DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on 23 October 2025 has been entered. The following is in reply to the Amendments and Arguments.
Claims amended: 1, 5, 6, 10, 11, 15, 16, 20
Claims cancelled: 4, 9, 14, 19
Claims added: 21-24
Claims currently pending: 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-18, 20-24
Response to Arguments
Applicant, in the “Remarks” and “Summary of Substance of Interview Held October 9, 2025” sections, presents opening remarks regarding the disposition of the claims, the amendments to the claims, and the substance of the previously conducted interview. As no specific argument is raised in this/these section(s) with respect to the instant application, no rebuttal is required.
Applicant, in the “Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101” section, presents two paragraphs introducing the section with substantive argument beginning in the first subsection. This subsection is addressed in the following paragraph of Examiner’s Response to Argument.
Applicant, in the “Step 2A/Prong One: The Claims do not recite and are not directed to an abstract idea” section, argues that the previous grounds of rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 “has not articulated how this aspect of the alleged abstract idea relates to commercial or legal interactions”. Applicant’s argument ellipses the identified abstract idea: “augmenting messages with relevant advertisements in a conversation” to “augmenting messages…in a conversation”. Applicant further concatenates the highlighted “certain methods of organizing human activity”: “commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations” to simply, “commercial or legal interactions”. This appears to be an attempt to distance the claims from their direction towards presenting advertisements in a conversation based on the content of the conversation (i.e., “relevant advertisements”). Applicant then lists what appears to be a list of most, if not all, of the examples of ineligible subject matter found in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(B). Examiner notes that the examples presented therein are examples and are not dispositive of a complete list that new applications must match. In the instant application, the claims are directed towards analyzing a conversation between parties and matching the content of the conversation to advertisements. As such, the claims are found, on their face, to be directed towards an abstract idea. Applicant then argues that the claims are directed “towards a particular technical solution to a specific technical problem – namely providing a data augmentation mechanism that addresses data opacity problems in peer-to-peer messaging environments”. It is unclear which elements of the claimed invention represent the “technical solution” as the elements found in the claim are well-understood, routine, and conventional in nature. In the absence of further detail, this argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant, in the “Step 2A/Prong Two: Any alleged abstract idea is integrated into a practical application” section, argues that the “claims recite additional elements that improve ‘another technology or technical field’ to integrate any alleged judicial exception into a practical application”. Applicant then refers to sections from the specification that extoll the virtues of the invention. However, Applicant’s argument does not identify the particular “additional elements” from the claims that render them into a practical application until mention of the “natural language processing (NLP)” and “vector similarity algorithm” language. As for the former, the previous grounds of rejection made clear that the use of NLP was well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. The latter was amended into the claims in Applicant’s response, and as such, this mention is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims. The grounds of rejection have been updated to indicate that use of vector similarity algorithms was also well-understood, routine, and conventional in art. Therefore, these elements, alone or in combination, do not render the claims into a practical application. Applicant then refers to Recentive Analytics and argues that the claims here “do not simply disclose the use of generic natural language processing or machine learning operations in a new environment”, but rather “solves the problem of data opacity in peer-to-peer messaging environments”. Applicant’s argument refers to nearly the entirety of the independent claims. It is unclear to the Examiner which elements, specifically, work to solve this alleged problem of data opacity. Therefore, this argument appears largely conclusory and the Examiner finds that the claims do little more than recite an abstract idea as implemented using well-understood, routine, and conventional elements. Similarly, Applicant’s next argument with respect to “significantly more” appears to be little more than listing a large number of limitations from the claims and asserting that they comprise “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is herein maintained, albeit, updated to reflect Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant, in the “Step 2B: The claims recite significantly more than the alleged judicial exception itself” section, argues that the three elements of 1) an NLP service, 2) a vector similarity algorithm, and 3) augmenting a visual presentation of keywords in the conversation (paraphrases from Applicant’s arguments on page 17) represent “significantly more” than the abstract idea. As for the first two elements, they are identified in the grounds of rejection presented herein as well-understood, routine, and conventional elements. These two elements have been addressed further in the previous paragraph as well. As for the third element of “modifying a visual presentation of the identified keyword to differentiate the keyword text from remaining text in the conversation text data”; this is part of the abstract idea of augmenting messages with relevant advertisements in a conversation. Here, the augmenting is little more than modifying the message to make it indicate that it is an advertisement or links to an advertisement. That is, the advertisement is the augmentation of the message and is found under “advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors”. Applicant then refers to DDR Holdings and argues that the claimed invention in the instant application refers to “intelligent data augmentation”. This argument is unpersuasive as the “additional features” of the claims must be more than “well-understood, routine, and conventional activity”. Here, the features are generic computer hardware and functions such as storing and transmitting data and the use of NLP and vector similarity algorithms which, as discussed above and in the grounds of rejection below, are well-understood, routine and conventional. As such, these additional elements do not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea.
Applicant, in the “Rejection under 35 U.S.C § 103” section, presents two paragraphs introducing the section with substantive argument beginning in the first subsection. This subsection is addressed in the following paragraph of Examiner’s Response to Argument.
Applicant, in the “The applied art does not teach all of the claim limitations as amended” section, argues that the newly amended features involving “a vector similarity algorithm” and “similarity threshold” are not taught by the previously cited references of Glazier and Jia. This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein which were necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims that added these features to the claims. The claims stand rejected herein with an additional reference to cover any asserted deficiencies of the previously applied references.
Applicant, in the “New Claims 21-24” section, asserts that the claims are patentable based on their dependence from independent claim(s) and do to their “additional scope”. This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented herein which were necessitated by Applicant’s addition of claims 21-24.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 (and its dependents) is objected to because of the following informalities: the limitation of “selecting an advertisement from one or more advertisements in the one or more using an advertisement auction service;” (emphasis added), appears to be attempting to reference the one or more keyword-advertisement pairings as is claimed in independent claim 1, but the “keyword-advertisement pairings” terms are missing. The claims were examined as if this terminology as present.
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 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-18, 20-24 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.
Step 1: Claims 1-3, 5, 16-18, 20, 21, 24 are directed towards methods. Claims 6-8, 10, 22 are directed towards a system. Claims 11-13, 15, 23 are directed towards a manufacture (computer-readable medium). Thus, these claims, on their face, are directed to one of the statutory categories of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Step 2A - Prong One: As per MPEP 2106.04, Prong One asks does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon. In Prong One examiners evaluate whether the claim(s) recites a judicial exception; that is, whether the claim(s) set forth or describe a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract idea.
Claim 1 is presented here as a representative claim for specific analysis (The underlined claim terms here are interpreted as additional elements beyond the abstract idea.):
A computer-implemented method for conversation text data augmentation in a peer-to-peer messaging environment, comprising:
receiving conversation text data from a peer-to-peer messaging platform;
identifying, via a natural language processing (NLP) service analyzing the semantic context of the conversation text data, a keyword within the conversation text data associated with a desired product or service using;
querying a data store for one or more keyword-advertisement pairings associated with the identified keyword via a vector similarity algorithm that returns the one or more keyword-advertisement pairings when similarity scores between the identified keyword and keywords in the one or more keyword-advertisement pairings are above a similarity threshold;
selecting an advertisement from one or more advertisements in the one or more keyword-advertisement pairings using an advertisement auction service; and
transmitting the identified keyword and selected advertisement to the peer-to-peer messaging platform, wherein the peer-to-peer messaging platform in response to the transmitting augments the conversation text data using the identified keyword and the selected advertisement, the augmenting comprising modifying a visual presentation of the identified keyword to differentiate the keyword text from remaining text in the conversation text data.
The claims here are based on the recitation of an abstract idea (i.e. recitation other than the additional elements delineated here with underlining and further addressed per Step 2A - Prong Two and Step 2B). The claims recite the abstract idea of augmenting messages with relevant advertisements in a conversation which falls within certain methods of organizing human activity.
The phrase "certain methods of organizing human activity" applies to fundamental economic principles or practices including hedging insurance, mitigating risk; commercial or legal interactions including agreements in the form of contracts, legal obligations, advertising, marketing or sales activities or behaviors business relations; managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people including social activities teaching, and following rules or instructions. Refer to MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) II. A-C.
The Remaining Claims: The additional independent claims recite the additional elements of: “one or more memories” and “at least one processor” (claim 6); “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, and “at least one computing device” (claim 11). The dependent claims recite fail to recite any additional elements beyond those already identified.
The dependent claims further reiterate the same abstract idea with further embellishments: creating a hyperlink from the keyword in the message (claims 2, 7, 12, and 17); creating a pop-up or drop-down next to the keyword (claims 3, 8, 13, and 18); analyzing messages using NLP (claims 5, 10, 15, and 20); details of the determination of the threshold (claims 21-24). Therefore, the identified claims fall within the subject matter groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
Step 2A - Prong Two: As per MPEP 2106.04.II.A.2, Prong Two determines if the claim(s) recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
As for the additional elements of: “computer-implemented”, “peer-to-peer messaging platform”, “a data store”, “one or more memories”, “at least one processor”, “non-transitory computer-readable medium”, and “at least one computing device”. To be patent-eligible, the elements additional to the identified abstract idea must amount to more than "an instruction to apply the abstract idea . . . using some unspecified, generic computer" to render the claim patent-eligible. Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 226 (2014). Here, Applicant's Specification broadly describes support for well-known generic computer elements: paragraphs 0077 et. seq. describe standard computer elements. It would have been readily apparent to one having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) at the time the invention was filed that the additional elements represent generic computing devices. Therefore, the claims amount to no more than a mere method, system, and/or computer program product to implement the abstract idea on a generic computer system. See MPEP § 2106.05(f).
As for the additional element(s) of: natural language processing (NLP) and a vector similarity algorithm amounts to generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The ordered combination offers nothing more than employing a generic configuration of computer devices and computer functions. The claims do not amount to a practical application, similar to how limiting the abstract idea in Flook to petrochemical and oil-refining industries was insufficient.
Step 2B: As per MPEP 2106.05, the additional elements are analyzed, both individually and in combination, to determine whether an "inventive concept" is furnished by an element or combination of elements that is recited in the claim in addition to (beyond) the judicial exception, and is sufficient to ensure that the claim, as a whole, amounts to significantly more than the judicial exception itself.
As for the additional element(s): natural language processing (NLP): applying "machine learning" at a high level of generality represents performing repetitive calculations, Flook, 437 U.S. at 594, 198 USPQ2d at 199 (recomputing or readjusting alarm limit values); Bancorp Services v. Sun Life, 687 F.3d 1266, 1278, 103 USPQ2d 1425, 1433 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Machine learning is well-understood, routine and conventional as exemplified in "Approaches to Machine Learning" by Langley et al. (Langley, P. and Carbonell, J.G. (1984), Approaches to machine learning. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 35: 306-316. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630350509 (Year: 1984)). This is further exemplified by the statement in 0026 of the specification: “Any known or future large language models may be substituted without departing from the scope of the technology described herein”.
As for the additional element(s): a vector similarity algorithm: the use of similarity scores in machine learning is well-understood, routine, and conventional. Zhan et al. describes this class of algorithms as “Traditional algorithms” in section 1.1. of, “Link prediction in recommender systems based on vector similarity” found in Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Volume 560, 2020, 125154, ISSN 0378-4371, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2020.125154.
References of Record but not Applied in the Current Grounds of Rejection
The prior art listed below is made of record as considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is not relied upon in the grounds of rejection presented in this Office action. Those starred with '*' were added to this list in this Office action. Those without "*" were added in a previous Office action and are not repeated on a PTO-892 Notice of References Cited form, but are maintained herein for informational purposes only.
Doulton (Pub. #: AU 2012258326 B2) discloses a system that augments text messages with additional information that can comprise advertisements.
Hal06, in "Strange Pop-up ads on web pages with highlighted words" describes a system that inserts advertisement hyperlinks into text on webpages.
Examiner's Note on the Format of the Prior Art Rejections
The prior art rejections below contain underlined markings of the limitations (e.g. sample limitation). The underlined portions of a claim are addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim. Examiner notes that the underlining of the claim language is not a statement that the primary reference does not teach that language, but simply that said claim language is addressed at the end of the grounds of rejection for that claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 10-13, 15-18, 20-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Jia (Pub. #: US 2016/0292734 A1) in view of
Glazier (Pub. #: US 2018/0293601 A1) in view of
Talmor et al. (Pub. #: US 2019/0043106 A1).
Claim(s) 1, 6, 11:
These claims are analogous with different representative embodiments: claim 1 is a method embodiment, claim 6 is a system embodiment, and claim 11 is a computer-readable medium embodiment. Jia teaches a computer system with computer-readable media in at least Figure 1, 0032, 0040-0044 for performing the steps:
receiving conversation text data from a peer-to-peer messaging platform;
identifying, via a natural language processing (NLP) service analyzing the semantic context of the conversation text data, a keyword within the conversation text data associated with a desired product or service;
(Jia discloses a system for adding advertising to instant messaging applications in at least 0050, 0051. Jia discloses targeting ads based on "real time conversation" in at least 0007 and 0055, using "different machine learning models including topic analysis, semantic analysis, and keywords analysis" which are forms of natural language processing in at least 0009.)
querying a data store for one or more keyword-advertisement pairings associated with the identified keyword via a vector similarity algorithm that returns the one or more keyword-advertisement pairings when similarity scores between the identified keyword and keywords in the one or more keyword-advertisement pairings are above a similarity threshold; selecting an advertisement from one or more keyword-advertisement pairings using an advertisement auction service;
(Jia discloses retrieving advertisements from an advertisement publisher based on keywords in at least 0008.)
and transmitting the identified keyword and selected advertisement to the peer-to-peer messaging platform, wherein the peer-to-peer messaging platform in response to the transmitting augments the conversation text data using the identified keyword and the selected advertisement,
(Jia discloses transmitting the advertisement to the messaging service and ultimately to the client for presentation on the GUI of the client in at least 0054, 0056, and 0061. See also Figure 4)
the augmenting comprising modifying a visual presentation of the identified keyword to differentiate the keyword text from remaining text in the conversation text data.
(Glazier discloses highlighting text by underlining the keywords within the text conversation in at least Figure 2, 0027, and 0047.)
Jia discloses advertisement selection and advertiser managed ad campaigns in at least 0008 and 0067. Jia does not appear to make explicit that the ads are selected based on an auction. However, Glazier teaches a technique for augmenting messages in a text conversion with referrals that constitute advertisements and the referrals are selected based at least in part on an auction in at least 0060, 0061, and 0071.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the text conversation with inline advertisements system of Jia with the technique of selecting advertisements based upon an auction as taught by Glazier. Motivation to combine Jia with Glazier derives from both references pertaining to inline advertisements within text conversations and to integrate advertisements therein "naturally" (Glazier: 0007).
As for, “via a vector similarity algorithm that returns the one or more keyword-advertisement pairings when similarity scores between the identified keyword and keywords in the one or more keyword-advertisement pairings are above a similarity threshold”: Jia, in view of Glazier, does not appear to specify the use of similarity scores above a threshold as the criteria/algorithm for selecting the keyword-advertisement pairings. However, Talmor discloses and advertisement selection process with a technique of utilizing a similarity score above a threshold to identify advertisements in at least 0046.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the text conversation with inline advertisements system of Jia, in view of Glazier, with the alternate/specific technique of using similarity scores being above a threshold as taught by Talmor. Motivation to combine Jia, in view of Glazier, with Talmor derives from the desire to provide chat users with the most relevant links (Talmor: 0001-0005).
Claim(s) 2, 7, 12, 17:
wherein the augmenting the conversation text data comprises: embedding the selected advertisement as a hyperlink within the identified keyword.
Jia discloses presenting hyperlinks in chat in at least 0050. Jia does not appear to specify making the identified keyword a hyperlink advertisement. However, Glazier teaches a technique for augmenting messages in a text conversion with referrals that constitute advertisements and the referrals comprise hyperlinks according to the identified keywords in at least 0044, 0047 and Figures 1 and 2.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the text conversation with inline advertisements system of Jia with the technique of presenting advertisements as hyperlinks according to the identified keywords as taught by Glazier. Motivation to combine Jia with Glazier derives from both references pertaining to inline advertisements within text conversations and to integrate advertisements therein "naturally" (Glazier: 0007).
Claim(s) 3, 8, 13, 18:
wherein the augmenting the conversation text data comprises: embedding the selected advertisement inside a popup or dropdown element next to the identified keyword.
Jia discloses presenting hyperlinks in chat in at least 0050. Jia does not appear to specify making the identified keyword a hyperlink advertisement with an embedded popup or dropdown element. However, Glazier teaches a technique for augmenting messages in a text conversion with referrals that constitute advertisements and the referrals comprise hyperlinks according to the identified keywords in at least 0044, 0047 and Figures 1 and 2. Glazier additional teaches that the advertisement may comprise a "pop-up" in at least 0064.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the text conversation with inline advertisements system of Jia with the technique of presenting advertisements as hyperlinks according to the identified keywords as taught by Glazier. Motivation to combine Jia with Glazier derives from both references pertaining to inline advertisements within text conversations and to integrate advertisements therein "naturally" (Glazier: 0007).
Claim(s) 5, 10, 15, 20:
wherein the analyzing the semantic context comprises: analyzing conversation text data from previously sent messages in the peer-to-peer messaging platform using the NLP service.
(Jia discloses targeting ads based on "real time conversation" in at least 0007 and 0055, using "different machine learning models including topic analysis, semantic analysis, and keywords analysis" which are forms of natural language processing in at least 0009.)
Claim(s) 16:
A computer-implemented method for conversation text data augmentation in a peer-to-peer messaging environment, comprising:
(Jia teaches a computer system with computer-readable media in at least Figure 1, 0032, 0040-0044. Jia discloses a system for adding advertising to instant messaging applications in at least 0050, 0051.)
identifying, via a natural language processing (NLP) service analyzing the semantic context of the conversation text data, a keyword within conversation text data associated with a desired product or service;
(Jia discloses targeting ads based on "real time conversation" in at least 0007 and 0055, using "different machine learning models including topic analysis, semantic analysis, and keywords analysis" which are forms of natural language processing in at least 0009.)
querying a data store for one or more keyword-advertisement pairings associated with the identified keyword, via a vector similarity algorithm that returns the one or more keyword-advertisement pairings when similarity scores between the identified keywords and keywords in the one or more keyword-advertisement pairings are above a similarity threshold;
(Jia discloses retrieving advertisements from an advertisement publisher based on keywords in at least 0008.)
selecting an advertisement from the one or more advertisement in the one or more keyword-advertisement pairings using an advertisement auction service;
(Jia discloses retrieving advertisements from an advertisement publisher based on keywords in at least 0008.)
and augmenting the conversation text data using the identified keyword and the selected advertisement,
(Jia discloses transmitting the advertisement to the messaging service and ultimately to the client for presentation on the GUI of the client in at least 0054, 0056, and 0061. See also Figure 4)
the augmenting comprising modifying the visual presentation of the identified keyword to differentiate the keyword text from remaining text in the conversation text data.
(Glazier discloses highlighting text by underlining the keywords within the text conversation in at least Figure 2, 0027, and 0047.)
Jia discloses advertisement selection and advertiser managed ad campaigns in at least 0008 and 0067. Jia does not appear to make explicit that the ads are selected based on an auction. However, Glazier teaches a technique for augmenting messages in a text conversion with referrals that constitute advertisements and the referrals are selected based at least in part on an auction in at least 0060, 0061, and 0071.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the text conversation with inline advertisements system of Jia with the technique of selecting advertisements based upon an auction as taught by Glazier. Motivation to combine Jia with Glazier derives from both references pertaining to inline advertisements within text conversations and to integrate advertisements therein "naturally" (Glazier: 0007).
As for, “via a vector similarity algorithm that returns the one or more keyword-advertisement pairings when similarity scores between the identified keyword and keywords in the one or more keyword-advertisement pairings are above a similarity threshold”: Jia, in view of Glazier, does not appear to specify the use of similarity scores above a threshold as the criteria/algorithm for selecting the keyword-advertisement pairings. However, Talmor discloses and advertisement selection process with a technique of utilizing a similarity score above a threshold to identify advertisements in at least 0046.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the text conversation with inline advertisements system of Jia, in view of Glazier, with the alternate/specific technique of using similarity scores being above a threshold as taught by Talmor. Motivation to combine Jia, in view of Glazier, with Talmor derives from the desire to provide chat users with the most relevant links (Talmor: 0001-0005).
Claim(s) 21, 22, 23, 24:
wherein the similarity threshold is configured by the peer-to-peer messaging platform.
As for, “wherein the similarity threshold is configured by the peer-to-peer messaging platform”: Jia, in view of Glazier, does not appear to specify the use of similarity scores above a threshold as the criteria/algorithm for selecting the keyword-advertisement pairings. However, Talmor discloses and advertisement selection process with a technique of utilizing a similarity score above a threshold to identify advertisements in at least 0046. Talmor further teaches adjusting the similarity score threshold via the networking system in at least 0076.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the text conversation with inline advertisements system of Jia, in view of Glazier, with the alternate/specific technique of using similarity scores being above a threshold as taught by Talmor. Motivation to combine Jia, in view of Glazier, with Talmor derives from the desire to provide chat users with the most relevant links (Talmor: 0001-0005).
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 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 SCOTT SNIDER whose telephone number is (571)272-9604. The examiner can normally be reached M-W: 9:00-4:30 Mountain (11:00-6:30 Eastern).
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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at (571)270-3948. 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.
/S.S/Examiner, Art Unit 3621
/WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621