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 .
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites:
“A method of analyzing text data using a digital data processor operating under algorithmic control, comprising:
detecting a plurality of actions of an author during creation of a document data file using the digital data processor;
generating a metadata log data file of the plurality of actions using the digital data processor;
analyzing the metadata log data file to identify one or more actions that fall outside of an authorized action profile for a specific author using the digital data processor;
generating a report that identifies the one or more actions using the digital data processor.”
This is a mental process because the claims are directed to data observation (detecting actions) and data evaluation (generating a metadata log file, analyzing the metadata log, and generating a report) steps. Data observation and data evaluation steps are able to be performed by a human mind or a human using a generic computer.
The claim recites an additional element beyond data observation and data evaluation steps in the form of “a digital data processor.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claimed additional element does not appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
The “digital data processor” is recited at a high level of generality. It appears to be generic computing hardware elements. The recitation of generic hardware is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
It is noted that none of the additional elements appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem. As such, none of the additional elements appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
None of the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, in part or in whole.
The recitation of generic hardware of the “digital data processor” is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2).
None of the additional elements, in part or in whole, appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a particular machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or add a specific limitation other than what is well understood, routine, or conventional. As such, none of the additional elements appears to be, in part or in whole, significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2-8 are similarly rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed towards a mental process. There are no additional elements in the dependent claims. Each is directed to merely additional data definition, data observation, and data analysis steps. It is noted that the claimed data definitions and data analysis and extraction steps do not appear to include additional elements that incorporate the claimed subject matter into a practical application. The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that, in part or in whole, appear to be significantly more than the abstract idea.
Independent claim 9 recites:
“A system for determining original content in a document, comprising:
a word processing system operating on a first data processor that configures the data processor to generate a document file in response to a user input;
a metadata generator operating on the first data processor that configures the data processor to generate a log file containing a plurality of metadata at a plurality of points during the generation of the document file; and
a metadata analysis system operating on a second processor remote from the first processor that configures the second processor to receive the document file and the metadata file and to analyze the document file using the metadata file to generate an authorship authentication metric that identifies whether the document file was generated by a specific user.”
This is a mental process because the claims are directed to data evaluation (generating a log file, analyzing the document file and metadata log, and generating an authorship authentication metric) steps. Data evaluation steps are able to be performed by a human mind or a human using a generic computer.
The claim recites additional elements in the form of “a word processing system” and a first “data processor” and second “processor.”
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because none of the additional elements appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
The “data processor” and “processor” are recited at a high level of generality. They may be, at best, generic computing hardware elements. The recitation of generic hardware is little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The “word processing system” appears to be a generic word processing application that one may use to generate documents and does not appear to improve the processing of a computer or provide a technological solution to a technological problem.
It is noted that none of the additional elements appear to improve the processing of a computer, require the use of a specific machine, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or provide a technological solution to a technological problem. As such, none of the additional elements appear to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
None of the additional elements are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, in part or in whole.
The recitation of generic hardware of the “data processors” little more than using a computer to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f)(2). The “word processing system” is generically recited and defined solely by its output, notably, generating a document in response to a user input. Generic “Word Processor” applications, as of the earliest filing date, were well known, routine, and conventional in the art (see Capps (US Pre-Grant Publication 2002/0111813, paragraph [0005], and Sotomayor (US Patent 5,963,205, 31: 47-67, both of which discuss the existence of conventional word processors). As such, the inclusion of a generic word processing application in the claims is insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, in part or as a whole.
Dependent claims 10-17 are similarly rejected under 35 USC 101 as being directed towards a mental process. There are no additional elements in the dependent claims. Each is directed to merely additional data definition, data observation, and data analysis steps. It is noted that the claimed data definitions and data analysis and extraction steps do not appear to include additional elements that incorporate the claimed subject matter into a practical application. The dependent claims also do not include additional elements that, in part or in whole, appear to be significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bitton et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0296288).
As to claim 1, Bitton teaches a method of analyzing text data using a digital data processor operating under algorithmic control, comprising:
detecting a plurality of actions of an author during creation of a document data file using the digital data processor (see Bitton paragraph [0009], generally, which comprises all of the steps of independent claim 1. Also see paragraphs [0037]-[0038] and Figure 2, which show actions that are tracked categorized by action type. These actions are indicative of document creation. Bitton paragraph [0031] describes how the methods of the disclosure of Bitton may be performed on a computer, notably one including a processor and a memory);
generating a metadata log data file of the plurality of actions using the digital data processor (see Bitton paragraphs [0037]-[0038] and Figure 2. Bitton explicitly creates a metadata log which includes entries tracking different inputs to a computer during a writing session, including the device type of input, output such as a key press or movement action, and timing of input. Bitton paragraph [0031] describes how the methods of the disclosure of Bitton may be performed on a computer, notably one including a processor and a memory);
analyzing the metadata log data file to identify one or more actions that fall outside of an authorized action portfolio for a specific author using the digital data processor (see Bitton paragraphs [0043]-[0046]. The metadata in the log file is analyzed to identify instances where text may have been produced by an AI rather than written by a human. Bitton paragraph [0031] describes how the methods of the disclosure of Bitton may be performed on a computer, notably one including a processor and a memory. Also see paragraphs [0032], [0035], [0038], [0041]. The program is installed on an individual author’s device. This is a “specific author.” The program checks whether or not that specific author operating the device that the program is installed on authored a text as opposed to used AI to generate a text, see paragraph [0043]-[0046]);
generating a report that identifies the one or more actions using the digital data processor (see Bitton Figure 5 and paragraphs [0047]-[0050], wherein a report is generated that provides various statistics regarding the document creation process and a conclusion stating whether the document was produced by a human and how original the document is. Bitton paragraph [0031] describes how the methods of the disclosure of Bitton may be performed on a computer, notably one including a processor and a memory).
As to claim 2, Bitton teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of actions comprise at least two of the following:
keystroke timing, keystroke cycling, keystroke errors, keystroke corrections, mouse clicking, mouse movement, touch screen input, accessing external material, copying external material, accessing preexisting audio screen data, accessing preexisting data, playing preexisting audio, playing captured video, playing captured audio data, speaking audio that is configured to be translated into text and speaking audio that can be used to establish speaker identity (see Bitton paragraphs [0037]-[0038] and Figure 2).
As to claim 3, Bitton teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the report comprises certificate indicating author originality of the document (see Bitton paragraphs [0046] and [0049] and Figure 5).
As to claim 4, Bitton teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising providing a measure of at least one of original data of the author and non-original data of the author (see Bitton paragraph [0049] and Figure 5. The report shown in Figure 5 includes a measure of a percentage of how original a document is).
As to claim 5, Bitton teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising providing a measure of data generated directly by the author (see Bitton paragraph [0047] and Figure 5).
As to claim 6, Bitton teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising providing a measure of data externally accessed during creation of the document whether such data appears in the analyzed document (see Bitton paragraph [0049] and Figure 5).
As to claim 8, Bitton teaches the method of claim 1, wherein analyzing the metadata log data file comprises weighting at least one of the actions in providing the report (see Bitton paragraph [0042]).
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bitton et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0296288) in view of Zhang et al. (US Patent 10,964,224).
As to claim 7, Bitton teaches the method of claim 1.
Bitton does not teach further comprising providing an option for the author to stipulate use for non-original data in the document.
Talley teaches further comprising providing an option for the author to stipulate use for non-original data in the document (see paragraph [0013]. An author may permit other users to add content to a document via collaboration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Bitton by the teachings of Talley because Talley provides the benefit of giving an author greater control over content that may be included in a document. This will increase options for a user in generating and including additional content.
Claims 9-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bitton et al. (US Pre-Grant Publication 2024/0296288) in view of Zhang et al. (US Patent 10,964,224).
As to claim 9, Bitton teaches a system for determining original content in a document, comprising:
a word processing system operating on a first data processor that configures the data processor to generate a document file in response to a user input (see Bitton paragraph [0009] and [0037]-[0038] and Figure 2 and the rejection of claim 1);
a metadata generator operating on the first data processor that configures the data processor to generate a log file containing a plurality of metadata at a plurality of points during the generation of the document file (see Bitton paragraph [0009] and [0037]-[0038] and Figure 2 and the rejection of claim 1); and
a metadata analysis system … to receive the document file and the metadata file and to analyze the document file using the metadata file to generate an authorship authentication metric that identifies whether the document file was generated by a specific user (see Bitton Figure 5 and paragraphs [0038] and [0047]-[0050] and the rejection of claim 1).
Bitton does not explicitly teach:
a metadata analysis system operating on a second processor remote from the first processor that configures the second processor to receive the document file and the metadata file and to analyze the document file using the metadata file to generate an authorship authentication metric that identifies whether the document file was generated by a specific user.
Zhang teaches:
a metadata analysis system operating on a second processor remote from the first processor that configures the second processor to receive the document file and the metadata file and to analyze the document file using the metadata file to generate an authorship authentication metric that identifies whether the document file was generated by a specific user (see Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19. Figure 11B shows a system where user content is generated on user PCs. The information on the user’s writing behavior is provided to a remote processing system. The remote processing system then analyzes the user’s writing behavior in accordance with the method described at Zhang 6:18-20, 6:43-7:3 and 7:18-29, which show the analysis of time-stamped metadata to indicate the user’s writing process. It is also noted that this may be used to detect plagiarism, 8:61-9:6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the earliest filing date of the invention to have modified Bitton by the teachings of Zhang because both references are directed towards tracking user input while generating document content and because Zhang provides the ability to allow external analysis and validation of the document, which will improve the ability of Bitton to analyze authorship of a document externally as a service and improve efficiency by offloading processing.
As to claim 10, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises a keystroke analysis system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract keystroke metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the keystroke metadata to determine whether the keystroke metadata exceeds a threshold (see Bitton paragraphs [0038] and [0041] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
As to claim 11, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises a mouse analysis system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract mouse metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the mouse metadata to determine whether the mouse metadata exceeds a threshold (see Bitton paragraphs [0038] and [0041] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
As to claim 12, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises an editing analysis system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract editing metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the editing metadata to determine whether the editing metadata exceeds a threshold (see Bitton paragraphs [0038]-[0039] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
As to claim 13, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises a platform monitor system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract platform metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the platform metadata to determine whether the platform metadata exceeds a threshold (see Bitton paragraphs [0041]-[0042] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
As to claim 14, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises a keystroke analysis system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract keystroke metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the keystroke metadata to determine whether keystroke statistics match stored keystroke statistics (see Bitton paragraphs [0038] and [0041] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
As to claim 15, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises a mouse analysis system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract mouse metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the mouse metadata to determine whether mouse movement statistics match stored mouse movement statistics (see Bitton paragraphs [0038] and [0041] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
As to claim 16, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises an editing analysis system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract editing metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the editing metadata to determine whether editing statistics match stored editing statistics (see Bitton paragraphs [0038]-[0039] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
As to claim 17, Bitton as modified teaches the system of claim 9 wherein the metadata analysis system further comprises a platform monitor system operating on the second processor that configures the second processor to extract platform metadata from the metadata file and to analyze the platform metadata to determine whether platform statistics match stored platform statistics (see Bitton paragraphs [0041]-[0042] and [0044]. See Zhang Figure 11B and 23:9-19 for conducting the analysis on a remote system).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
35 USC 101 Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that “because the claimed invention is directed to a mental process without significantly more, claim 1 has been amended to address the noted informalities. Applicant notes that the claimed inventions have important practical applications, because they can detect plagiarism.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that the claim amendments merely add an additional element of “a digital data processor” to the claims. This appears to be a generic element of computer hardware.
As noted in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer.
The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").”
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C 1-3 further elaborate on the idea that a claim may still be directed towards an abstract idea despite the use of a generic machine. Thus, though the claims may not be performed solely in a human mind, the detecting, generating, analyzing, and generating steps may be performed by a human with a generic computer.
To elaborate, the claimed method steps, “detecting a plurality of actions…,” “generating a metadata log data file…,” “analyzing the metadata log data file to identify one or more actions that fall outside of an authorized action profile…” and “generating a report that identifies the one or more actions” are all steps of data observation or data analysis that may be performed manually by a human being. Because a human being may manually perform these data observations and analyses, they are “mental process” steps.
The addition of a generic computer “digital data processor” to a mental process claim, without more, does not integrate a practical application to a mental process mental process or provide significantly more than a mental process. As explained in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C, “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process”:
For instance, examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.
The addition of the “digital data processor” appears to merely be requiring that the data observation steps and the analysis steps of the claims are performed on a generic computer or use a computer as a tool to perform the data analysis of the claims. As such, the claims are directed to a mental process and are not patent eligible.
Applicant provides a background of the technological field, explaining that “As discussed at [0018] of the specification as filed, conventional plagiarism tools check submitted work to available prose on the web. This technique is ineffective for LLMs like ChatGPT because the generated prose does not copy verbatim from existing web sites. LLM detectors are sought by educational institutions seeking identification of students who copy from LLMs. There are known tools that purport to detect use of LLMs, but these attempt detection by examining prose alone. Further, performance claims of existing LLM detectors by their originators seem to be exaggerated. One LLM offered by a known Al originator has removed access to its detector because of inaccuracies. Another known detector has reported 20% false alarms, meaning that one fifth of the authors, such as students, would be charged with using an LLM even though they did not. Still further, even if a conventional LLM detector has a high-performance rating, there are numerous "cheats" available to authors. The author can alter the LLM generated content to fool the detector.”
Applicant argues that “The claimed inventions solve this previously intractable problem by detecting a plurality of actions of an author during creation of a document data file, generating a metadata log data file of the plurality of actions, analyzing the metadata log data file to identify one or more actions that fall outside of an authorized action profile and generating a report that identifies the one or more actions. The flawed prior art can protect against devious cheats, whereas the claimed inventions cannot be fooled by cheaters. Withdrawal of the rejection is respectfully requested.”
