Detailed Action
Status of Claims
Claims 1 – 18 were previously pending and subject to a non-final office action mailed 11/04/2025. Claims 1, 3 – 6, 8 – 9, 12, 14, 16 – 18 were amended, claim 2 was cancelled in a reply filed 01/29/2026. Claims 1 & 3 – 18 are currently pending and subject to the final office action below.
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 Arguments
The claims filed on 01/29/2026 have obviated the previous claim interpretations under 35 USC 112(f).
The claims filed on 01/29/2026 have overcome the previous 101 rejections. In particular, the ordered combination of additional elements, comprising the particular arrangement of hardware architecture that is integral to the claims, provides integration of the recited judicial exception into a practical application.
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/29/2026 with respect to the previous rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 3, 7 – 11, & 17 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob et al. (US 20020133571 A1), in view of Kay et al. (US 20110249081 A1), in view of Ward et al. (US 20150317639 A1).
As per claim 1, Jacob discloses remote customer service system for controlling a communication of remote conversation between a customer and a customer service staff, the remote customer service system comprising: a client terminal {…}, which is operated by the customer (Fig. 1 & para. 34, noting “service providers 200 (200-1, . . . , 200-N),” who are staff of various professions such as a “psychiatrist” as per paras. 22, 59, & 76. As per at least Fig. 1 & para. 35, a remote “audio portal server computer 300” is connected to device “104” of each customer.).
To the extent to which Jacob does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein each customer terminal is in a customer booth and wherein the client terminal including a processor and a storage storing program, Kay teaches these elements in at least Fig. 1 & [0024], [0026], & [0027], noting a terminal in “kiosk 126,” and as per [0024], [0026] – [0027], [0031] – [0032], [0056], [0058], & [0060], the “user 110 operates a touchpoint device 120” which is a computing device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Kay in the invention of Jacob with the motivation to “provide instant or quick access to the right expert at the right point in time, thereby converting what might otherwise be a negative customer experience into a positive sales and service opportunity,” as evidenced by Kay ([0010]).
To the extent to which Jacob does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitation, Kay teaches:
• a device for contract or settlement disposed adjacent the client terminal in the customer booth ([0029], a printer, scanner, camera, and display device are installed in the customer kiosk.). Rationale to combine the teachings of Kay persist.
Jacob further discloses:
• a customer service terminal operated by the customer service staff of a target business operator selected from a plurality of business operators providing services ([0034], [0037], & [0054], “service provider computers 200” connected to the system to communicate with customers.);
• and a connection server configured to connect the client terminal and the customer service terminal to enable the remote conversation, the connection server including a processor and a storage storing program ([0034] – [0037] & [0054], “audio portal server computer 300” which, as per [0067] & [0071] – [0072], “the audio portal server computer 300 uses the audio interface 308 to connect the user 102 with the selected service provider 200 for a live conversation”);
• wherein the processor of the client terminal is configured to function as a terminal obtainer to obtain desired service information indicative of one of the services desired by the customer, and is configured to function as an information transmitter to transmit the desired service information obtained by the terminal obtainer ([0061] – [0063] & [0070] – [0071], receiving “type of service he would like to receive” when the customer selects “the desired field of service” at the customer terminal and then transmitting the customer request for a desired field to “audio portal server computer 300” which then “searches its database 310 for service providers in that field.”);
• and the processor of the connection server is configured to function as a determiner to automatically determine the target business operator from the plurality of business operators in accordance with the received desired service information from the information transmitter, configured to function as a connection controller to establish a communication session between the client terminal and the customer service terminal of the determined target business operator ([0067] & [0071] – [0072], “the audio portal server computer 300 uses the audio interface 308 to connect the user 102 with the selected service provider 200 for a live conversation”).
To the extent to which Jacob / Kay does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitation, Ward teaches:
• and configured to perform an activation/deactivation control of a device for contract or settlement based on the desired service information ([0027] & [0056] – [0061], remotely controlling a local device such as a printer or camera at the customer location based on a customer service session with an “expert.” Also see Fig. 1 & [0013], & [0017], noting the communication pathway from customer device 140 to teller (expert) device 111 through server 120.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Ward in the invention of Jacob / Kay “for purposes of acquiring images, sending documents, receiving documents, printing on behalf of the customer, and acquiring the customer's signatures on documents,” as evidenced by Ward ([0027]).
