Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Application
This action is in response to the Amendment filed on 2/4/2026, and is a Final Office Action. Claims 1-11 are pending in the application.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: electric vehicle charging fee station fee collection system that accepts the coupon, parking fee collection system that accepts the coupon, in claims 1-6.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof- i.e the claimed elements noted above represent generic computing elements.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed towards a system, thus meeting the Step 1 eligibility criterion. Claim 1 does recite the abstract concept of a commercial interaction/fundamental economic practice, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP. The relevant claimed limitations include: for customer payment of goods at the store / generates a coupon based on purchases at the store / accepts the coupon as payment for electric vehicle charging. Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm: “It streamlines the billing process by allowing customers to offset their charging and parking expenses through a coupon generated by the system. The coupon can be a bar code printed on their grocery store receipt, or an electronic coupon set to their phone. The coupon is used to pay for parking and electric vehicle charging. “, “It streamlines the billing process by allowing users such as grocery store customers to offset their EV charging and parking expenses through a coupon generated by the system. The coupon can be a bar code printed on their grocery store receipt, and an electronic coupon set to their phone. The coupon is recognized by a parking fee collections system and an electric vehicle charging fee collection system and used to pay for
parking and electric vehicle charging. The coupon is good at any store in an enterprise of
multiple stores.”, “Thus a use can buy groceries at one store, receive a coupon, bar code or electronic, and can be redeemed by the user for parking and EV charging at any store in the enterprise of stores.
Dual-Functionality: The coupon serves a dual purpose. It not only facilitates EV charging payment but also used to pay parking fees.” Claim 1 also recites the abstract concept of a mental concept – I.e. mental process that can be performed in the human mind or using pen/paper, including an observation/evaluation/judgment, which has been identified as an abstract idea by the MPEP:
Generates a coupon based on purchases at the store. This claimed limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the human mind but for the recitation of generic computing elements – see below, thus still being in the mental process category.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the additional elements of a store payment system station / processor connected to the store payment system / coupon generator executed by the processor and connected to the store payment system / electric vehicle charging fee station fee collection system, which represents generic computing elements. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because as noted above, the claimed computing elements represent generic computing elements; they are recited at a high level of generality. The additional elements do not , alone or in combination, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, nor do they apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, Claim 1 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claim is not patent eligible.
Independent claim 7 is directed to a method, for performing similar claimed limitations to those of claim 1; the claim recites the same abstract idea as claim 1. Claim 7 performs the claimed limitations using only generic components of a networked computer system. Therefore, claim 7 is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more for the reasons given in the discussion of claim 1.
Remaining dependent claims 2-6, 8-11 further recite and narrow the abstract ideas of independent claims 1 / 7. The claims further recite the additional elements of a parking fee collection system / user cell phone / a network/ database / an electric vehicle charging station fee collection system /printing a bar code (coupon bar code). The system/ cellphone/network /database /electric vehicle charging station fee collection system represent generic computing elements that are recited at a high level of generality. Printing a coupon bar code does no more than apply or link the use of the recited judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The additional elements do not, alone or in combination with the other additional elements, improve the functioning of the computing device or another technology/technical field, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking its use to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claims above do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-5, 7-9, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Johnson (20140143055) in further view of Hafner (20090313104).
As per Claim 1, Johnson teaches a system comprising:
A store payment system station for customer payment for goods at the store; (the station represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitation. at least: para 36, 38)
A processor connected to the store payment system; (the processor represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitation. at least fig 1 and related/associated text – application server)
A coupon generator executed by the processor and stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium connected to the store payment system that generates a coupon based on purchases at the store (the generator represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitation. at least: para 61 )
Johnson teaches the claimed limitations noted above, and Hafner further teaches:
An electric vehicle charging fee station fee collection system that accepts the coupon as payment for electric vehicle charging. (the system represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitation. at least para 65)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Johnson’s existing features, with Hafner’s feature of an electric vehicle charging fee station fee collection system that accepts the coupon as payment for electric vehicle charging, to allow for the use of coupons that can be redeemed on current charging transactions – Hafner, para 65, 79.
Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 2, Johnson in view of Hafner teach:
A parking fee collection system that accepts the coupon for parking at the store. (the system represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitation. Hafner, at least: para 61, 72)
As per Claim 3, Johnson in view of Hafner teach:
The coupon is a coupon bar code printed on a receipt for payment for goods at the store payment system. (Hafner, at least: para 80 – coupon bar code that is printed; at least para 108: “ The description of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description, and is not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the invention in the form disclosed. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art. The embodiment was chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the invention, the practical application, and to enable others of ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention for various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated”, thus teaching a coupon bar code printed on a receipt.)
As per Claim 4, Johnson in view of Hafner teach:
The coupon is an electronic coupon sent to a user cell phone by the coupon generator. (Johnson, at least para 17)
As per Claim 5, Johnson in view of Hafner teach:
The coupon is a dual function coupon that is accepted at an electric vehicle charging station fee collection system and a parking fee collection system. (the systems represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. Hafner, at least: para 61, 72 – coupon accepted at a parking fee collection system; coupon that is accepted at an electric vehicle charging station fee collection system – Hafner, at least para 65)
As per Claim 7, Johnson teaches a system comprising:
Generating a coupon at a store payment system using a processor executing a coupon generation program for payment for goods; (the system/processor represent generic computing elements that performs the claimed limitation. at least: para 61 )
Hafner further teaches:
Accepting the coupon at an electric vehicle charging fee station that accepts the coupon.
(the station represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitation. at least para 65)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Johnson’s existing features, with Hafner’s feature of accepting the coupon at a electric vehicle charging fee station that accepts the coupon, to allow for the use of coupons that can be redeemed on current charging transactions – Hafner, para 65, 79. Furthermore, the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
As per Claim 8, Johnson in view of Hafner teach:
Accepting the coupon at a parking system fee collection system that accepts the coupon. (
(the system represents a generic computing element that performs the claimed limitation. Hafner, at least: para 61, 72)
The coupon is a coupon bar code printed on a receipt for payment for goods. (Hafner, at least: para 80 – coupon bar code that is printed; at least para 108: “ The description of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description, and is not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the invention in the form disclosed. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art. The embodiment was chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the invention, the practical application, and to enable others of ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention for various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated”, thus teaching a coupon bar code printed on a receipt.)
As per Claim 9, Johnson in view of Hafner teach:
The coupon is an electronic coupon sent to a user cell phone. (Johnson, at least para 17)
As per Claim 11, Johnson in view of Hafner teach:
The coupon is a coupon bar code printed on a receipt for payment for goods. (Hafner, at least: para 80 – coupon bar code that is printed; at least para 108: “ The description of the present invention has been presented for purposes of illustration and description, and is not intended to be exhaustive or limited to the invention in the form disclosed. Many modifications and variations will be apparent to those of ordinary skill in the art. The embodiment was chosen and described in order to best explain the principles of the invention, the practical application, and to enable others of ordinary skill in the art to understand the invention for various embodiments with various modifications as are suited to the particular use contemplated”, thus teaching a coupon bar code printed on a receipt.)
Claims 6, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable in view of Johnson (20140143055) in further view of Hafner (20090313104) in even further view of Bruner (20060053437).
As per Claim 6, Johnson in view of Hafner teach a store, creating a coupon that is accepted for payment at stores and at electric vehicle charging fees, as noted above. Bruner further teaches:
The store is a member store in an enterprise of a plurality of stores, wherein the coupon is an enterprise coupon that is accepted …at any store and any…collection system in the enterprise, the coupon payment system further comprising: a network wherein the coupon is sent over the network to a data base stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium accessible by all stores in the enterprise connected to the network. (the network/database represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: para 123 ,fig5 and associated/related text and para 33 – 34 : accessible database to network members)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Johnson’s existing features, combined with Hafner’s existing features, with Bruner’s feature of the store is a member store in an enterprise of a plurality of stores, wherein the coupon is an enterprise coupon that is accepted …at any store and any…collection system in the enterprise, the coupon payment system further comprising: a network wherein the coupon is sent over the network to a data base accessible by all stores in the enterprise connected to the network, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; furthermore, coupons may then be redeemed by users at a participating merchant or retailer location, to receive the authorized discount – Bruner, para 16.
As per Claim 10, Johnson in view of Hafner teach a store, creating a coupon that is accepted for payment at stores and at electric vehicle charging fees, as noted above. Bruner further teaches:
The store payment system is a member store payment system in an enterprise comprising a plurality of store payment systems, wherein the coupon is an enterprise coupon, the method further comprising: sending the coupon over a network to a data base stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium accessible by all store payment systems in the enterprise, over an electronic network; and accepting the enterprise coupon …at any…collection system in the enterprise of store payment systems. (the network/payment systems/database represent generic computing elements that perform the claimed limitations. At least: para 123 ,fig5 and associated/related text and para 33 – 34 : accessible database to network members)
It would have been obvious for someone skilled in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify Johnson’s existing features, combined with Hafner’s existing features, with Bruner’s feature of the store payment system is a member store payment system in an enterprise comprising a plurality of store payment systems, wherein the coupon is an enterprise coupon, the method further comprising: sending the coupon over a network to a data base accessible by all store payment systems in the enterprise, over an electronic network; and accepting the enterprise coupon …at any…collection system in the enterprise of store payment systems, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable; furthermore, coupons may then be redeemed by users at a participating merchant or retailer location, to receive the authorized discount – Bruner, para 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered; Applicant argues with substance:
A. The Amended Claims Are Integrated Into a Practical Application
Similarly, independent Claim 7 recites a computer-implemented method in which a processor executes a coupon generation program and the generated coupon is accepted at an electric vehicle charging fee collection system.
The claims are therefore not directed merely to "generating a coupon" or a mental process, but to a practical, real-world implementation in which coupon data generated at a retail payment system
is used as a payment mechanism to control and authorize charging and parking transactions at electric vehicle charging and parking fee collection systems. This constitutes an integration into a practical application, consistent with the USPTO's 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter
Eligibility Guidance.
B. The Claims Do Not Preempt Mental Processes
The Office Action asserts that "generates a coupon based on purchases at the store" could be performed in the human mind. However, the amended claims expressly require:
execution of a coupon generator by a processor,
storage in a non-transitory computer-readable medium, and
acceptance of the coupon by an electric vehicle charging fee collection system.
These steps cannot be performed mentally or with pen and paper, as they require interaction among multiple computerized systems, including EV charging infrastructure. The claims therefore do not fall within the "mental process" category.
C. The Claims Recite Significantly More Than Any Alleged Abstract Idea
Even assuming, arguendo, that some aspect of coupon generation is abstract, the claims recite significantly more by requiring: a specific system configuration (store payment system
EV coupon generator charging fee collection system), execution of program code stored in non-transitory media, and enterprise-wide coupon redemption via a network-accessible database (Claims 6 and 10). This is not a mere instruction to "apply an abstract idea using generic computers," but a coordinated technical solution that enables coupon-based payment for EV charging and parking across retail and charging infrastructure, as described in the specification and FIG. 1. Accordingly, Claims 1-11 are patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and withdrawal of the §101 rejection is respectfully requested.
The pending claims do recite an abstract idea, and the additional elements do not, alone or in combination, integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application nor do they represent significantly more than the abstract idea itself, as noted above. Generating a coupon based on criteria/contextual data and accepting the coupon as payment ( including as payment for electric vehicle charging) represents a business practice/goal, not other technology/technical field; thus, improving this practice relates to a business practice optimization, not to an improvement to other technology/technical field. . Applicant’s Spec. further describes the context of the claimed invention as pertaining to the commercial interaction realm, and describes the claimed invention as seeking to, when implemented, at best optimize a business practice/goal: “It streamlines the billing process by allowing customers to offset their charging and parking expenses through a coupon generated by the system. The coupon can be a bar code printed on their grocery store receipt, or an electronic coupon set to their phone. The coupon is used to pay for parking and electric vehicle charging. “, “It streamlines the billing process by allowing users such as grocery store customers to offset their EV charging and parking expenses through a coupon generated by the system. The coupon can be a bar code printed on their grocery store receipt, and an electronic coupon set to their phone. The coupon is recognized by a parking fee collections system and an electric vehicle charging fee collection system and used to pay for
parking and electric vehicle charging. The coupon is good at any store in an enterprise of
multiple stores.”, “Thus a use can buy groceries at one store, receive a coupon, bar code or electronic, and can be redeemed by the user for parking and EV charging at any store in the enterprise of stores.
Dual-Functionality: The coupon serves a dual purpose. It not only facilitates EV charging payment but also used to pay parking fees.” There is no technical support/technical evidence in the Spec., including the paras noted by the Applicant, that the pending claims, when implemented, improve the functioning of the computing device itself or other technology/technical field. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
However, the cited combination fails to teach or suggest the claimed system as a whole, particularly as amended. The Office Action does not identify where Johnson or Hafner teaches or suggests this
machine-implemented linkage, in which a coupon generated by execution of program code at a
store payment system is used as a payment instrument accepted by an EV charging fee collection system. The rejection relies on general assertions that the elements are "generic" and that results would be "predictable," but does not provide a sufficient articulated rationale explaining why one of ordinary skill would modify Johnson's retail coupon system to function as a payment mechanism for EV charging fees in the manner claimed. Claims 2-5 further limit the system to acceptance of the coupon for parking, barcode printing on
receipts, electronic coupon delivery, and dual-function acceptance across EV charging and
parking systems. These limitations materially narrow the claims and are not rendered obvious merely because coupons, barcodes, or electronic delivery were known individually. The Office Action does not explain why the cited references would motivate a person of ordinary skill to implement a single coupon generated at a store payment system and accepted across both EV charging and parking fee collection systems Claims 6 and 10 further require enterprise-wide coupon redemption via a network-accessible database stored in a non-transitory computer-readable medium, such that coupons generated at one store are redeemable at EV charging and fee collection systems across the enterprise. While Bruner is cited for enterprise networking generally, the Office Action does not establish that the combination of Johnson, Hafner, and Bruner teaches or suggests using an enterprise database specifically to enable coupon-based payment for EV charging fees across multiple stores and charging systems. The rejection again relies on conclusory statements of predictability rather than a reasoned explanation grounded in the references. The rejections appear to reconstruct Applicant's invention using hindsight, selectively combining disparate features from multiple references without a teaching, suggestion, or motivation that would have led one of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed invention. Obviousness cannot be established by merely asserting that known elements could be combined; there must be a reasoned rationale for the specific combination claimed.
Pending claims 1-11 are taught by the cited prior art, as noted above. In response to applicant's argument that the pending claims are not rendered obvious, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, pending claims 1-11 are taught by the cited prior art and the motivations needed to combine the cited prior art references has been provided by the Examiner, as noted above. See Office Action above for the detailed, reasoned 35 USC 101 analysis.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDRU CIRNU whose telephone number is (571)272-7775. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00am-5pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Ilana Spar can be reached on (571) 270-7537. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571- 273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
Sincerely,
/Alexandru Cirnu/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3622
2/9/2026