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 Amendments
This communication is in response to the amendments filed on 28 July 2026:
Claim 1 is canceled.
Claims 2-14 are added.Claims 2-14 are pending.
Response to Arguments
In response to Applicant’s remarks filed on 28 July 2026:
a. Applicant’s arguments regarding the statutory double patenting rejection on claim 1 has been fully considered and is deemed fully persuasive in view of the amendments. The statutory double patenting rejection on claim 1 has been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross et al. (U.S. Patent 10,839,528), hereinafter Ross, in view of Puchkarev et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2020/0034984), hereinafter Puchkarev.
Regarding claim 2, Ross teaches A system for preparing an article for a digital fingerprint identification and authentication (Ross, Column 7, Lines 47 – 50, see “different forms of the words “authenticate” and “authentication” will be used broadly to describe both authentication and attempts to authenticate which comprise creating a digital fingerprint of the object”), the system comprising:
a server including a processor and a memory in communication with the processor, wherein the memory stores a set of modules executable by the processor (Ross, Claim 13, see “the central server having: a server processor, and a server memory accessible to the server processor, said server memory storing executable server program code to cause the server processor, by executing a received fingerprint portion of the server program code, to: receive digital fingerprints over the network from at least one tracking unit of the plurality of tracking units”), wherein the server is configured to receive one or more images of the article via a communication network, the one or more images being captured by a portable electronic device (Ross, FIG. 11) (Ross, Column 12, Lines 65 – 67 and Column 13, Lines 1 – 2, see “where a user desires to capture or store identifier information (such as a name, serial number, or a bar code) in an association with an object, the system may allow the user to capture such information and store it in the digital fingerprint);
a template database configured to store a template of the article comprising the (Ross, Column 6, 65 – 67 and Column 7, Lines 1 – 2, see “The tracking units may compare those digital fingerprints with a previously-created reference database to identify the items being tracked and/or they may add the digital fingerprints to such a database for use by downstream systems”, where “previously-created reference database” is being read as a template database configured to store a template of the article in preparation for the identification and authentication of the article) (Ross, Column 15, Lines 11 – 17, see “The extracted data is processed to generate a digital fingerprint…A database 320 may be queried for a matching fingerprint…”, where “A database 320 may be queried” can also be read as a template database configured to store a template of the article in preparation for later identification and authentication).
Ross does not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Puchkarev: wherein the set of modules includes a digital image acquisition module configured to
determine a region of interest on the captured one or more images (Puchkarev, Paragraph [0026], see “…A feature representation derived from an image may include, for example, data indicating the positions of points of interest and line segments in the image…”),
determine an outline of the article based on the region of interest (Puchkarev, Paragraph [0035], see “…the localization engine 126 may determine a segmentation of the environment 106 into multiple different segmented regions…After determining the segmentation of the environment 106, the localization engine 126 identifies one of the segmented regions to be the object of interest using, for example, prior knowledge about the expected shape and the expected position of the object of interest…”, where “determine a segmentation” is analogous to determining an outline of the article (e.g., object of interest) based on the region of interest), and
crop the received one or more images based on the determined outline (Puchkarev, Paragraph [0037], see “…the system 100 can generate the new template representations 120 by determining respective regions of the images 108 of the environment which, according to the estimated position 128, depict the object of interest. The system 100 can crop these respective regions in the images 108 of the environment which depict the object of interest and determine new template representations 120 from the cropped image regions…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Ross, by implementing techniques of determining a region of interest on the captured one or more images, determining an outline based on the region of interest, and cropping the images based on the outline, disclosed of Puchkarev.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for identifying and authenticating counterfeiting articles, comprising of determining a region of interest on the captured one or more images, determining an outline based on the region of interest, and cropping the images based on the outline. This allows for more effective and efficient identification and authentication of articles by utilizing a region of interest of the article (through cropping) for comparison/matching. Puchkarev is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of determining a region of interest on the captured one or more images, determining an outline based on the region of interest, and cropping the images based on the outline (Puchkarev, Paragraph [0037]).
Regarding claim 8, Ross as modified by Puchkarev teaches The system of claim 2, wherein the digital image acquisition module is further configured to extract analog identification indicium of the article from the cropped one or more images (Ross, Column 6, Lines 53 – 65, see “A tracking and identification database and system generally consists of one or more networked tracking units. These tracking units may have scanners configured to capture images of a specified area in a facility…To help in tracking the objects, images of the objects are captured and may used directly for tracking and/or for extracting digital fingerprints for identifying the objects in view”), wherein the analog identification indicium comprises feature information and position information of one or more features of the article (Ross, Column 3, Lines 50 – 55, see “Digital fingerprinting utilizes the structure of the object, including random and/or deliberate features created, for example, during manufacturing of the object, to generate a unique digital signature for that object—similar to the way in which a human fingerprint references the friction ridges on a finger”) (Ross, Column 9, Lines 60 – 64, see “authentication may reveal changes in the relative positions in some authentication regions such as in cases where a label has been moved from its original position, which may be an indication of tampering or counterfeiting”).