In response to this argument, while paragraph [0018] of the specification does identifies flaws with other tools in the art (without specifically identifying such tools), it is noted that this paragraph does not explain how the claimed invention improves upon previous solutions. Additionally, Applicant has not included a citation to a paragraph of the specification explaining how the claimed steps improve upon the previous solutions. Applicant is requested to do so.
Regardless, even if an improvement is shown in the specification over previous plagiarism detectors, applicant is reminded that an improved mental process is still a mental process, albeit improved. All of the claimed steps are data observation and data analysis steps (mental process steps) that may be performed by a human being by hand or with a generic computer. Human beings are capable of “detecting a plurality of actions…,” “generating a metadata log file…,” “analyzing the metadata log file to identify one or more actions that fall outside of an authorized action profile for a specific author…” and “generating a report that identifies the one or more actions.”
Applicant needs to include additional elements in the claims beyond the mental process that are not merely observing or analyzing data and show how those additional elements integrate the mental process into a practical application or provide, in part or as a whole, significantly more than the mental process.
As noted in the rejection above, the limitations of independent claim 1 have been identified as mental process steps or additional elements beyond the mental process. In the claims submitted on 28 April 2026, the only additional element identified that is not a data analysis or data observation step is the added “digital data processor.” In other words, the claims are performed using a computer. As noted above, MPEP 2106.04(a)(2) III C explains how “A Claim That Requires a Computer May Still Recite a Mental Process.” The execution of an otherwise mental process on a computer, without more, does not render the mental process patent eligible.
For these reasons, Applicant’s arguments regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection are.
35 USC 102/103 Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that “Bitton only discloses the use of S-notation data at [0043]-[0045] to detect actions that match the profile of Al, because "AI-authored text is authored without any corrections whatsoever," which would improperly classify actions that fall within an authorized action profile as falling outside of the authorized action profile. The shortcoming of Bitton is that it only detects Al versus human, and does not detect actions by a specific user that could have no corrections. As discussed in the pending application at [0051], "an author can create a profile by generating content in response to predetermined prompts, where the keystroke statistics for the author during the generation of the content are used to create a keystroke profile for the author, such as typing speed, keystroke mistakes and so forth." The keystroke profile for an author could include no corrections whatsoever, such as when an author types very slowly. The claims would be able to detect this legitimate behavior, whereas Bitton would flag it as AI-generated. Such false positives can be devastating to an author, but Bitton is unable to prevent such false positives because it does not disclose or use an authorized action profile for a specific author.”
In response to this argument, Applicant is reminded that claim analysis is performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. Whatever alleged shortcomings Bitton may have as a plagiarism detector are irrelevant; the question is whether Bitton shows the claimed subject matter to the extent claimed.
The independent claim does not discuss any analysis of “detect[ing] actions by a specific user that could have no corrections.” “Corrections” are not considered in the independent claim at all, let alone in the context of a “keystroke profile” for an author. It is noted that “keystroke corrections” are claimed in claim 2, but only as one possible action out of sixteen actions that may be tracked and without any functional details defining “keystroke corrections.” It is additionally noted that only two of those sixteen possible actions are required by the claims.
The claims do not have any step directed towards the idea that “an author can create a profile by generating content in response to predetermined prompts, where the keystroke statistics for the author during the generation of the content are used to create a keystroke profile for the author, such as typing speed, keystroke mistakes and so forth.”
It is noted that further details are claimed for the element of “authorized action profile for a specific author using the digital data processor.” Bitton teaches this element to the extent claimed by showing that the plagiarism detector in installed on a specific user’s machine and tracks the specific user’s actions (see paragraphs [0032], [0035], [0038], [0041] and [0043]-[0046]).
Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification, such as functional analysis of “keystroke corrections” receive no patentable weight until claimed.
Applicant argues that “Claim 9 includes a metadata analysis system operating on a second processor remote from the first processor that configures the second processor to receive the document file and the metadata file and to analyze the document file using the metadata file to generate an authorship authentication metric that identifies whether the document file was generated by a specific user. Like claim 1, claim 9 is directed to a specific user, as opposed to simply distinguishing Al from human. All other claims that depend from claims 1 and 9 are allowable at least for the reasons that they depend from an allowable base claim and add limitations not present in the independent claim. Withdrawal of the rejections is respectfully requested.”
In response to this argument, it is noted that Bitton analyzes the work of a user operating a computer (see paragraphs [0032], [0035], [0038], [0041] and [0043]-[0046]). This is a “specific user” to the extent claimed.
Applicant is reminded that unclaimed features from the specification, such as functional definitions on what analyses are performed on the actions of a “specific user” and how said “specific user” is defined, receive no patentable weight until claimed.
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 CHARLES D ADAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-3938. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-5:30 EST.
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, Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached at 5712701760. 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.
/CHARLES D ADAMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2165
Prosecution Insights