the first field of PII to determine if the first field of PII has expired; when the first field of PII has not expired, provide access to the first field of PII; when the first field of PII has expired, generate and execute a database function to render the first field of PII unreadable. However, Motoyama teaches adhering to document retention policies to reduce liability (¶4) by storing retention data (deletion criteria, for example, such that a document must be deleted after one year, ¶67; evaluating retention policy can include generation expiration dates, Fig. 3B, 356 and ¶70) and teaches a device configured to: query the expiration date of a document to determine if the document has expired (identify document retention policy; determine whether deletion criteria is satisfied, ¶67); when the document has not expired, provide access to the document (apply security policy and provide access, ¶73, ¶77) and when the document has expired, generate and execute a database function to render the document unreadable (based upon application of the document retention policy, determining the document should not be retained and deleting the document, ¶72). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the patent claim to include storing retention data for the first field of PII and such that the server device is to: query an expiration date of the first field of PII to determine if the first field of PII has expired; when the first field of PII has not expired, provide access to the first field of PII and when the first field of PII has expired, generate and execute a database function to render the first field of PII unreadable to adhere to a document retention policy at least to reduce liability in storing the PII, as taught by Motoyama. As modified, the patent claim stores retention data, such as a time period, rather than an explicit expiration date. However, McBrearty, in an analogous art (document retention policy), teaches that it was known to store data with an expiration date field (¶30), and comparing the expiration date to the current date (for example, claim 4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the patent claim to store an expiration date for the first field of PII to utilize a known alternative data point to determine if the PII is expired, as taught by McBrearty. Further, the patent claim is directed to a server device performing a method, where the instant claim is directed to a method. However, a skilled artisan would have found the method performed by the patent’s server device useful as a method, for example for implementation via software and thus the distinction would have been considered and obvious variation of the patent claim.
34
2
35
36
37
38
39
40
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20090135444 A1 (Best; Steven Francis et al.) teaches associating an expiration date with portions of a document (¶¶46-48), receiving a request for the document (¶51), identifying the sensitive data (¶52), identifying an expiration date (¶¶54-55, ¶57), redacting the expired data (¶57) and presenting the redacted document (¶57). Redaction can include replacement with a note “redacted” (¶40).
WO 2018130593 A1 (GEYSERMANS FRANCIS et al.) teaches encrypting data elements and, upon access, determining and expiry date to direct whether to delete the encryption key (abstract).
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 MICHAEL J SIMITOSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3841. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00-3:00.
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, Carl Colin can be reached at 571-272-3862. 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.
/Michael Simitoski/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2493
September 29, 2026
