DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action in response to the Amendment/Remarks received on 31 March 2026. Claims 1-7, 12, 13, 16, and 17 have been amended. Claims 8-11, 14, and 15 have been cancelled. Claims 1-7, 12, 13, 16, and 17 are remain pending in this application.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 8, filed 31 March 2026, with respect to the objected Specification have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendment to the Specification filed on 31 March 2026. The objection to the Specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 8-9, filed 31 March 2026, with respect to objected claims 1, 12, and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 31 March 2026. The objections of claims 1, 12, and 16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, pg. 9, filed 31 March 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-7, 12, 13, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the claim amendments filed on 31 March 2026. The rejections of claims 1-7, 12, 13, 16, and 17 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Remarks, pgs. 10-11, filed 31 March 2026, with respect to rejected claims 1-7, 12, 13, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the Applicant’s argument,
Applicant submits that, at least as amended, claim 1 is not directed to an abstract idea, without significantly more, and is, indeed, directed to patentable subject matter. As such, Applicant submits that these rejections are rendered moot. (see Remarks, pg. 10, paragraph 3)
The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The Applicant has set forth a broad and conclusionary statement asserting the claim limitations are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more, as well as, mere recitations of claim limitations without providing any specific arguments/rationales/evidence as to why the previously and newly presented limitations are not directed to an abstract idea and provide meaningful limitations that amount to significantly more than an judicial exception. Hence, the Applicant’s argument is found unpersuasive.
The specification stands objected to, claim 1 stands objected to, and claims 1-7, 12, 13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Specification
The substitute specification filed 31 March 2026 has not been entered because it does not conform to 37 CFR 1.125(b) and (c) because: The newly presented Specification is inclusive of the set of claims and abstract filed on 13 February 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 includes the grammatical issue of “… a tool-specifical software application …” in line 20. Suggested claim language: “… a tool-specific software application …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Claim 1 includes the grammatical issue “… determining task location data based in the task information …” in lines 26-27. Suggested claim language: “… determining task location data based on the task information …”; and has been interpreted as such for the purpose of examination.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-7, 12, 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1:
At step 1, the recites a method for enhancing a power tool operation comprising of a plurality of “actions”; and therefore is a process, which is a statutory category of invention.
At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “identifying, …, a position and an orientation of at least one reference marker”; “identifying the power tool based on the at least one reference marker”; “identifying a tool-specifical software application corresponding to the power tool using stored dimensional data associated with the power tool”; determining task location data based in the task information, wherein the task location data indicates a location in an environment associated with a task corresponding to use of the power tool; identifying … a location marker associated with the location in the environment associated with the task; and “… a determination that a user of the power tool aligned the power tool with the ghost image …”.
The limitation of “identifying, …, a position and an orientation of at least one reference marker” (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0172916 A1: pg. 2, par. [0027]) is a process performed by use of a mathematical calculation(s).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations per use of mathematical calculations, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “identifying the power tool based on the at least one reference marker”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of the claim encompasses an observation of data (i.e. at least one reference markers) to ascertain new data (i.e. a recognition of power tool). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “identifying a tool-specifical software application corresponding to the power tool using stored dimensional data associated with the power tool”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation by use of steps in organizing a human activit(ies).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations by managing personal behavior (i.e. “identifying a tool-specifical software application …” (i.e. selecting; U.S. Patent Publication No. 2025/0172916 A1: pg. 2, par. [0021] and [0022]) using an instruction or rule (i.e. “… corresponding to the power tool using stored dimensional data associated with the power tool”), then it falls within the sub-grouping of “C. Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” of the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(C)(II): “Finally, the sub-groupings encompass both activity of a single person (for example, a person following a set of instructions or a person signing a contract online) and activity that involves multiple people (such as a commercial interaction), and thus, certain activity between a person and a computer (for example a method of anonymous loan shopping that a person conducts using a mobile phone) may fall within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" grouping. It is noted that the number of people involved in the activity is not dispositive as to whether a claim limitation falls within this grouping. Instead, the determination should be based on whether the activity itself falls within one of the sub-groupings.”) Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “determining task location data based in the task information, wherein the task location data indicates a location in an environment associated with a task corresponding to use of the power tool”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determining” in the context of the claim encompasses an evaluation of data (i.e. task information) to ascertain new data (i.e. task location data). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “identifying … a location marker associated with the location in the environment associated with the task”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of the claim encompasses an assessment of data (i.e. an observation of a location marker) to ascertain new data (i.e. a recognition of a location marker associated with the location in the environment associated with the task). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
The limitation of “… a determination that a user of the power tool aligned the power tool with the ghost image …”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “determin(ing)” in the context of the claim encompasses an evaluation of data (i.e. locations of the power tool and ghost image) to ascertain new data (i.e. alignment data). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “a system”; “providing a power tool”; “providing a computing device”; “providing a camera, the camera including graphic processing circuitry, wherein the camera communicates wirelessly with the computing device, and wherein at least one of the computing device and the camera is configured to receive a wireless signal from the power tool”; “providing at least one reference marker on the power tool”; “providing a display in communication with the computing device”; “providing a data input device in communication with the computing device wherein the data input device is configured to communicate data to the computing device”; “receiving, via the data input device. task information”; and “generating a task marker image based on the task information”; “displaying, on the display and using the camera, an overlay of the task marker image on a real-time image of the location in the environment associated with the task”; “displaying, on the display and using the camera, a ghost image of the power tool on the overlay of the task marker image on the real-time image of the location in the environment associated with the task; and “generating, using the computing device and based on a determination that a user of the power tool aligned the power tool with the ghost image, an audible indication”.
The limitations of “providing a computing device”; “providing a camera, the camera including graphic processing circuitry, wherein the camera communicates wirelessly with the computing device …”; “providing a display in communication with the computing device”; and “providing a data input device in communication with the computing device, wherein the data input device is configured to communicate data to the computing device” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitations of “a system”; “providing a power tool”; and “providing at least one reference marker on the power tool” are generally recited at a high level of generality and merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. The Courts have found “a claim directed to a judicial exception cannot be made eligible ‘simply by having the applicant acquiesce to limiting the reach of the patent for the formula to a particular technological use.’ Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 192 n.14, 209 USPQ 1, 10 n. 14 (1981). Thus, limitations that amount to merely indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply a judicial exception do not amount to significantly more than the exception itself, and cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.” (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… at least one of the computing device and the camera is configured to receive a wireless signal from the power tool” and “receiving, via the data input device. task information” represent mere data gathering. The limitations are recited at a high level of generality and so generically they represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitations of “generating a task marker image based on the task information”; “displaying, on the display and using the camera, an overlay of the task marker image on a real-time image of the location in the environment associated with the task”; “displaying, on the display and using the camera, a ghost image of the power tool on the overlay of the task marker image on the real-time image of the location in the environment associated with the task”; and “generating, using the computing device and based on a determination that a user of the power tool aligned the power tool with the ghost image, an audible indication” represent mere data output of information. The limitations of “generating” and “displaying” are recited at a high level of generally and so generically they represent no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “providing a computing device”; “providing a camera, the camera including graphic processing circuitry, wherein the camera communicates wirelessly with the computing device …”; “providing a display in communication with the computing device”; and “providing a data input device in communication with the computing device, wherein the data input device is configured to communicate data to the computing device” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional limitations of “a system”; “providing a power tool”; and “providing at least one reference marker on the power tool” merely limit the abstract idea to a field of use. Wherein, limiting the invention to a field of use cannot provide an inventive concept. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible. (MPEP 2106.05(h)).
The limitations of “… at least one of the computing device and the camera is configured to receive a wireless signal from the power tool” and “receiving, via the data input device. task information”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
The limitations of “generating a task marker image based on the task information”; “displaying, on the display and using the camera, an overlay of the task marker image on a real-time image of the location in the environment associated with the task”; “displaying, on the display and using the camera, a ghost image of the power tool on the overlay of the task marker image on the real-time image of the location in the environment associated with the task”; and “generating, using the computing device and based on a determination that a user of the power tool aligned the power tool with the ghost image, an audible indication”, as discussed above, represent an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “presenting offers and gathering”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 2:
At step 2A, prong one the claim recites “… identifying, using the computing device and the camera, a plurality of power tools”.
The limitation of “… identifying, …, a plurality of power tools”, as drafted, is a process, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performing the limitation in the mind. Where, nothing in the claim precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind. For example, “identifying” in the context of the claim encompasses an observation of data to ascertain new data (i.e. a recognition of power tool). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): The use of a physical aid (e.g., pencil and paper or a slide rule) to help perform a mental step (e.g., deriving new data) does not negate the mental nature of the limitation, but simply accounts for variations in memory capacity from one person to another.)
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… the computing device and camera …”.
The limitations of “… the computing device and the camera …” are recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of “… the computing device and the camera …” amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 3:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… pinging each power tool of the plurality of power tools and generating a list of power tools of the plurality of power tools based on one or more signals responsive to the pinging”.
The limitation of “… pinging each power tool of the plurality of power tools …” represents mere data output of information. The “pinging” is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The limitation of “… generating a list of power tools of the plurality of power tools based on one or more signals responsive to the pinging” represents mere data gathering. The limitation is recited at a high level of generality and so generically it represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of gathering data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “… pinging each power tool of the plurality of power tools …” represents mere data output of information (i.e. data transmission). Further, the courts have found limitations directed to transmitting data, recited a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “receiving or transmitting data over a network”.
The additional element of “… generating a list of power tools of the plurality of power tools based on one or more signals responsive to the pinging” amounts to no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of data gathering. Further, the limitations are well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to obtaining data, recited at a high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “storing and retrieving information in memory”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 4:
The limitation “the plurality of power tools includes the power tool” in claim 4 further details the limitation of “a plurality of power tools” in claim 2; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 2.
Claim 5:
The limitation “tool specific data that indicates at least one topographical feature on a housing of the power tool” in claim 5 further details the limitation of “identifying the power tool” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 6:
The limitation “the tool specific data includes using a real-time image of the power tool” in claim 6 further details the limitation of “identifying the power tool” in claims 1 and 5; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claims 1 and 5.
Claim 7:
The limitation “… an electronic file representation of a construction plan corresponding to the environment” in claim 7 further details the limitation of “task information” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 12:
The limitation “… at least one code marker is disposed on the at least one reference marker” in claim 12 further details the limitation of “at least one reference marker” in claim 1; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 1.
Claim 13:
The limitation “… the at least one code marker includes at least one of a QR code, a bar code, OF and an IR marker” in claim 13 further details the limitation of “at least one reference marker” in claims 12; and the claim stands rejected for the same rational as set forth above in claim 12.
Claim 16:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… displaying, on the display, an arrow directing the user of the power tool to align the power tool with the desired ghost image”.
The limitation of “the display” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… displaying, … , an arrow directing the user of the power tool to align the power tool with the desired ghost image” represents mere data output of information. The limitation is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the display” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional element of “… displaying, … , an arrow directing the user of the power tool to align the power tool with the desired ghost image” represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “presenting offers and gathering”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 17:
At step 2A, prong two, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites “… displaying a visual indicator, on the display, indicating that power tool is aligned with the ghost image”.
The limitation of “the display” is recited at a high level of generality and recited so generically that it represents no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer component (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The limitation of “… displaying a visual indicator, … , indicating that power tool is aligned with the ghost image” represents mere data output of information. The limitation is recited at a high level of generally and recited so generically it represents no more than an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.
At step 2B, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As previously discussed with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “the display” amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “Courts have held computer‐implemented processes not to be significantly more than an abstract idea (and thus ineligible) where the claim as a whole amounts to nothing more than generic computer functions merely used to implement an abstract idea, such as an idea that could be done by a human analog (i.e., by hand or by merely thinking).”
The additional element of “… displaying a visual indicator, … , indicating that power tool is aligned with the ghost image” represents an insignificant extra-solution activity of outputting data. Further, the limitation is well-understood, routine and conventional; wherein the courts have found limitations directed to outputting data, recited at high level of generality, to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “presenting offers and gathering”.
Considering the additional elements individually and in combination and the claim as a whole, the additional elements do not provide significantly more than the abstract idea. The claim is not patent eligible.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following references are cited to further show the state of the art with respect to tool and welding systems and image processing.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2017/0169561 A1 discloses systems and methods to use head-mounted devices to identify and locate physical objects or identify a lack of physical objects or equipment in expected locations for inventory purposes.
U.S. Patent Publication No. 2018/0130377 A1 discloses a processor based subsystem configured to execute welding training software that monitors a performance of a user based on a position, orientation and movement of a welding tool as the user performs a real-world weld.
Canadian Patent Publication No. CA 3 227 344 A1 discloses tool monitoring systems and beacon devices used in tool monitoring systems.
European Patent Publication No. EP 4 316 716 B1 discloses welding technique monitoring systems using acoustic tracking.
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 JENNIFER L NORTON whose telephone number is (571)272-3694. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am - 5:30 p.m..
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/JENNIFER L NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights