DETAILED ACTION
This final rejection is responsive to communication filed December 31, 2025. Claims 1, 2, and 11 are currently amended. Claims 1-20 are pending 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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-9, 11, and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,216,789. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 7-9, 11, and 15-17 of U.S. Patent No. 12,216,789 anticipate each limitation in claims 1-20 of the present application with the following differences in language. For example, claims 1 and 11 of the present application recite “eliminating a content item of the plurality of content items to the permissions-filtered results set” while claims 1 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12,216,789 recite “preventing the search engine from adding a content item of the plurality of content items to the permissions-filtered results set.” The examiner equates eliminating content from a result set to preventing content from being added to the result set. Further, the present application recites “a search engine associated with a repository”, while U.S. Patent No. 12,216,789 recites “a search engine associated with a content management system.” The repository is equated to a content management system.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 16-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,544,400. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14 of U.S. Patent No. 11,544,400 anticipate each limitation in claims 1, 2, 5, 8, 10, 11 and 16-19 of the present application with the following differences in language. For example, claims 1 and 11 of the present application recite “eliminating a content item of the plurality of content items to the permissions-filtered results set” while claims 1, 6 and 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,544,400 recite “generating a permissions-filtered results set… excludes content items that fail to satisfy user permissions.” The examiner equates eliminating content from a result set to excluding content from the result set. Further, the present application recites “a search engine associated with a repository”, while U.S. Patent No. 11,544,400 recites “a search engine associated with a content management system.” The repository is equated to a content management system.
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, 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, 2, 5-7, 11, 15, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madany et al. (US 9,239,874 B1) (‘Madany’) in view of Constandt et al. (US 2018/0157716 A1) (‘Constandt’).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Madany teaches a computer-implemented method and a content management system comprising one or more processors configured to perform instructions comprising:
evaluating, in a search engine associated with a repository, user permissions based on a user identity and a query input for a search of content in the repository (col. 5 lines 13-17; col. 9 lines 20-31);
evaluating, by the search engine, the query input using a content index of a plurality of content items maintained in the repository (col. 4 lines 17-25);
producing a permissions-filtered results set based on results of the user permissions, the query input, and the content index by eliminating a content item of the plurality of content items associated with the permissions-filtered results set, in response to the search returning the content item and a determination that the user permissions exclude the content item as being accessible to the user identity (Madany teaches a search engine that evaluates user permissions and filters search results that a user/device is not permitted to access) (col. 9 lines 20-31); and
returning, by the search engine, a permissions-filtered results set based on the search of content in the repository (Madany teaches returning and displaying search results that have been filtered based on user permissions.) (Fig. 6, col. 9 lines 25-31; col. 10 lines 31-50).
Madany does not explicitly teach providing an option to select a dynamically determined faceting criteria instead of a faceted criteria that is determined prior to a dynamic determination of the faceted criteria; or returning results based on the option selected.
Constandt teaches providing an option to select a dynamically determined (updated) faceting criteria (paragraphs 31, 112, and 117) instead of a faceted criteria that is determined prior (paragraphs 31, 91, and 99) to a dynamic determination of the faceted criteria (search result facets are displayed for a user to select and are further updated; Constandt teaches an update facet button that, when selected, updates a facet to include a query-specific facet link that defines the link between a selected search result facet (i.e. phase) and a search result property identifier of the selected search result property (i.e. trial stage)); and returning results based on the option selected (Figs. 5-7, paragraphs 91, 96-97, and 109-111).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the search results of Madany to incorporate dynamically generated facets as taught by Constandt to enable a more efficient and flexible display of search results that is updated based on search results and user selections, thereby providing a user the best results having accurate information associated with the results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Madany with Constandt because Madany teaches filtering search results, and thus further filtering based on dynamic facets would have been obvious to achieve the benefits listed above.
With respect to claim 2, Madany in view of Constandt teaches receiving the query input to an input of the search engine; and searching, by the search engine, the repository for the content based on the query input and the user identity (Madany, col. 5 lines 13-17 and col. 9 lines 20-31), and preventing the search engine from adding a content item of the plurality of content items to the permissions-filtered results set, in response to the search for the query input returning the content item and further determining that the user permissions exclude the content item as being accessible to a user associated with the user identity (a search engine evaluates user permission and filters search results that a user/device is not permitted to access prior to providing search results) (Madany, col. 9 lines 20-31).
With respect to claim 5, Madany in view of Constandt teaches producing the permissions-filtered results set by combining the results of evaluating the user permissions with the query input using the content index without a front-end application or post search engine processing (Madany, col. 9 lines 20-31).
With respect to claim 6, Madany in view of Constandt teaches determining one or more faceting criteria based on content associated with the plurality of content items (Constandt teaches that facets are determined based on search result property values like phase and clinical trial success rate, which are based on content such as records 226 from Fig. 2) (Constandt, Fig. 5, paragraphs 89 and 93).
With respect to claim 7, Madany in view of Constandt teaches further comprising:
generating the one or more faceting criteria by using permissions-corrected summary statistics to calculate faceting relevant to the permissions-filtered results set; and grouping the permissions-filtered results set based on the one or more faceting criteria (Madany teaches returning and displaying search results that have been filtered based on user permissions. The results are arranged by top results, along with size and date, which represent permissions- corrected summary statistics. Constandt teaches facets are determined based on search result property values; each facet is shown with count of result; users may select facets) (Madany, Fig. 6, col. 9 lines 25-31; col. 10 lines 31-50; Constandt, paragraphs 89, 93, and 96-97).
With respect to claim 15, Madany in view of Constandt teaches determining one or more faceting criteria based on content associated with the plurality of content items (Constandt teaches that facets are determined based on search result property values like phase and clinical trial success rate, which are based on content such as records 226 from Fig. 2) (Constandt, Fig. 5, paragraphs 89 and 93);
generating the one or more faceting criteria by using permissions-corrected summary statistics to calculate faceting based on the permissions-filtered results set; and grouping the permissions-filtered results set based on the one or more faceting criteria (Madany teaches returning and displaying search results that have been filtered based on user permissions. The results are arranged by top results, along with size and date, which represent permissions- corrected summary statistics. Constandt teaches facets are determined based on search result property values; each facet is shown with count of result; users may select facets) (Madany, Fig. 6, col. 9 lines 25-31; col. 10 lines 31-50; Constandt, paragraphs 89, 93, and 96-97).
With respect to claim 17, Madany teaches a computer program product comprising a non-transitory machine-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one programmable processor, cause the at least one programmable processor to perform instructions comprising:
evaluating a query input to search content managed by a repository (col. 5 lines 8-17), the content being searchable using a content index configured for indexing the content (col. 4 lines 21-25) and metadata associated with content items associated with the indexed content (col. 5 lines 28-31; col. 10 lines 1-5);
evaluating user permissions by searching a user permissions index implemented as an access control list index for one or more access control lists (col. 4 lines 17-25; col. 9 lines 20- 31); and
producing a permissions-filtered results set that includes at least a threshold number of content items that satisfy the query input and excludes content items that fail to satisfy user permissions identified in the access control list index (col. 9 lines 20-31).
Although Madany teaches a permissions-filtered results set and permissions-corrected summary statistics, and search indexes and searching based on content or metadata, Madany does not explicitly recite a metadata index; providing an option to select from among a dynamically determined faceted criteria instead of a faceted criteria determined prior to a dynamic determination of the faceted criteria.
Constandt teaches a metadata index configured for indexing metadata (paragraphs 149 and 152); and
providing an option to select a dynamically determined (updated) faceting criteria (paragraphs 31, 112, and 117) instead of a faceted criteria that is determined prior (paragraphs 31, 91, and 99) to a dynamic determination of the faceted criteria (search result facets are displayed for a user to select and are further updated; Madany teaches an update facet button that, when selected, updates a facet to include a query-specific facet link that defines the link between a selected search result facet (i.e. phase) and a search result property identifier of the selected search result property (i.e. trial stage)); and returning results based on the option selected (Figs. 5-7, paragraphs 91, 96-97, and 109-111).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the search results of Madany to incorporate dynamically generated facets as taught by Constandt to enable a more efficient and flexible display of search results that is updated based on search results and user selections, thereby providing a user the best results having accurate information associated with the results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Madany with Constandt because Madany teaches filtering search results, and thus further filtering based on dynamic facets would have been obvious to achieve the benefits listed above.
With respect to claim 18, Madany in view of Constandt teaches returning the permissions-filtered results set (Madany teaches returning and displaying search results that have been filtered based on user permissions.) (Fig. 6, col. 9 lines 25-31; col. 10 lines 31-50) by dynamically generating facets for grouping the results set according to one or more faceting criteria (facets are determined based on search result property values; each facet is shown with count of result, as facets are updated, counts are updated; users may select facets) (Constandt, paragraphs 89, 93, 94, 96, and 97), wherein the producing the permissions filtered results set comprises using permissions corrected summary statistics (The results are arranged by top results, along with size and date, which represent permissions-corrected summary Statistics.) (Madany, Fig. 6, col. 9 lines 25-31; col. 10 lines 31-50) to calculate faceting relevant to the result set ( facets are determined based on search result property values; each facet is shown with count of result, as facets are updated, counts are updated; users may select facets) (Constandt, paragraphs 89, 93, 94, 96, and 97).
With respect to claim 19, Madany in view of Constandt teaches wherein the permissions-corrected summary statistics identifies correct ranges of one or more parameters characteristic of the filtered results set (each facet has a facet category where the search result property value belongs to facet category; facet category can be range of values as seen in Fig. 5) (Constandt, Fig. 5, paragraph 94) and correct counts of returned content items occurring within various ranges of the one or more parameters (each facet is shown with count of results; as facets are updated, the counts are updated) (Constandt, Figs. 5-6, paragraph 107, 109-110).
Claims 3, 4, 12-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madany in view of Constandt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hornqvist (US 2008/0306954 A1).
With respect to claims 3 and 12, Madany in view of Constandt teaches evaluating the query input by the search engine.
Madany in view of Constandt does not explicitly teach wherein evaluating the query input by the search engine is performed concurrent with evaluating the user permissions.
Hornqvist teaches wherein evaluating the query input by the search engine is performed concurrent with evaluating the user permissions (Hornqvist teaches in certain embodiments, operations 2303 and 2305 may be performed concurrently by structuring a search query which takes into account the access permissions and (through a BOOLEAN AND operator) the search query itself provided by the first user; and the validation of permissions of files and the searching for files matching the search query could be performed concurrently) (paragraphs 126, 135 and 138).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Madany to concurrently evaluate user permissions and query input as taught by Hornqvist to enable faster, more efficient search processing. Further, the modification would only entail swapping the evaluation technique of Madany with that of Hornqvist to run concurrent evaluations.
With respect to claims 4 and 13, Madany in view of Constandt teaches combining results from evaluating the user permissions and the query input (Madany, col. 5 lines 13-17; col. 9 lines 20-31).
Madany in view of Constandt does not explicitly teach concurrent evaluation of the query input and user permissions.
Hornqvist teaches wherein evaluating the query input by the search engine is performed concurrent with evaluating the user permissions (Hornqvist teaches in certain embodiments, operations 2303 and 2305 may be performed concurrently by structuring a search query which takes into account the access permissions and (through a BOOLEAN AND operator) the search query itself provided by the first user; and the validation of permissions of files and the searching for files matching the search query could be performed concurrently) (paragraphs 126, 135 and 138).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Madany to concurrently evaluate user permissions and query input as taught by Hornqvist to enable faster, more efficient search processing. Further, the modification would only entail swapping the evaluation technique of Madany with that of Hornqvist to run concurrent evaluations.
With respect to claim 14, Madany in view of Constandt teaches producing the permissions-filtered results set by combining the results of evaluating the user permissions with the query input using the content index without post-processing of an evaluation of user permissions (Madany, col. 9 lines 20-31).
Madany in view of Constandt does not explicitly teach concurrent evaluation of the query input and user permissions.
Hornqvist teaches wherein evaluating the query input by the search engine is performed concurrent with evaluating the user permissions (Hornqvist teaches in certain embodiments, operations 2303 and 2305 may be performed concurrently by structuring a search query which takes into account the access permissions and (through a BOOLEAN AND operator) the search query itself provided by the first user; and the validation of permissions of files and the searching for files matching the search query could be performed concurrently) (paragraphs 126, 135 and 138).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Madany to concurrently evaluate user permissions and query input as taught by Hornqvist to enable faster, more efficient search processing. Further, the modification would only entail swapping the evaluation technique of Madany with that of Hornqvist to run concurrent evaluations.
With respect to claim 20, Madany in view of Constandt teaches producing the permissions-filtered results set by combining the results of evaluating the user permissions with the query input using the content index without post-processing of an evaluation of user permissions (Madany, col. 9 lines 20-31).
Madany in view of Constandt does not explicitly teach concurrent evaluation of the query input and user permissions.
Hornqvist teaches wherein evaluating the query input by the search engine is performed concurrent with evaluating the user permissions (Hornqvist teaches in certain embodiments, operations 2303 and 2305 may be performed concurrently by structuring a search query which takes into account the access permissions and (through a BOOLEAN AND operator) the search query itself provided by the first user; and the validation of permissions of files and the searching for files matching the search query could be performed concurrently) (paragraphs 126, 135 and 138).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified Madany to concurrently evaluate user permissions and query input as taught by Hornqvist to enable faster, more efficient search processing. Further, the modification would only entail swapping the evaluation technique of Madany with that of Hornqvist to run concurrent evaluations.
Claims 8-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Madany in view of Constandt as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marantz et al. (US 2014/0280289 A1) (‘Marantz’).
With respect to claim 8, Madany in view of Constandt teaches a query input comprising a string of characters entered by the user into a search term input user interface element in a user interface presented to the user (Madany, col. 5 lines 13-17).
Madany in view of Constandt does not explicitly teach a partial query input.
Marantz teaches wherein the query input comprises a partial query input comprising a string of characters entered by a user into a search term input user interface element in a user interface presented to the user (element 510 in Fig. 5; paragraphs 56 and 58).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the query inputs of Madany to include partial query inputs as taught by Marantz to enable enhanced searching that provides dynamic query suggestions to users as they type searches (Marantz, abstract, paragraphs 4 and 54). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because it would only entail modifying one type of query input for another type of query input.
With respect to claim 9, Madany in view of Constandt returning the permissions-filtered results set comprises presentation, in a user interface, of suggested content items (Madany, col. 9 lines 20-31).
Madany in view of Constandt does not explicitly teach a partial query input.
Marantz teaches wherein the returning the permissions-filtered results set comprises presentation, in a user interface, of suggested content items based on a partial query input (Figs. 3 and 5; paragraphs 49 and 58).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the query inputs of Madany to include partial query inputs as taught by Marantz to enable enhanced searching that provides dynamic query suggestions to users as they type searches (Marantz, abstract, paragraphs 4 and 54). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because it would only entail modifying one type of query input for another type of query input.
With respect to claims 10 and 16, Madany in view of Constandt further comprising using the permissions-filtered results set (Madany, col. 9 lines 20-31).
Madany in view of Constandt does not explicitly teach identify a projected query input based on a partial query input
Marantz teaches identifying a projected query input based on a partial query input (paragraphs 55, 59 and 74).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the query input of Madany to include projected query input based on a partial query input as taught by Marantz to enable enhanced searching that provides dynamic query suggestions to users as they type searches (Marantz, abstract, paragraphs 4 and 54). A person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification because it would only entail modifying one type of query input for another type of query input.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 31, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Constandt fails to teach providing an option to select a dynamically determined faceting criteria instead of a faceting criteria determined prior to a dynamic determination of the faceted criteria. The examiner disagrees. Constandt teaches that a user may select updated faceting criteria instead of faceted criteria determined prior to dynamic determination of updated faceted criteria. Constandt teaches predetermined search result facets and updating the predetermined search result facets and corresponding facet categories by the user (paragraph 31). The predetermined search result facets represent “a faceting criteria determined prior to a dynamic determination of the faceted criteria.”
Constandt teaches that in response to a query, search results are retrieved and provided in a search result list. Based on the search result list and predetermined facet links, a search result facet list 66 is provided (paragraph 99). He further teaches that the search result facet list 66 comprises at least one search result facet 42, which search result facet 42 depends on at least one predetermined facet link 510, wherein the predetermined facet link 510 defines a link between a search result facet identifier 501 corresponding to the search result facet 42 and a search result property identifier 503 corresponding to a first search result property 33 of a retrieved search result 32 of the search result list 36 (paragraph 91).
Constandt further teaches that facets and facet categories are updated based on the query during the carrying out of the search process (paragraph 112). For example, Constandt teaches that predetermined facet links may be updated by defining an additional search result facet link. This update can occur when the update facet command has been received has been received (paragraph 117). Therefore, the user has an option to select dynamically determined faceting criteria (i.e. by selecting the update facet command button) instead of a faceting criteria determined prior to a dynamic determination of the faceted criteria (i.e. instead of predetermined facets).
Applicant further argues that a person having ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify Constandt to provide an option to select a dynamically determined faceting criteria instead of a faceting criteria determined prior to a dynamic determination of the faceted criteria because it would destroy the intended purpose of Constandt for updating predetermined facet links when a certain number of times the same facet linking command has been received. The examiner disagrees. First, the examiner is not modifying Constandt to provide an option as claimed. Constandt already teaches this limitation as argued above. The certain number of times that a facet linking or update facet command is received can be 1, in which case when the user selected this command, dynamic faceted criteria is determined. Therefore, this option does not destroy the intended purpose of Constandt as it is the intended purpose and Applicant has not provided any evidence to the contrary.
Applicant further argues, with respect to claim 1, that Madany fails to teach preventing the search engine from adding a content item of the plurality of content items to the permissions-filtered results set, in response to the search for the query input returning the content item and further determining that the user permissions exclude the content item as being accessible to a user associated with the user identity. The examiner disagrees. Madany teaches that the search engine evaluates user permissions and filters search results that a user/device is not permitted to access to provide only files to which the user or device has authorized access (col. 9 lines 20-31). In other words, the filtered out results are not added to the results set that is provided to the client.
Applicant argues that post search engine processing is being applied to search results by Madany, which teaches away from preventing the search engine from adding a content item of the plurality of content items to a permissions-filtered results set. The examiner disagrees. First, the examiner notes that claim 2 does not describe or even mention post search engine processing. Post search engine processing may refer to processing done after search results are returned to a requesting user. The permissions-filtered result set is the result set that is returned to the user based on user permissions. In Madany, the search engine is prevented from adding content to this result set returned to the user based on user permissions. Lastly, a reference "teaches away" when it states that something cannot be done. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Applicant argues that Hornqvist does not disclose preventing the search engine from adding a content item to a permissions-filtered results set as recited in claim 2. The examiner notes that Hornqvist is not used to teach claim 2. However, Hornqvist does in fact teach preventing the search engine from adding a content item to a permissions-filtered results set. Hornqvist teaches in certain embodiments, operations 2303 and 2305 may be performed concurrently by structuring a search query which takes into account the access permissions and (through a BOOLEAN AND operator) the search query itself provided by the first user; and the validation of permissions of files and the searching for files matching the search query could be performed concurrently (paragraphs 126, 135 and 138).
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 ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY whose telephone number is (571)272-5599. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30, EST, M-F.
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, Ajay Bhatia can be reached at 571-272-3906. 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.
/ALICIA M WILLOUGHBY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2156 March 27, 2026