DETAILED ACTION
This is a Final Office action in response to communications filed on August 4th, 2026. Claims 1, 8-9, and 15 are amended. Claims 1-20 have been examined in this application.
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 .
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 a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1: Claims 1-8 is/are drawn to method (i.e., a process), Claims 9-14 is/are drawn to system (i.e., a manufacture), and Claims 15-20 is/are drawn to machine-readable storage medium (i.e., a manufacture). (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A - Prong One: In prong one of step 2A, the claim(s) is/are analyzed to evaluate whether it/they recite(s) a judicial exception.
Claim 1: A method, comprising:
identifying contextual user information of a user accessing a first page of a website comprising a plurality of content items;
inputting the contextual user information and content information for the plurality of content items of the website into a model trained to generate recommendations of what content items to show users as part of user journeys within websites;
generating, by the model using the contextual user information and the content information as input, a sequence of content items to recommend to the user, wherein the sequence of content items are defined as a journey for the user through the website that will result in an increased probability of satisfying an objective for the user to make an informed decision;
populating an interface element of the website with one or more content items from the sequence of content items;
in response to the user interfacing with a content item within the interface element, transitioning the website to displaying the content item;
and generating, by the model, guidance content that includes question and answer predictions and optimizations created by the model for communication between the user and an associated user that is associated with the website, wherein the guidance content is provided to the associated user as real-time guidance for the associated user in communicating with the user and real-time enrichment content is provided to the user during the communication, wherein the real-time enrichment content is generated by crawling the website to translate text to embeddings used to recommend relevant content as an answer to a question asked by the user during the communication.
(Examiner notes: The underlined claim terms above are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea and are further analyzed under Step 2A - Prong Two)
Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, independent claims 1, 9, and 15 recite an abstract idea involving certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly commercial interactions involving marketing, sales, customer engagement, and customer service activities. The claims further recite collecting and evaluating user specific information, selecting and recommending personalized content to guide user decision making, and facilitating customer interactions through predictive question and answer guidance. These activities correspond to organizing commercial interactions by identifying customer needs, recommending relevant information, and providing guidance to facilitate informed decisions and customer communications. Certain underlying activities of evaluating information and selecting appropriate recommendations also involve mental processes, including observation, evaluation, and judgment. More specifically, claims 1, 9, and 15 recite identifying contextual user information regarding a user accessing a website, utilizing contextual user information and content information to generate a sequence of recommended content items, and presenting the recommended content items to guide the user through a website journey intended to increase the probability of satisfying an objective for the user to make an informed decision. The claims further involve presenting recommended content and transitioning to selected content in response to user interaction. These limitations encompass the underlying commercial activities of evaluating customer interests, needs, and circumstances, determining which information is relevant to the customer's objective, and recommending appropriate content to guide customer decisions. Such activities correspond to personalized marketing, sales assistance, and customer engagement, which fall within certain methods of organizing human activity involving commercial interactions. Further, the amended independent claims 1, 9, and 15 further recite generating guidance content including question-and-answer predictions and optimizations for communication between the website user and an associated user, providing real-time guidance to the associated user during the communication, and providing enrichment content to the website user in response to questions asked during the communication. These limitations further encompass the underlying activities of anticipating customer questions, identifying appropriate responses, preparing communication guidance, and recommending relevant information to assist customers and associated representatives. Such activities correspond to organizing and facilitating commercial interactions between customers and representatives, including customer-service communications, providing personalized assistance, and guiding customers toward informed decisions. The underlying activity of identifying and recommending information responsive to customer inquiries further supports the identified abstract idea of organizing customer interactions through personalized informational guidance.
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 15-20 do not recite a different abstract idea but instead further limit the identified abstract idea through activities involving personalized recommendations, customer interactions, content evaluation, and refinement of information presented to users. Dependent claims 2, 3, and 10-12 further involve obtaining updated contextual user information, generating qualifying questions, evaluating user responses, identifying content viewed by users having similar attributes or objectives, and refining recommendations based on user activity and historical interactions. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations encompass gathering information about customer preferences, comparing customer characteristics and behavior, identifying relevant content, and tailoring recommendations accordingly. Such activities correspond to organizing commercial interactions through personalized marketing and customer assistance, including asking qualifying questions to identify customer needs and recommending appropriate information based on customer responses. Dependent claims 4, 5, and 8 further involve evaluating available website content, identifying recommended content items that are missing, generating notifications or instructions to create additional content, and generating content to address identified informational needs.
Currently amended claim 8 further recites evaluating communications between the website user and an associated user to perform follow-up content generation intended to satisfy the user's objective. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations encompass reviewing available information, identifying informational deficiencies, evaluating customer communications, and preparing additional materials to address customer needs. Such activities correspond to commercial interactions involving marketing, customer-service assistance, and content planning to provide information relevant to customers and their decision-making objectives. Dependent claims 7, 16-18, and 20 further involve collecting and evaluating user interaction information, including clickstream data, user feedback, actions, and resulting outcomes, to determine the effectiveness of content recommendations and refine subsequent recommendations. These limitations encompass observing customer behavior, assessing customer responses to previously recommended content, and determining how future recommendations should be adjusted based on customer feedback and outcomes. Such activities correspond to organizing commercial interactions by evaluating customer preferences and responses to improve marketing strategies, customer engagement, and personalized recommendations.
Dependent claims 14 and 19 further involve presenting recommended content items through website interface elements, including widgets, titles, descriptions, images, and representations linking to corresponding content items. Under their broadest reasonable interpretation, these limitations further implement the underlying commercial activity of organizing and presenting selected information to guide customer navigation and decision-making, consistent with personalized marketing and customer-assistance activities. Dependent claims 6 and 13 retain the underlying commercial interaction and personalized recommendation activities recited in their respective independent claims. Claim 6 concerns providing suggestions and guidance for navigating website content, while claim 13 concerns maintaining contextual user information utilized in providing personalized recommendations. The underlying commercial activity continues to involve using customer-specific information to tailor recommendations and facilitate customer engagement. These claims therefore continue to recite the identified abstract idea through their incorporated independent claim limitations.
Accordingly, independent claims 1, 9, and 15, together with dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20, recite an abstract idea involving certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly commercial interactions involving marketing, sales, customer engagement, and customer-service activities, as well as mental processes involving observation, evaluation, and judgment. More specifically, the claims involve evaluating customer information, determining and recommending relevant content, facilitating communication between customers and associated representatives, and refining informational assistance based on customer interactions and objectives. These activities correspond to certain methods of organizing human activity involving commercial interactions, including advertising, marketing, sales activities, and business relations. Additionally, the underlying activities of observing customer behavior, evaluating user preferences and available information, determining relevant content, and selecting appropriate recommendations encompass mental processes involving observation, evaluation, and judgment that can practically be performed in the human mind. Accordingly, the claims recite judicial exceptions falling within the recognized abstract idea groupings of certain methods of organizing human activity and mental processes, which falls within a judicial exception under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Independent claim(s) 9 and 15 recite/describe nearly identical steps (and therefore also recite limitations that fall within this subject matter grouping of abstract ideas), and this/these claim(s) is/are therefore determined to recite an abstract idea under the same analysis.
As such, the Examiner concludes that claims 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong One: YES).
Step 2A - Prong Two: In prong two of step 2A, an evaluation is made whether a claim recites any additional element, or combination of additional elements, that integrate the exception into a practical application of that exception. An “addition element” is an element that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception (i.e., an element/limitation that sets forth an abstract idea is not an additional element). The phrase “integration into a practical application” is defined as requiring an additional element or a combination of additional elements in the claim to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that it is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
The requirement to execute the claimed steps/functions using a trained model, website interface elements, conversion of text into embeddings, an interface element, a processor, a machine and memory, etc. (Claims 1, 9, and 15) is/are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer.
Similarly, the limitations of using a trained model, website interface elements, conversion of text into embeddings, an interface element, a processor, a machine and memory, etc. (Claims 1, 9, and 15, and dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20) are recited at a high level of generality and amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Further, the additional limitations beyond the abstract idea identified above, serves merely to generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Specifically, it/they serve(s) to limit the application of the abstract idea to computerized environments (e.g., identifying, inputting, generating, populating, transitioning, displaying, etc. steps performed by a trained model, website interface elements, conversion of text into embeddings, an interface element, a processor, a machine and memory, etc.). This reasoning was demonstrated in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (Fed. Cir. 2015), where the court determined "an abstract idea does not become nonabstract by limiting the invention to a particular field of use or technological environment, such as the Internet [or] a computer"). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The recited additional element(s) recited in independent claims 1, 9, and 15, considered individually and in combination with the identified abstract idea, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, as the claims recite activities involving obtaining contextual user information, collecting website content information, presenting recommended content through a website interface, transitioning the website to display selected content, and providing real-time guidance and enrichment content during communications between the user and an associated user. These limitations include pre-solution activity, such as gathering contextual user information and obtaining content information from the website, and post-solution activity, such as displaying recommended content items, transitioning the website interface in response to user selection, and presenting generated guidance and responsive information to users during communications. More specifically, identifying contextual user information and obtaining website content constitute data-gathering activities performed to acquire information for use in generating personalized recommendations and communication guidance. Similarly, crawling the website to obtain text for conversion into embeddings provides information for subsequent identification and retrieval of content responsive to user inquiries. To the extent these operations merely obtain and prepare information for the identified abstract idea, they constitute pre-solution activity that does not, by itself, impose a meaningful limitation on the abstract idea.
Furthermore, populating the website interface with recommended content items, transitioning the website to display selected content, and providing real-time question and answer guidance and enrichment content constitute presentation and delivery of the informational results of the identified abstract idea. These activities facilitate communication of the generated recommendations and guidance without reciting a particular improvement in the technological operation of the website interface or communication system. Accordingly, to the extent these limitations merely present or communicate the results of the identified abstract idea, they constitute insignificant post-solution activity. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and constitute insignificant extra-solution activity (Independent Claims 1, 9, and 15), additionally and/or alternatively simply append insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception, (e.g., mere pre-solution activity, such as data gathering, in conjunction with an abstract idea). This/these limitation(s) do/does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and therefore do/does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. (See MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective dependent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
The Examiner has therefore determined that the additional elements, or combination of additional elements, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Accordingly, the claim(s) is/are directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A – Prong two: NO).
Step 2B: In step 2B, the claims are analyzed to determine whether any additional element, or combination of additional elements, is/are sufficient to ensure that the claims amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. This analysis is also termed a search for an "inventive concept." An "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself. Alice Corp., 134 S. Ct. at 2355, 110 USPQ2d at 1981 (citing Mayo, 566 U.S. at 72-73, 101 USPQ2d at 1966).
As discussed above in “Step 2A – Prong 2”, the identified additional elements in independent Claims 1, 9, and 15, and dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 are equivalent to adding the words “apply it” on a generic computer, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. Therefore, the claims as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
The recited additional element(s) of independent claims 1, 9, and 15, including identifying contextual user information, obtaining content information associated with a plurality of website content items, inputting such information into a trained model, generating recommended sequences of content items, populating an interface element with recommended content, and transitioning a website display in response to user interaction, do not amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. The currently amended claims further recite generating, by the model, guidance content including question-and-answer predictions and optimizations, providing real-time guidance to an associated user and enrichment content to the website user during communication, and crawling the website to convert text into embeddings for recommending relevant content responsive to user questions. The additional elements involve data gathering (e.g., obtaining contextual user information and website content), computer-based information processing (e.g., model-generated predictions and semantic retrieval), and information presentation (e.g., displaying recommended content, transitioning website interfaces, and providing responsive guidance and enrichment content). These activities, to the extent they merely gather information for use in the identified abstract idea or communicate its results, are comparable to well-understood, routine, and conventional computer functions recognized in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (transmitting information through an intermediary computer); Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (storing and retrieving information in memory); and OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (presenting offers, collecting customer responses, and using the resulting information to optimize pricing). Furthermore, in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., 792 F.3d 1363, 1370-71 (Fed. Cir. 2015), the court determined that customizing website content based on user-specific information and navigation history using generic computer functionality did not supply an inventive concept. Similarly, in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., 134 F.4th 1205, 1212-15 (Fed. Cir. 2025), the court addressed the application of generic machine-learning techniques to optimizing and dynamically updating outputs without an improvement to the underlying machine-learning technology, is a well-understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here) (See MPEP 2106.05(d) (II)).
This conclusion is based on a factual determination. Applicant’s own disclosure at paragraph [0085-0089] describe computer-readable storage media, processors, memory, computing devices, software and hardware implementations, and communication connections using ordinary computing technologies. In particular, paragraph [0087] introduces a general suitable computing environment, while paragraphs [0088-0089] describe processing units, memory, storage, and communication interfaces. These disclosures provide factual support for determining that the broadly recited computing hardware and ordinary storage and communication operations are well-understood, routine, and conventional. Furthermore, Applicant's disclosure at paragraph [0028] explains that the disclosed innovation guides users through appropriate sequences of website content to assist in decision-making activities, including completing forms, contacting sales representatives, requesting demonstrations, or engaging with chatbots, thereby providing relevant information at an appropriate time to facilitate user decisions. This disclosure identifies the intended informational and commercial benefits of the claimed invention rather than a particular improvement in computer functionality. Applicant's paragraphs [0050] and [0059] additionally describe the generation of real-time customer guidance and the use of website-derived embeddings to retrieve responsive content. This additional element therefore do not ensure the claim amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Viewing the additional limitations in combination also shows that they fail to ensure the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. When considered as an ordered combination, the additional components of the claims add nothing that is not already present when considered separately, and thus simply append the abstract idea with words equivalent to “apply it” on a generic computer and/or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer or/and append the abstract idea with insignificant extra solution activity associated with the implementation of the judicial exception, (e.g., mere data gathering, post-solution activity) and/or simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception.
The dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 fail to include any additional elements. In other words, each of the limitations/elements recited in respective independent claims is/are further part of the abstract idea as identified by the Examiner for each respective dependent claim (i.e., they are part of the abstract idea recited in each respective claim).
Specifically, dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 likewise fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. In particular, claims 2, 3, and 10-12 recite updating contextual information, qualifying questions, identifying similar users, clustering, and refining content recommendations based on historical user activity. These limitations involve collecting, comparing, and organizing information to provide personalized recommendations, similar to the information-processing activities addressed in BSG Tech LLC v. BuySeasons, Inc., 899 F.3d 1281, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and Versata Development Group, Inc. v. SAP America, Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Claims 4, 5, and 8 recite identifying missing website content, generating additional content, and evaluating customer communications to generate follow-up content. Claims 7, 16-18, and 20 further recite collecting clickstream data and user feedback, refining a model, and adjusting recommendation weights. These limitations further involve information evaluation, content generation, and recommendation optimization, analogous to the commercial information-processing and customer-response analysis addressed in OIP Technologies, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1362-64 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Claims 14 and 19 recite presenting recommended content through widgets and linked representations, which facilitate user navigation and decision-making rather than identifying a particular improvement in interface technology. See Trading Technologies International, Inc. v. IBG LLC, 921 F.3d 1084, 1093-94 (Fed. Cir. 2019). Claim 6 recites hosting the website service and model to perform localized inferences, while claim 13 recites browser-local storage with restricted access. Generic computing, storage, and communication operations are addressed in TLI Communications LLC v. AV Automotive, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 612–13 (Fed. Cir. 2016), and Versata, 793 F.3d at 1334. None of these limitations recite a specific technological improvement, a particular machine implementation, or an unconventional arrangement of components that improves the functioning of a computer or another technology meaningfully limit the abstract idea or integrate it into a practical application. Accordingly, the additional limitations of the dependent claims do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea and therefore fail to provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
When viewed as an ordered combination, the additional elements of dependent claims 2-8, 10-14, and 16-20 merely instruct to implement the abstract idea using generic computer components to collect, store, represent, and display information. The claims do not recite any unconventional arrangement of elements, nor do they effect an improvement to computer functionality or another technical field and therefore fail to integrate the abstract concept into a practical application, and it is recited at a high level of generality and does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The Examiner has therefore determined that no additional element, or combination of additional claims elements is/are sufficient to ensure the claim(s) amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above (Step 2B: NO).
Therefore, claims 1-20 are not eligible subject matter under 35 USC 101.
Response to Arguments
With regards to § 101 rejections:
The arguments filed on August 4th, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 101 have been fully considered but are unpersuasive/moot. The rejection is maintained and updated to address the amended claims.
Applicant states that amended claims 1, 9, and 15 have been amended to incorporate subject matter from specification paragraphs 0050 and 0059, as discussed during the Examiner interview, and submits that the amendments overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, the amended claims recite generating question and answer predictions and communication guidance using a model, providing real-time guidance to an associated user and enrichment content to the website user, and crawling website content to generate embeddings for recommending relevant information responsive to user questions.
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are not persuasive. The incorporation of additional limitations from the specification does not, by itself, establish patent eligibility. Under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims continue to recite an abstract idea involving certain methods of organizing human activity, particularly commercial interactions involving personalized marketing, sales, and customer assistance, as well as mental processes involving evaluating information and selecting appropriate recommendations. The model, website crawling, embedding generation, and real-time processing are separately considered as additional elements under Step 2A, Prong Two.
Furthermore, Applicant's specification at paragraphs 0050 and 0059 describes generating predictive guidance during customer communications and using a website crawler to convert text into embeddings for recommending relevant content. However, the amended claims recite these operations primarily in terms of their functions and intended informational results, without requiring a particular improvement in model architecture, website crawling, embedding generation, information retrieval, or communication technology. Rather, the claimed operations facilitate the underlying commercial interactions by improving the relevance and availability of information provided to customers and associated representatives. Accordingly, the amended limitations, considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not establish integration of the identified abstract idea into a practical application under Step 2A, Prong Two. The separate Step 2B analysis addresses whether the additional elements provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, Applicant's arguments do not overcome the deficiencies identified in the revised subject-matter eligibility analysis, and the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is therefore maintained.
With regards to § 103 rejections:
Applicant's arguments, filed on August 4, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 102/103 have been fully considered and are persuasive with respect to amended claims 1-20. Applicant states that the previously cited references, including Goldman and Chhaya, fail to teach or suggest the newly added limitations of independent claims 1, 9, and 15 relating to model-generated question-and-answer predictions, real-time guidance during communications between a website user and an associated user, real-time enrichment content provided to the website user, and website crawling with text to embedding conversion for recommending responsive content. Applicants further identifies the amendment to claim 8 requiring evaluation of user communications to generate follow-up website content.
Upon reconsideration of the amended claims and the cited references, the further search for prior art were identified by the additional references, including Schlerf (U.S. Patent No. 11,863,641 B1), Ajmera et al. (U.S. Pub. 20140012626), Mahmoud et al. (U.S. Pub. 20220383153), and Beaver et al. (U.S. Pub. 20200110732). Schlerf discloses machine-learning-based website navigation recommendations, while Ajmera discloses predictive customer-service interactions and assistance during customer communications. Mahmoud further discloses agent-assistance techniques involving document ingestion, semantic embeddings, and retrieval of information responsive to customer inquiries. Beaver discloses generating knowledgebase and frequently asked question content from customer interactions. Although these additional references disclose features relevant to individual aspects of the amended claims, the presently identified teachings, considered individually and in potential combinations, do not provide a sufficiently supported basis for maintaining the rejection of the claims as a whole. In particular, the reviewed references do not establish a complete mapping of the recited model generated website journeys and communication guidance, together with the claimed provision of real-time enrichment to the website user using website-derived embeddings, supported by an adequately articulated rationale for combining the teachings to arrive at the claimed arrangement.
Upon consideration of Applicant's arguments and further review of the previously cited prior art, including Goldman and Chhaya, as well as newly identified references, the Examiner finds that the references, individually or in the combinations presently considered, do not sufficiently teach or suggest the amended claim limitations. In particular, the references do not establish the claimed combination of generating, by the model, question and answer predictions and communication guidance, providing real-time guidance to an associated user and enrichment content to the website user, and generating such enrichment content by crawling the website to translate text into embeddings used to recommend relevant content responsive to user questions. Although the additional references disclose certain aspects of predictive recommendations, customer assistance, and semantic information retrieval, the presently identified teachings and proposed combinations do not adequately establish the claimed arrangement of these features or provide sufficient articulated reasoning for combining them in the manner claimed.
Accordingly, the prior art currently of record, including the additional references considered, does not provide a sufficiently supported basis for a rejection of the amended claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GAUTAM UBALE whose telephone number is (571)272-9861. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 7:00 AM- 6:30 PM PST.
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, Marissa Thein can be reached at (571) 272-6764. 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.
/GAUTAM UBALE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3689
