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
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claim 1
Step 1, This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim falls within any statutory category. See MPEP 2106.03. The claim recites a system that performs at least one step. Thus, the claim is to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A, Prong One: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim recites a judicial exception. As explained in MPEP 2106.04, subsection II, a claim "recites" a judicial exception when the judicial exception is "set forth" or "described" in the claim.
Step "obtain one or more query messages having a natural language format" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., instructions, memory, processor). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person reading or listening to query messages. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
Step "generate a user request associated with one or more items by processing the one or more query messages using a natural language processing model, the user request including item information associated with the one or more items, a fulfillment type for managing the one or more items, and a data operation type for processing the item information wherein: the fulfillment type identifies a delivery option, a shipping option, or a pickup option; the data operation type identifies a search option for searching the information items, a refinement option for filtering the item information, or an engagement option for adding the one or more items to a virtual shopping cart" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., natural language processing model). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person evaluating the one or more query messages having a natural language format to extract product categories, transactional fulfillment expectations, and intent parameters, and sorting customer requests into predefined business transactional buckets (delivery types, catalog search types, and cart placement types). Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment, and relates to fundamental commercial practices and commercial interactions).
Step "and the natural language processing model is trained with a training dataset comprising historical user session data using an iterative training process that revises parameters of the natural language processing model to reduce a cost value between corresponding output data and the training dataset" (as drafted, this step is a process that can be done in the human mind. The use of basic computer parts like a model or parameters does not change this fact. Nothing in the text stops a human from doing this work without a computer. In this claim, this step covers a person looking at past session records and changing guess rules by hand using simple math to lower errors. Specifically, the phrase "using an iterative training process that revises parameters... to reduce a cost value" describes a mathematical formula that calculates errors and changes values step-by-step to get a better result. This is a basic mathematical optimization process. A human can calculate these error scores and fix the rules by hand using a pen and paper log. Thus, this limitation recites a mathematical concept and an abstract mental process because it can be done in the human mind through simple math, observation, and judgment).
Step "identify an information source including a set of candidate information items associated with the item information based on the data operation type" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., processor, memory). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person evaluating a request type and choosing a record log book. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
Step "generate one or more information items from the set of candidate information items provided by the information source based on the fulfillment type" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., processor, software). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person selecting or filtering items from a list based on fulfillment preferences. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
Step "identify a target user based on at least the data operation type" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., processor). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person matching a customer request to a customer identity. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
Step "generate instructions to display the one or more information items on an electronic device associated with the target user" (as drafted, this limitation is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (e.g., electronic device). That is, nothing in the limitation precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. This limitation, in the context of this claim, encompasses a person writing down display details for a recipient. Thus, this limitation recites an abstract mental process and certain methods of organizing human activity because it can be performed in the human mind either through observation, evaluation and judgment).
"Unless it is clear that a claim recites distinct exceptions, such as a law of nature and an abstract idea, care should be taken not to parse the claim into multiple exceptions, particularly in claims involving abstract ideas." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. However, if possible, the examiner should consider the limitations together as a single abstract idea rather than as a plurality of separate abstract ideas to be analyzed individually. "For example, in a claim that includes a series of steps that recite mental steps as well as a mathematical calculation, an examiner should identify the claim as reciting both a mental process and a mathematical concept for Step 2A, Prong One to make the analysis clear on the record." MPEP 2106.04, subsection II.B. Here, the mentioned steps fall within the mathematical concept, mental process, and certain methods of organizing human activity groupings of abstract ideas and are considered together as a single abstract idea for further analysis. (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two: This part of the eligibility analysis evaluates whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception or whether the claim is “directed to” the judicial exception. This evaluation is performed by (1) identifying whether there are any additional elements recited in the claim beyond the judicial exception, and (2) evaluating those additional elements individually and in combination to determine whether the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.04(d).
The claim recites the additional elements/limitations
"transmit the instructions to the electronic device associated with the target user for display of the one or more information items"=> data transmitting
"a non-transitory memory", "instructions stored thereon", "at least one processor", "an electronic device" => generic computer components
MPEP § 2106.05(a) "Improvements to the Functioning of a Computer or to Any Other Technology or Technical Field."
“Transmit the instructions to the electronic device associated with the target user for display of the one or more information items"=> data transmitting and the generic computer components (non-transitory memory, instructions, processor, electronic device) do not improve the functioning of a computer or any other technology. There is no faster, more accurate, or more efficient computer hardware described. There is not a technological computer improvement.
MPEP § 2106.05(b) Particular Machine. The judicial exception does not apply to any particular machine.
The claim is silent regarding specific limitations directed to an improved computer system, processor, memory, network, database, or Internet, nor do applicant direct examiner’s attention to such specific limitations. "[T]he mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention." Alice, 573 U.S. at 223; see also Bascom Glob. Internet Servs., Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("An abstract idea on 'an Internet computer network' or on a generic computer is still an abstract idea."). Applying this reasoning here, the claim is not directed to a particular machine, but rather merely implement an abstract idea using generic computer components such as "a non-transitory memory", "instructions stored thereon", "at least one processor", "an electronic device". Thus, the claims fail to satisfy the "tied to a particular machine" prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
MPEP § 2106.05(c) Particular Transformation.
The limitation data transmitting and the generic computer components do not transform any physical article into a different state or thing. Transmitting data and utilizing generic computer components are data manipulation rather than a statutory physical transformation. The steps are not a "transformation or reduction of an article into a different state or thing constituting patent-eligible subject matter[.]" See In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943, 962 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en bane), aff'd sub nom, Bilski v. Kappas, 561 U.S. 593 (2010); see also CyberSource Corp. v. Retail Decisions, Inc., 654 F.3d 1366, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("The mere manipulation or reorganization of data ... does not satisfy the transformation prong."). Applying this guidance here, the claims fail to satisfy the transformation prong of the Bilski machine-or-transformation test.
MPEP § 2106.05(e) Other Meaningful Limitations.
This section of the MPEP guides: Diamond v. Diehr provides an example of a claim that recited meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. 450 U.S. 175, ... (1981). In Diehr, the claim was directed to the use of the Arrhenius equation ( an abstract idea or law of nature) in an automated process for operating a rubber-molding press. 450 U.S. at 177-78 .... The Court evaluated additional elements such as the steps of installing rubber in a press, closing the mold, constantly measuring the temperature in the mold, and automatically opening the press at the proper time, and found them to be meaningful because they sufficiently limited the use of the mathematical equation to the practical application of molding rubber products. 450 U.S. at 184... In contrast, the claims in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea of mitigating settlement risk. 573 U.S._ .... In particular, the Court concluded that the additional elements such as the data processing system and communications controllers recited in the system claims did not meaningfully limit the abstract idea because they merely linked the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., "implementation via computers") or were well-understood, routine, conventional activity. MPEP § 2106.05(e). The data transmitting limitation and the generic computer elements impose no meaningful limits on the judicial exception. The limitations are not meaningful limitations.
MPEP § 2106.05(g) Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity.
The limitation "transmit the instructions to the electronic device associated with the target user for display of the one or more information items" is insignificant extra-solution activity. It represents a post-solution output activity/result to a user device, which adds nothing significant to the implementation.
MPEP § 2106.05(h) Field of Use and Technological Environment.
[T]he Supreme Court has stated that, even if a claim does not wholly pre-empt an abstract idea, it still will not be limited meaningfully if it contains only insignificant or token pre- or post-solution activity-such as identifying a relevant audience, a category of use, field of use, or technological environment. Ultramercial, Inc. v. Hulu, LLC, 722 F.3d 1335, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Limitations data transmitting and the generic computer components are simply a field of use that attempts to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment.
Accordingly, the additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The limitation "transmit the instructions to the electronic device associated with the target user for display of the one or more information items" => data transmitting does not recite any non-generic arrangement for sending data. The generic computer components are entirely generic and serve only as standard technological tools that implement the abstract idea through conventional automation. Taking these elements as an ordered combination adds nothing beyond what each standard piece of network equipment inherently does on its own. Therefore, the claim does not amount to an inventive concept and is not patent eligible.
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 2 recites “the information source includes a plurality of data sets stored in one or more databases; the fulfillment type is selected from a delivery option associated with a first data set, a shipping option associated with a second data set, and a pickup option associated with a third data set; and the one or more information items are extracted based on at least one of the first data set, the second data set, and the third data set stored in the one or more databases based on the fulfillment type.” This limitation is pre-solution activities. Further, extracting data based on criteria is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 3 recites “the information source includes a database; each candidate information item is stored with a fulfillment indicator in the database; and the one or more information items are extracted from the database based on the fulfillment indicator of each of the one or more information items.” This limitation is pre-solution activities. Further, extracting data based on criteria is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 4 recites “the data operation type is selected from a search option, a refinement option, and an engagement option; and a first user belonging to a first user group and providing the one or more query messages is identified as the target user in accordance with a determination that the data operation type is the search option or the refinement option.” This limitation is pre-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 5 recites “the data operation type is selected from a search option, a refinement option, and an engagement option; a first user belongs to a first user group and provides the one or more query messages; and at least a second user belonging to a second user group associated with the system is identified as the target user in accordance with a determination that the data operation type is the engagement option.” This limitation is pre-solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 6 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 6 recites “the data operation type includes a search option for which a database is identified as the information source, and the target user includes a first user who provides the one or more query messages; and the one or more information items are identified in a search of the database based on the item information and the fulfillment type, and displayed on a user interface as a search result to the first user.” This limitation is pre-post solution activities. Further, extracting data based on criteria is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 7 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 7 recites “ the one or more query messages are obtained while the set of candidate information items is displayed on a user interface to a first user who provides the one or more query messages; the data operation type includes a refinement option for which the information source includes the user interface and the target user includes the first user; and the set of information items is filtered based on the fulfillment type to generate the one or more information items for display on the user interface.” This limitation is pre-post solution activities. Further, extracting data based on criteria is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 8 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 8 recites “the one or more query messages are obtained while the one or more information items are already displayed on a user interface to a first user who provides the one or more query messages, the set of candidate information items including the one or more information items; the data operation type includes an engagement option for which the information source includes the user interface and the target user includes a second user; and an engagement request is generated based on the one or more information items, and the one or more information items are displayed to the target user in response to the engagement request.” This limitation is pre solution activities. Further, extracting data based on criteria is observations, evaluations, judgments that can be performed in human mind (i.e., a mental process [Wingdings font/0xF3] abstract idea). The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 9 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 9 recites “execute a user application including enabling display of a user interface; enable display of a voice assistant affordance item on the user interface, independently of content concurrently displayed on the user interface; and in response to detection of a user action on the voice assistance affordance item, obtaining an audio signal collected via a microphone, wherein a subset of the audio signal is converted to the one or more query messages.” This limitation is pre solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 10 depends on claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Claim 10 recites “execute a user application including enabling display of a user interface associated with a user application, wherein the one or more query messages are entered by a first user on the user interface.” This limitation is pre solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 11 is similar to claim 1. The claim is rejected based on the same reasons.
Claim 12 depends on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Claim 12 recites “wherein the one or more query messages includes a sequence of two or more query messages in the natural language format, and the instructions to generate the user request further comprise instructions to: generate a context including a plurality of context terms by processing each of the sequence of two or more query messages using the natural language processing model separately, wherein the user request is generated based on the context.” This limitation is pre solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 13 depends on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Claim 13 recites “wherein the item information includes an item type, and each of the one or more information items represents a respective item of the item type and includes one or more of: a brand name, a quantity, a package size, a price, and an image of the respective item.” This limitation is pre solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claim 14 depends on claim 11 and includes all the limitations of claim 11. Claim 14 recites “enable display of a user interface including a first information item; and while the first information item is displayed, determine that the item information recites an item without specifying an item type or an item name, wherein at least one of the one or more information items is generated based on the first information item.” This limitation is pre solution activities. The claim does not have any addition limitation that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
Claims 15-20 are similar to claims 1-6. The claim is rejected based on the same reasons.
Response to Amendment
Section V – Rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101
Applicant argues that “… As an initial point, the December Memorandum provides updates to the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (M.P.E.P.) that took effect immediately. Id., pp. 1, 5. Among the updates, the December Memorandum updates M.P.E.P. 2106.05(a), subsection I, to list as an example the following: xiv. Improvements to computer component or system performance based upon adjustments to parameters of a machine learning model associated with tasks or workstreams; Ex Parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567 (PTAB September 26, 2025, Appeals Review Panel Decision) (precedential). 2 Here, among other features, Applicant's independent claim 1 recites "generat[ing] a user request by processing the one or more query messages using a natural language processing model [where] the natural language processing model is trained with a training dataset comprising historical user session data using an iterative training process that revises parameters of the natural language processing model to reduce a cost value between corresponding output data and the training dataset." When considered in light of Desjardins, claim 1 recites patentable subject matter. 3 Indeed, these features cannot practically be performed in the human mind or with pen and paper, and thus claim 1 is not directed to a Mental Process.⁴ …” pg. 14-15
Applicant argument has been considered.
The Memo at MPEP § 2106.05(a) states that the claim must include a specific improvement in computer functionality. Claim 1 recites training to "reduce a cost value." This is standard mathematical optimization known in the art. It does not show how the computer system itself functions better (e.g., reducing storage, preventing forgetting, or improving performance speed), which is what *Desjardins* requires for eligibility under Step 2A Prong Two. The Specification [0022]-[0023] describes improvements to the “user shopping experience” but does not disclose technical improvements to the machine learning model itself. If the specification doesn't clearly show the technical improvement, the claim does not include technical improvement. Further, the Applicant argue that this process cannot be done mentally. However, simply implementing a mathematical concept on a generic processor ("non-transitory memory," "processor") does not qualify as an improvement to technology. Therefore, in view of Desjardins, Claim 1 lacks the specific technical limitations that would show an improvement in computer functionality. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 stands.
Applicant argues that “… Claim 1 further recites "generat[ing] instructions to display the one or more information items on an electronic device associated with the target user," and "transmit[ting] the instructions to the electronic device associated with the target user for display of the one or more information items," which Applicant respectfully submits cannot be performed in the human mind….” pg. 15
Applicant argues that generating and transmitting instructions to display items cannot be done mentally, which is correct. Under the Desjardins, a specific improvement in how the computer functions or performs, not just that a machine is involved. Generating and transmitting instructions to a device for display is standard, conventional technology. It does not improve the system's function.
Applicant argues that “… Moreover, Applicant's specification demonstrates to one of ordinary skill in the art that, at least as amended, claim 1 provides technical improvements, including a "natural language processing model" that is trained to revise its parameters to reduce a cost value between corresponding output data and a training dataset, where the trained natural language process model allows for the generation of item information, fulfillment types, and data operation types and identify relevant information items based on user queries, thereby integrating any alleged abstract idea into a practical application. See Applicant's Specification, " [0022]-[0023].5 Claim 1 further provides for the generation of instructions to display the one or more information items on an electronic device associated with a target user, and the transmission of the generated instructions to the electronic device for display of the one or more of the generated information items. Id. As such, and as persons of ordinary skill in the art would recognize, the claimed subject matter provides several technical advantages, and are not merely directed to a Mental Process….” Pg. 15
Applicant argues that the specification demonstrates technical improvements via the natural language processing model and display instructions. While you cite Specification [0022]- [0023], this argument does not overcome the rejection. Simply reducing a "cost value" during training is standard mathematical optimization, not a specific improvement to computer functionality or system performance. Under MPEP § 2106.05(a), generic parameter adjustments without a disclosed technical solution (such as overcoming catastrophic forgetting - Desjardin or reducing storage) do not qualify. The user experience benefits as described in [0022]-[0023] are improvements for the user, not an improvement to the computer technology itself. Additionally, generating instructions to display information is conventional output functionality and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application in a way that satisfies Step 2A Prong Two.
Applicant argues that “… Further, when determining patent eligibility, the M.P.E.P. notes that consideration should be given as to "whether the claim 'purport(s) to improve the functioning of the computer itself" or "any other technology or technical field," which has been referred to as "the search for a technological solution to a technological problem." See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05(a). Here, at least as amended, the claims recite significantly more than any Mental Process. Indeed, the claims recite "specific limitation[s] other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field," and "add[] unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application," as the prior art fails to teach or suggest the claimed subject matter. See M.P.E.P. § 2106.05; see also supra. (indicating that the claims recite novel and non-obvious subject matter). Indeed, the claimed subject matter is confined to a "particular useful application" that includes the generation of user requests by processing query messages using a natural language processing model that is iteratively trained to revise its parameters, and allows for various technical advantages, as noted above…” pg. 15-16
Applicant argues that Claim 1 confining the subject matter to a "particular useful application" and using unconventional steps cures any eligibility issues under MPEP § 2106.05(a). However, this argument does not match with the Desjardins guidance. The guidance clarifies “…if the disclosure provides sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or a technical field…” The Applicant states that the model is "iteratively trained," Claim 1 does not disclose how that training improves the functioning of the computer (e.g., preventing forgetting or reducing storage). It just recites standard mathematical optimization, i.e., revises parameter… to reduce the cost value. The Specification [0022]-[0023] discloses user experience improvements like search results and fulfillment options, user experience is not technical improvements to the technology itself. Therefore, Claim 1 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application that improves the computer system beyond conventional use. The eligibility rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 stands.
Applicant argues that “… Finally, Applicant notes that, as indicated in the Aug. Memorandum, "a rejection of a claim should not be made simply because an examiner is uncertain as to the claim's eligibility [and, instead,] must be established by a preponderance of the evidence." See Aug. Memorandum, p. 5. Here, at least the preponderance of the evidence indicates that, rather than merely claiming features that can be carried out as a Mental Process, Applicant's claims recite and are directed to statutory subject matter for at least the reasons provided herein…” pg. 16
Applicant argues that a rejection should not be made based on examiner uncertainty. Under the updated MPEP, the eligibility standard is clear: claims must show a specific technological improvement to computer functionality, not just generic mathematical concepts. Claim 1 fails because it recites standard parameter adjustment without an improved computer function (like preventing forgetting or reducing storage). Therefore, this is not an uncertainty-based rejection; the claim fails Step 2A Prong Two under current guidance. The rejection stands.
Claim 11 and 15 are similar to claim 1. The same reply is applied to claim 11 and 15. All dependent claims are rejected.
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.
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 HAU HAI HOANG whose telephone number is (571)270-5894. The examiner can normally be reached 1st biwk: Mon-Thurs 7:00 AM-5:00 PM; 2nd biwk: Mon-Thurs: 7:00 am-5:00pm, Fri: 7:00 am - 4:00pm.
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, Boris Gorney can be reached at 571-270-5626. 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.
HAU HAI. HOANG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2154
/HAU H HOANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2154
Prosecution Insights