Regarding claim 9, Ross as modified by Puchkarev teaches The system of claim 8, further comprising a database in communication with the server configured to store actual analog identification indicium of the article, digital identifier data, and digital identification record of the article (Ross, Claim 13, see “query the datastore over the network based on each received digital fingerprint to determine whether the respective received digital fingerprint matches at least one record associated with a physical object previously inducted into the tracking system”, where “tracking system” comprises of a database to store actual analog identification indicium of the article/object) (Ross, Column 4, Lines 8 – 13, see “…The digital fingerprint contains a set of fingerprint features or locations of interest which are typically stored as feature vectors. Feature vectors make image processing more efficient and reduce storage requirements as the entire image need not to be stored in the database, only the features vectors need to be stored”, where “feature vectors” are being read as actual analog identification indicium of the article) (Ross, Column 11, Lines 59 – 64, see “…in cases where manufacturing (or other object) databases use serial numbers or other readable identifiers, such identifiers may be utilized to directly access the database record for the object and compare its digital fingerprint to the original that was previously stored…”, where “serial numbers” is being read as digital identifier data and where “digital fingerprint” is being read as comprising a digital identification record of the article);
wherein the actual analog identification indicium corresponding to the article is identified by reading and decoding digital identifier data and a digital identification record (Ross, Column 11, Lines 54 – 65, see “Fingerprinting may also involve reading or otherwise detecting a name, number, or other identifying characteristics of the object using optical character recognition or other means which may be used to expedite or facilitate a comparison with other fingerprints. For instance, in cases where manufacturing (or other object) databases use serial numbers or other readable identifiers, such identifiers may be utilized to directly access the database record for the object and compare its digital fingerprint to the original that was previously stores, rather than searching an entire digital fingerprint database for a match”), the actual analog identification indicium including a randomized pattern of identification features of the article (Ross, Column 3, Lines 50 – 55, see “Digital fingerprinting utilizes the structure of the object, including random and/or deliberate features created, for example, during manufacturing of the object, to generate a unique digital signature for that object—similar to the way in which a human fingerprint references the friction ridges on a finger”, where “including random and/or deliberate features created” is being read as the feature vectors (actual analog identification indicium) which includes a randomized pattern of identification features of the article).
Regarding claim 10, Ross as modified by Puchkarev teaches The system of claim 8, wherein the feature information of the analog identification indicium includes images, labels, stickers, package corners, printings, text fields, symbols, embossment, geometric feature, punched holes, surfaces, corners, quick reader (QR) codes, and angles (Ross, Column 9, Lines 15 – 20, see “in the case of an article of designer clothing, scanning limited area, such as a clothing label, for feature vectors to generate a digital fingerprint may be preferable to scanning an entire garment…defining such regions may enable detection of partial alteration of an object”).
Regarding claim 11, Ross as modified by Puchkarev teaches The system of claim 9, further comprising an anti-counterfeiting network verification system in communication with the server configured to securely protect the actual analog identification indicium of the article from unauthorized access and other potential crimes (Ross, Column 7, Lines 47 – 50, see “different forms of the words “authenticate” and “authentication” will be used broadly to describe both authentication and attempts to authenticate which comprise creating a digital fingerprint of the object”) (Ross, Column 13, Lines 18 – 25, see “Once a suitable digital fingerprint of an object is generated the digital fingerprint may be stored or registered in a database…the digital fingerprint may comprise one or more fingerprint features which are stored as feature vectors. The database should preferably be secure…a unique identifier, such as a serial number, may also be assigned to an object to serve, for example, as a convenient index”, where “The database should preferably be secure” is being read as securely protecting the indicium of the article from unauthorized access and other potential crimes).
Regarding claim 12, Ross as modified by Puchkarev teaches The system of claim 2, wherein the portable electronic device is one of a smart phone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a notebook, a laptop, a tablet, or a remote controlling device (Ross, Column 9, Lines 25 – 30, see “when utilizing a mobile device, a location box and crosshairs may automatically appear in the viewfinder of a smartphone camera application, to help the user center the camera on an authentication region, and automatically lock onto a region and complete a scan when the device is focused on an appropriate area”).
Regarding claim 13, Ross as modified by Puchkarev teaches The system of claim 2, wherein the portable electronic device is configured to send the one or more images to the server via the communication network based on one of Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, a wireless local area network (WLAN), a cellular network, or radio communication (Ross, FIG. 11, see “NETWORK – COMMUNICATIONS 1166”, which depicts the usage of Wi-Fi or a WLAN communication network).
Regarding claim 14, the claim is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 2.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross, in view of Puchkarev, in further view of Ross (U.S. PGPub. 2020/0349379), hereinafter Ross #2.
Regarding claim 3, Ross as modified by Puchkarev do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Ross #2: The system of claim 2, wherein the template comprises an array of regions of interest for localization of identification features, an array of regions of interest for localization of authentication features, and a region of interest for localization of a unique identifier or serial number (Ross #2, Paragraph [0028], see “…Digital fingerprints, as the term is used herein, can be utilized in many practical applications including the identification, authentication, and tracking of physical objects”) (Ross #2, Paragraph [0032], see “…The digital fingerprints are typically stored in a repository such as a register, a physical memory, an array, a database, data store, or some other repository”) (Ross #2, Paragraph [0033], see “…an object “feature template” may be used to define locations or regions of interest for a class of objects. The digital fingerprints may be derived or generated from digital data of the object which may be, for example, image data”) (Ross #2, Paragraph [0075], see “…A template may be applied, and the authentication region may be converted into a set of feature points whose feature vectors are entered into a reference repository (e.g., database) along with any desired metadata relating to the bottle of wine. Details, such as how the authentication region is determined, what metadata is tied to the wine bottle records stored in the repository, whether authentication is one-to-one (e.g., as in cases where there is, for example, a serial number)…”) (Ross #2, Paragraph [0084], see “…Once the authentication regions are templated, authentication feature vectors are extracted, and all relevant data (e.g., the template, the feature vectors, the serial number, and possibly other recognized text) are added to a record in a reference repository (e.g., database)”, which is analogous to the template comprising regions of interest of identification features, authentication features and a serial number).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Ross, and techniques disclosed of Puchkarev, by implementing techniques of the template comprising an array of regions of interest of identification features, an array of regions of interest of authentication features, and a region of interest for unique identification such as a serial number, disclosed of Ross #2.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for identifying and authenticating counterfeiting articles, comprising of the template comprising an array of regions of interest of identification features, an array of regions of interest of authentication features, and a region of interest for unique identification such as a serial number. This allows for better security management and efficiency for comparison of an article/object to template data by storing all relevant data in the template data. Ross #2 is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of the template comprising an array of regions of interest of identification features, an array of regions of interest of authentication features, and a region of interest for unique identification such as a serial number (Ross #2, Paragraphs [0075] and [0084]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross, in view of Puchkarev, in further view of Jetzfellner (U.S. PGPub. 2022/0070006), hereinafter Jetz.
Regarding claim 4, Ross as modified by Puchkarev do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Jetz: The system of claim 2, wherein the digital image acquisition module is further configured to create a digital twin of the article (Jetz, Paragraph [0063], see “…digital twins are generated for the physical objects…”), the template database being configured to store the digital twin (Jetz, Paragraph [0063], see “…data about the digital twin can be stored in the data structure” is analogous to storing the digital twin in a (template) database).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Ross, and techniques disclosed of Puchkarev, by implementing techniques of creating a digital twin of the article and storing the digital twin in a database, disclosed of Jetz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for identifying and authenticating counterfeiting articles, comprising of creating a digital twin of the article and storing the digital twin in a database. This allows for better security management and efficiency by utilizing a digital twin for identifying and authenticating a physical object/article. Jetz is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of creating a digital twin of the article and storing the digital twin in a database (Jetz, Paragraph [0063]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross, in view of Puchkarev, in further view of Jetz, in further view of Thomsen et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2020/0265329), hereinafter Thomsen.
Regarding claim 5, Ross as modified by Puchkarev and further modified by Jetz do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Thomsen: The system of claim 4, wherein the digital image acquisition module is further configured to align the digital twin of the article with the article (Thomsen, Paragraph [0247], see “AI engine component 514 can apply verification algorithms to the digital twin 2306, simulated results 4204, and actual process data 4202 to verify whether specific modeled attributes and qualities of the digital twin 2306 accurately align with corresponding attribute and qualities of the physical system”, which is analogous to aligning the digital twin of the article/object with the actual article/object).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Ross, techniques disclosed of Puchkarev, and techniques disclosed of Jetz, by implementing techniques of aligning the digital twin of the article with the article, disclosed of Thomsen.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for identifying and authenticating counterfeiting articles, comprising of aligning the digital twin of the article with the article. This allows for better security management as well as efficiency for identifying and authenticating counterfeiting articles by aligning the digital twin of the article with the actual article to determine any discrepancies. Thomsen is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of aligning the digital twin of the article with the article (Thomsen, Paragraph [0247]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross, in view of Puchkarev, in further view of Jetz, in further view of Thomsen, in further view of LEE et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2017/0140509), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 6, Ross as modified by Puchkarev and further modified by Jetz and Thomsen do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Lee: The system of claim 5, wherein aligning the digital twin of the article with the article comprises performing one of an image translation, a scaling or a rotation on either one of the digital twin of the article or the article (Lee, Paragraph [0013], see “The aligning may include aligning the second image with the first image through at least one motion of movement, rotation, reduction, and enlargement to generate aligned candidate images”, where “second image” is analogous to the digital twin of the article and where “first image” is analogous to the article).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Ross, techniques disclosed of Puchkarev, techniques disclosed of Jetz, and techniques disclosed of Thomsen, by implementing techniques of performing one of an image translation, a scaling or a rotation for alignment purposes, disclosed of Lee.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for identifying and authenticating counterfeiting articles, comprising of performing one of an image translation, a scaling or a rotation for alignment purposes. This allows for a more efficiency and effective way for aligning two images by utilizing multiple different ways such as scaling or rotating of the images to properly align them. Lee is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of performing one of an image translation, a scaling or a rotation for alignment purposes (Lee, Paragraph [0013]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ross, in view of Puchkarev, in further view of Jetz, in further view of Thomsen, in further view of Roberts et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2018/0260992), hereinafter Roberts.
Regarding claim 7, Ross as modified by Puchkarev and further modified by Jetz and Thomsen do not teach the following limitation(s) as taught by Roberts: The system of claim 5, wherein aligning the digital twin of the article with the article comprises performing a square image matching to identify misalignments between the digital twin of the article and the article (Roberts, Paragraph [0022], see “…The annotation system may use an alignment metric (e.g., based on least-squares distances) to determine whether the images are sufficiently aligned”, which is analogous to performing a square image matching to identify misalignments between two images).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the techniques disclosed of Ross, techniques disclosed of Puchkarev, techniques disclosed of Jetz and techniques disclosed of Thomsen, by implementing techniques of performing a square image matching to identify misalignments between the two images, disclosed of Roberts.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to implement techniques for identifying and authenticating counterfeiting articles, comprising of performing a square image matching to identify misalignments between the two images. This allows for better accuracy in determining whether two images are properly aligned by utilizing the least square matching method. Roberts is deemed as analogous art due to the art disclosing techniques of performing a square image matching to identify misalignments between the two images (Roberts, Paragraph [0022]).
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 2 and 14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of issued Patent 12,242,590. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Claim 1 of the reference patent covers all the limitations of claims 2 and 14 of the instant application and, as such, anticipates claims 2 and 14 of the instant application.
The dependent claims of the issued patent contain every element of the dependent claims of the instant application, and as such, anticipate all of the dependent claims of the instant application.
Instant Application No. 19/040,496
Reference Patent No. 12,242,590
Claim 2: A system for preparing an article for a digital fingerprint identification and authentication, the system comprising:
a server including a processor and a memory in communication with the processor, wherein the memory stores a set of modules executable by the processor, wherein the server is configured to receive one or more images of the article via a communication network, the one or more images being captured by a portable electronic device;
wherein the set of modules includes a digital image acquisition module configured to determine a region of interest on the captured one or more images, determine an outline of the article based on the region of interest, and crop the received one or more images based on the determined outline; and
a template database configured to store a template of the article comprising the cropped one or more images in preparation for the digital fingerprint identification and authentication of the article.
Claim 1: A system for preparing an article for a digital fingerprint identification and authentication, the system comprising:
a server including a processor and a memory in communication with the processor, wherein the memory stores a set of modules executable by the processor, wherein the server is configured to receive one or more images of the article via a communication network, the one or more images being captured by a portable electronic device;
wherein the set of modules includes a digital image acquisition module configured to determine a region of interest on the captured one or more images, determine an outline of the article based on the region of interest, and crop the received one or more images based on the determined outline;
a template database configured to store a template of the article comprising the cropped one or more images in preparation for the digital fingerprint identification and authentication of the article;
wherein the digital image acquisition module is further configured to create a digital twin of the article, the template database being configured to store the digital twin; and
wherein creating the digital twin involves retrieving the template of the article from the template database, extracting a unique identification number or serial number of the article from the template, and creating the digital twin based on the unique identification number or serial number.
Additional Art Considered
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicants’ disclosure.
The following prior art are cited to further show the state of the art at the time of Applicants’ invention with respect to identifying and authenticating counterfeiting articles.
a. Stieglitz et al. (U.S. PGPub. 2018/0129903) discloses techniques of determining a region of interest on a captured one or more images and determining an outline of the article based on the region of interest.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI whose telephone number is (571)272-8747. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11:00am – 7:00pm.
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, Philip Chea can be reached on (571) 272-3951. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODMAN ALEXANDER MAHMOUDI/Examiner, Art Unit 2499