As per claim 3, Jacob / Kay / Ward discloses the limitations of claim 1. Jacob further discloses:
• an intermediary terminal configured to be operated by an operator, the intermediary terminal including: a processor ([0026] – [0027]); a storage storing program ([0030] – [0031]); a notification device; and an input interface configured to receive, from the operator, input of the target business operator determined by the operator, wherein the processor of the connection server is configured to notify the operator of the desired service information received from the information transmitter using the notification device, and the connection controller is configured to establish the communication session between the client terminal and the customer service terminal of the target business operator received by the input interface ([0062] & [0072], the steps of receiving a customer’s desired field and connecting the customer to a service provider for a conversation “may be performed by a human operator.”).
As per claim 7, Jacob / Kay / Ward discloses the limitations of claim 1. Regarding the following limitation,
• wherein the terminal obtainer is configured to obtain the desired service information by reading information from a medium held by the customer,
Jacob discloses receiving a customer input of desired service information via an “audio request.” To the extent to which Jacob does not appear to disclose wherein the input can be received by reading information from a medium held by the customer, Kay, in para. 29, teaches that a customer may “show” a “physical document” to a camera of the booth so that it may be input to the system.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the medium-scanning input of Kay for the audio input of Jacob. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
As per claim 8, Jacob / Kay / Ward discloses the limitations of claim 7. To the extent to which Jacob does not appear to explicitly disclose following limitation, Kay teaches:
• wherein the device for contract or settlement includes a medium issuer configured to issue the medium in a store including the customer booth ([0029], the booth comprises a printer for generating a physical document; As per [0026], the booth “can be physically located at… a convenience store.”). Rationale to combine Kay persists.
As per claim 9, Jacob / Kay / Ward discloses the limitations of claim 1. Jacob further discloses:
• wherein the processor of the connection server is configured to function as a billing information generator to generate billing information for the business operator based on a status of connection to the business operator ([0077] – [0079] & [0089], billing information is generated based on a rate and duration of a connection to a service provider.).
As per claim 10, Jacob / Kay / Ward discloses the limitations of claim 9. Jacob further discloses:
• wherein the billing information generator is configured to generate the billing information based on a connection count of connection to the business operator ([0077] – [0079] & [0089], billing information is generated based on a count of the minutes of duration of a connection to a service provider.).
As per claim 11, Jacob / Kay / Ward discloses the limitations of claim 9. Jacob further discloses:
• wherein the billing information generator is configured to generate the billing information based on a connection time of connection to the business operator ([0077] – [0079] & [0089], billing information is generated based on a connection duration of a connection to a service provider.).
As per claim 17, Jacob discloses a connection server configured to connect a client terminal {…}, which is operated by a customer, and a target business operator which is one of a plurality of business operators providing services to control a communication of remote conversation between the customer and a customer service staff who operates a customer service terminal of the target business operator in Fig. 1 & para. 34, noting “service providers 200 (200-1, . . . , 200-N),” who are staff of various professions such as a “psychiatrist” as per paras. 22, 59, & 76. As per at least Fig. 1 & para. 35, a remote “audio portal server computer 300” is connected to device “104” of each customer. To the extent to which Jacob does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein each customer terminal is in a customer booth, Kay teaches this element in at least Fig. 1 & [0024], [0026], & [0027], noting a terminal in “kiosk 126.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Kay in the invention of Jacob with the motivation to “provide instant or quick access to the right expert at the right point in time, thereby converting what might otherwise be a negative customer experience into a positive sales and service opportunity,” as evidenced by Kay ([0010]).
Jacob further discloses:
• the connection server comprising: a processor; and a storage storing program ([0028], [0030], & [0034] – [0035]); wherein the processor is configured to: function as an information receiver to receive desired service information indicative of one of the services desired by the customer from the client terminal ([0061] – [0062] & [0070] – [0071], receiving “type of service he would like to receive” when the customer selects “the desired field of service” at the customer terminal.);
• function as a determiner to automatically determine the target business operator from the plurality of business operators in accordance with the desired service information received by the information receive ([0061] – [0063] & [0070] – [0071], receiving “type of service he would like to receive” when the customer selects “the desired field of service” at the customer terminal and then transmitting the customer request for a desired field to “audio portal server computer 300” which then “searches its database 310 for service providers in that field.”);
• function as a connection controller to establish a communication session between the client terminal and the customer service terminal of the determined target business operator ([0067] & [0071] – [0072], “the audio portal server computer 300 uses the audio interface 308 to connect the user 102 with the selected service provider 200 for a live conversation”).
To the extent to which Jacob / Kay does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitation, Ward teaches:
• and perform an activation/deactivation control of the device for contract or settlement based on the desired service information ([0027] & [0056] – [0061], remotely controlling a local device such as a printer or camera at the customer location based on a customer service session with an “expert.” Also see Fig. 1 & [0013], & [0017], noting the communication pathway from customer device 140 to teller (expert) device 111 through server 120.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Ward in the invention of Jacob / Kay “for purposes of acquiring images, sending documents, receiving documents, printing on behalf of the customer, and acquiring the customer's signatures on documents,” as evidenced by Ward ([0027]).
As per claim 18, Jacob discloses a method (para. 22 & claim 1 of Jacob) performed by at least one processor ([0026]) in a remote customer service system configured to connect, via a connection server, a client terminal {…}, which is operated by a customer, and a target business operator which is one of a plurality of business operators providing services to control a communication of remote conversation between the customer and a customer service staff who operates a customer service terminal of the target business operator in Fig. 1 & para. 34, noting “service providers 200 (200-1, . . . , 200-N),” who are staff of various professions such as a “psychiatrist” as per paras. 22, 59, & 76. As per at least Fig. 1 & para. 35, a remote “audio portal server computer 300” is connected to device “104” of each customer. To the extent to which Jacob does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein each customer terminal is in a customer booth, Kay teaches this element in at least Fig. 1 & [0024], [0026], & [0027], noting a terminal in “kiosk 126.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Kay in the invention of Jacob with the motivation to “provide instant or quick access to the right expert at the right point in time, thereby converting what might otherwise be a negative customer experience into a positive sales and service opportunity,” as evidenced by Kay (para. 10).
Jacob further discloses the method comprising:
• an obtaining step of obtaining desired service information indicative of one of the services desired by the customer with use of the client terminal ([0061] – [0063] & [0070] – [0071], receiving “type of service he would like to receive” when the customer selects “the desired field of service” at the customer terminal and then transmitting the customer request for a desired field to “audio portal server computer 300” which then “searches its database 310 for service providers in that field.”)
• a transmitting step of transmitting the desired service information obtained in the obtaining step from the client terminal to the connection server ([0061] – [0063] & [0071], transmitting the customer request for a desired field to “audio portal server computer 300” which then “searches its database 310 for service providers in that field.”);
• a determination step of automatically determining the target business operator from the plurality of business operators in accordance with the desired service information transmitted from the client terminal ([0061] – [0063], [0067], & [0070] – [0071], receiving “type of service he would like to receive” when the customer selects “the desired field of service” at the customer terminal and then transmitting the customer request for a desired field to “audio portal server computer 300” which then “searches its database 310 for service providers in that field.”);
• a connecting step of establishing a communication session between the client terminal and the customer service terminal of the determined target business operator ([0067] & [0071] – [0072], “the audio portal server computer 300 uses the audio interface 308 to connect the user 102 with the selected service provider 200 for a live conversation”).
To the extent to which Jacob / Kay does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitation, Ward teaches:
• and a step of performing an activation/deactivation control of a device for contract or settlement based on the desired service information ([0027] & [0056] – [0061], remotely controlling a local device such as a printer or camera at the customer location based on a customer service session with an “expert.” Also see Fig. 1 & [0013], & [0017], noting the communication pathway from customer device 140 to teller (expert) device 111 through server 120.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Ward in the invention of Jacob “for purposes of acquiring images, sending documents, receiving documents, printing on behalf of the customer, and acquiring the customer's signatures on documents,” as evidenced by Ward ([0027]).
Claims 4 – 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob / Kay / Ward, in further view of Kurtzig et al. (US 20110040592 A1).
As per claim 4, Jacob / Kay / Ward discloses the limitations of claim 1. Jacob further discloses:
• wherein a plurality of categories into which the services are sorted according to types of businesses are set ([0076], records of service providers are stored in the “service provider database 310” in association with each service provider’s “specific expertise of the service provider.”);
Regarding the following limitation, Jacob discloses wherein “provider information stored in the database 310 can include a service price” for each service provider as well as a “specific expertise of the service provider” ([0076]). To the extent to which Jacob / Kay / Ward does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitation, Kurtzig teaches:
• the storage of the connection server stores information of different fees corresponding to the plurality of categories ([0021], [0026], [0028], [0097], & [0102], a pricing amounts are determined for each “type of expert requested.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Kurtzig in the invention of Jacob / Kay / Ward with the motivation to allow “a large number of users and experts to exchange information at the same time and at any time,” as evidenced by Kurtzig ([0024]).
Jacob further discloses:
• and the processor of the connection server is configured to function as a connection permission controller to read information of a fee corresponding to one of the categories from the storage of the connection server based on the desired service information, to permit connection between the customer service terminal of the target business operator and the client terminal in response to the customer paying the fee in a case of the fee being charged ([0064], [0067], & [0087] – [0088], the system confirms the customer’s payment then connects the customer to a service provider).
• and to permit connection between the customer service terminal of the target business operator and the client terminal in a case of the fee being free ([0064], [0067], & [0087] – [0088], the system confirms the customer’s payment and intent to pay the fee, then connects the customer to a service provider. As per [0075] – [0076] & [0078], the service provider’s chosen price can be set to zero.).
As per claim 5, Jacob / Kay / Ward / Kurtzig discloses the limitations of claim 4. To the extent to which Jacob / Kay does not appear to explicitly disclose the following limitation, Kurtzig teaches:
• wherein a plurality of sub-categories that belong to the categories and into which the services are sorted according to service contents are set ([0021] & esp. [0028], noting categories such as “medical” with sub-categories that belong to the categories such as “eye or pediatrics”; also the “legal” category with sub-categories that belong to the legal category such as “employment, intellectual property, or personal injury law”),
• the storage of the connection server stores information of different fees corresponding to the plurality of sub-categories ([0021], [0026], [0028], [0097], & [0102], a pricing amounts are determined for each “type of expert requested.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Kurtzig in the invention of Jacob / Kay / Ward with the motivation to allow “a large number of users and experts to exchange information at the same time and at any time,” as evidenced by Kurtzig ([0024]).
Jacob further discloses:
• and the connection permission controller is configured to read information of a fee corresponding to one of the sub-categories from the storage of the connection server based on the desired service information, to permit connection between the customer service terminal of the target business operator and the client terminal in response to the customer paying the fee in a case of the fee being charged ([0064], [0067], & [0087] – [0088], the system confirms the customer’s payment then connects the customer to a service provider).
• and to permit connection between the customer service terminal of the target business operator and the client terminal in a case of the fee being free ([0064], [0067], & [0087] – [0088], the system confirms the customer’s payment and intent to pay the fee, then connects the customer to a service provider. As per [0075] – [0076] & [0078], the service provider’s chosen price can be set to zero.).
As per claim 6, Jacob / Kay / Ward / Kurtzig discloses the limitations of claim 5. To the extent to which Jacob does not appear to explicitly disclose following limitation, Kay teaches:
• wherein the client terminal is installed in each of a plurality of stores ([0029], the booth comprises a printer for generating a physical document; As per para. 26, the booth “can be physically located at… a convenience store.”). Rationale to combine Kay persists.
Regarding the following limitations,
• the storage of the connection server stores information of different fees corresponding to the plurality of stores; and the processor of the connection server is configured to function as a connection permission controller to read, from the storage of the connection server, information of a fee corresponding to a store in which the customer uses the client terminal among the plurality of stores,
Jacob discloses the remote customer service system further comprises: a storage storing information of different fees corresponding to the plurality of service providers in at least [0076], and further discloses, in [0064], [0067], & [0087] – [0088], wherein the system identifies the prices for each service provider, confirms the customer’s payment, then connects the customer to a service provider. To the extent to which Jacob does not appear to disclose wherein the different fees correspond to the plurality of stores, Kay, in [0026], teaches a plurality of stores may each comprise a booth.
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the stores of Kay for the service providers of Jacob. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Jacob further discloses:
• to permit connection between the customer service terminal of the target business operator and the client terminal in the store in response to the customer paying the fee in a case of the fee being charged ([0064], [0067], & [0087] – [0088], the system confirms the customer’s payment then connects the customer to a service provider),
• and to permit connection between the customer service terminal of the target business operator and the client terminal in the store in a case of the fee being free ([0064], [0067], & [0087] – [0088], the system confirms the customer’s payment and intent to pay the fee, then connects the customer to a service provider. As per paras [0075] – [0076] & [0078], the service provider’s chosen price can be set to zero.).
Claims 12 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob / Kay / Ward, in further view of Altberg et al. (US 20070165608 A1).
As per claim 12, Jacob / Kay / Ward discloses the limitations of claim 1. To the extent to which Jacob / Kay / Ward does not appear to explicitly disclose following limitations, Altberg teaches:
• wherein the processor of the connection server is configured to function as an upper limit time setting unit to set an upper limit time for a continuous connection time for which the client terminal and the business operator are connected, and the upper limit time setting unit is configured to automatically cut off connection between the client terminal and the business operator in response to the continuous connection time reaching the upper limit time ([0196], “When the time limit for the call is reached,” as per para. 201, “the system disconnects (893) the user and the adviser” when “the continuation policy (889) is "end call"” when the time limit for the call is reached.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Altberg in the invention of Jacob / Kay / Ward with the motivation “to assist and track connections,” as evidenced by Altberg ([0216]).
As per claim 13, Jacob / Kay / Ward / Altberg discloses the limitations of claim 12. To the extent to which Jacob does not appear to explicitly disclose following limitations, Altberg teaches:
• wherein the upper limit time setting unit is configured to maintain the connection between the client terminal and the business operator beyond the original upper limit time in response to an operation made by the customer service staff ([0345], “when the offered session is expired,” the session may be extended “for up to a pre-determined period of time specified by the connection provider.”). Rationale to combine the teachings of Altberg persists.
Claims 14 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob / Kay / Ward, in further view of Pirrello et al. (US 20130006821 A1).
As per claim 14, Jacob / Kay / Ward discloses the limitations of claim 1. To the extent to which Jacob does not appear to explicitly disclose following limitations, Pirrello teaches:
• wherein the processor of the connection server is configured to function as a necessary document determiner to determine a necessary document for the service desired by the customer based on the desired service information and is configured to function as a notification controller to control a notification device of the client terminal to notify the customer of the determined necessary document ([0043] – [0046], the system can “identify which documents are necessary” and indicate the documents to the customer.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the aforementioned teachings of Pirrello in the invention of Jacob / Kay / Ward with the motivation to “facilitate preparation” of documents for a customer, as evidenced by Pirrello ([0063]).
As per claim 15, Jacob / Kay / Ward / Pirrello discloses the limitations of claim 14. Regarding the following limitation,
• wherein the notification controller controls the notification device of the client terminal to give a notification prompting the customer to obtain the necessary document at a store in which the client terminal is installed,
To the extent to which Jacob does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the notification controller controls the notification device of the client terminal to give a notification prompting the customer to obtain the necessary document, Pirrello teaches this functionality in [0046] – [0047], noting that the customer is prompted to select an option for required document retrieval, including by “hyperlink to an electronic version” of the document. To the extent to which Pirrello does not teach wherein the document retrieval is via a store printer, Kay, in para. 29, teaches wherein the booth comprises a printer for generating a physical document. As per para. 26, the booth “can be physically located at… a convenience store.”
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the store printer of Kay for the hyperlink of Pirrello. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., one type of document-providing method for another) producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacob / Kay / Ward, in further view of Henry (US 20060245576 A1).
As per claim 16, Jacob / Kay / Ward discloses the limitations of claim 1. Regarding the following limitation,
• wherein the processor of the connection server is configured to function as a coupon issuer to issue, in response to the connection controller connecting the customer service terminal of the target business operator and the client terminal, a coupon usable at a store in which the client terminal is installed or a nearby store,
To the extent to which Jacob does not appear to explicitly disclose issuing a coupon responsive to a customer communication session, Henry teaches this element in [0034], noting issuing a coupon to a theatre “at the conclusion of the information assistance call.” To the extent to which Pirrello does not teach wherein the coupon is usable at a store in which the client terminal is installed or a nearby store, Kay, in [0026], teaches wherein the booth “can be physically located at… a convenience store.”
Since each individual element and its function are shown in the prior art, albeit shown in separate references, the difference between the claimed subject matter and the prior art rests not on any individual element or function but in the very combination itself. That is in the substitution of the booth-equipped convenience store of Kay for the theatre of Henry. Thus, the simple substitution of one known element for another (i.e., one type of establishment for another) producing a predictable result renders the claim obvious.
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 BRYAN J KIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-6447. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, Shannon Campbell can be reached at (571)272-5587. 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.
/BRYAN J KIRK/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights