DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Salomir et al. (US 2013/0131494, hereinafter Salomir ‘494).
PNG
media_image1.png
851
755
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In re claim 1, Salomir ‘494 teaches a system for detecting cavitation signals from a target region of a patient during a focused ultrasound procedure(0063), the system comprising: an ultrasound transducer (0039-0040, 0055, 0063); an imaging device configured to acquire physiological characteristics of a plurality of anatomical regions through which the cavitation signals from the target region travel (0063, 0066); a processor (0023) configured to: select at least one of the anatomical regions based at least in part on the physiological characteristics thereof (0054, Applicant defines that “The physiological characteristics may include structure, thickness, the number of layers, the local bone density, surface geometry, and/or the incidence angle of the beam path associated with each of the anatomical regions.”); and computationally project the selected anatomical region to a corresponding skin region along a beam path from the ultrasound transducer (fig. 8, 0052, 0062-0065); and at least one cavitation detection device configured for attachment to the corresponding skin region (0041, 0066).
Applicant has defined “computationally project” in para 54 and Fig. 4A that:
[0054] To combine the effects of the skull and scalp features on the cavitation signals and/or attach the cavitation detection devices to scalp regions based on the selected skull regions, it is necessary to map the skull 304 to the scalp 302. Such a map may be obtained using images acquired by one or more imaging systems (such as an MRI imaging system and/or a CT imaging system). For example, referring to FIG. 4A, an MRI image 402 may include the target region 101, the scalp 404 and the skull 406 having multiple defined regions 408-412. To map the skull region 408 to the scalp
PNG
media_image2.png
688
734
media_image2.png
Greyscale
404, in one embodiment, expected beam paths 414 and 416 connecting microbubbles 202 at the target region 101 to the boundaries of the skull region 408 are computationally projected onto the scalp 404. The projected region 418 is then defined as the scalp region corresponding to the skull region 408. Accordingly, once the skull regions having sufficiently high transmission efficiency and/or a substantially flat surface are selected, their corresponding scalp regions can be mapped/determined, and the cavitation detection devices 206 may then be attached thereto.
So expected beam paths are computationally projected or estimated on the scalp in an image displayed on a screen. During the interview held on February 25, 2021, Applicant claimed these projections was done live on a skin region of the skull viewable with naked eyes, and that these projections was not shown on a display. Such assertion is different than the Specification. In light of the description in the Specification, “computationally project” are what is shown in Fig. 4A, the anatomical region, a corresponding skin region along a beam path. Furthermore, Applicant, in argument to the board filed on March 24, 2025 on page 3, and also in argument to the board filed on July 10, 2023 on page 2, indicated that fig. 4A represents the “computationally project the selected anatomical region to a corresponding skin region along a beam path from the ultrasound transducer” support. However, note that Applicant never claim the displayed image shown in Fig. 4A. Applicant merely claim that a processor can “computationally project the selected anatomical region to a corresponding skin region along a beam path from the ultrasound transducer.”
As shown above, Salomir ‘494 teaches computationally project the selected anatomical region to a corresponding skin region along a beam path from the ultrasound transducer (fig. 8, 0052, 0062-0065).
In re claim 12, Salomir ‘494 teaches further comprising display hardware for displaying the corresponding skin region (fig. 8, 0006, 0023, 0037).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salomir ‘494 in view of Vortman et al. (US 2004/0122323, hereinafter Vortman ‘323), and/or still further in view of Svien-Erik Masoy (Thesis, Estimation and correction of aberration in medical ultrasound imaging, ISBN 82-471-6544-9, 2004 (shown on page 6/144), hereinafter Masoy ‘2004).
In re claim 2, Salomir ‘494 fails to teach further configured to determine a beam path and beam aberrations of a cavitation signal travelling through each of the anatomical regions from the target region based on the physiological characteristics of the anatomical regions along the beam path.
Vortman ‘323 teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine a beam path (fig. 4, 0026, 0054, 0070, 0076, 0077, 0078, 0106, 0108) and beam aberrations (title, 0073, 0101-0102, 0109, note that beam aberration is interpreted as tissue aberration because “aberration” is the result of ultrasound beam’s interaction with the tissue) of a cavitation signal travelling through each of the anatomical regions from the target region based on the physiological characteristics of the anatomical regions along the beam path (0010, 0063, 0065, 0070, 0073, 0076-0078, 0091, 0101, 0102, 0106, 0108).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Salomir ‘494 to include the features of Vortman ‘323 in order to include correction factors to increase the efficiency of the treatment.
Even if somehow, “beam aberration” is somehow different than “tissue aberration” of Vortman ‘323.
Masoy ‘2004 teaches determine beam aberrations (abstract, pages 7-8, 13-14/144, fig. 1.3. page 10, 12-14, 22, etc., 16, 18- 20, 28/144, etc.) of a cavitation signal travelling through each of the anatomical regions from the target region based on the physiological characteristics of the anatomical regions along the beam path.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Salomir ‘494 to include the features of Vortman ‘323 in order to include correction factors to increase the efficiency of the treatment, and/or to include the features of Masoy ‘2004 in order to improve focusing quality of ultrasound, etc. shown in the benefit paragraph of Masoy ‘2004 on page 9 or 15/144.
Claims 3-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salomir ‘494 and Vortman ‘323, and/or in view of Masoy ‘2004, still further in view of Tlusty et al. (US 2016/0184026, hereinafter Tlusty ‘026).
In re claim 3, Salomir ‘494 and Vortman ‘323, and/or in view of Masoy ‘2004 fail to teach wherein the processor is further configured to determine transmission efficiency associated with each of the anatomical regions based on the physiological characteristics along the beam path.
Tlusty ‘026 teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine transmission efficiency associated with each of the anatomical regions based on the physiological characteristics along the beam path (0006, 0042, 0049).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Salomir ‘494 to include the features of Vortman ‘323 in order to include correction factors to increase the efficiency of the treatment, and/or to include the features of Masoy ‘2004 in order to improve focusing quality of ultrasound, etc. shown in the benefit paragraph of Masoy ‘2004 on page 9 or 15/144, and to include the features of Tlusty ‘026 in order to minimize skull heating and reduce overall transmission power required by the transducer array.
In re claim 4, Vortman ‘323 (0045, 0067, 0089, etc.) /Masoy ‘2004 (page 16-22, 22-28/144, etc.)/Tlusty ‘026 (0005, 0038, 0045, etc.) teaches wherein the physiological characteristics comprise at least one of a structure, a thickness, a number of layers, a local bone density, surface geometry, or an incidence angle of the beam path associated with each of the anatomical regions.
In re claim 5, Tlusty ‘026 teaches wherein the processor is further configured to select at least one of the anatomical regions based on the transmission efficiency associated therewith (0038).
In re cliam 6, Tlusty ‘026 teaches wherein the processor is further configured to perform the projection by projecting the predicted signal path connecting the target region to boundaries of each said at least one selected anatomical region onto the corresponding skin region (0008-0013, 0016, 0018, 0038, 0041, fig. 2B).
In re claim 7, Tlusty ‘026 teaches wherein the processor is further configured to correlate coordinates of the imaging device with spatial coordinates of an environment in which the patient is located (0045).
In re claim 8, Tlusty ‘026 already teaches comprising a secondary imaging device (0006, 0041, CT is capable of acquiring a real-time image of at least three locational trackers).
Claims 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salomir ‘494 and Vortman ‘323, and/or Masoy ‘2004, and Tlusty ‘026, and still further in view of Wood et al. (US 2007/0167806, hereinafter Wood ‘806).
In re claim 8, Tlusty ‘026 already teaches comprising a secondary imaging device (0006, 0041, CT is capable of acquiring a real-time image of at least three locational trackers).
If a secondary imaging device must be considered to acquire a real-time image of at least three locational trackers and that at least three locational trackers is positively recited to be required in the overall system.
Wood ‘806 teaches a secondary imaging device acquire a real-time image of at least three locational trackers (0007, 0021, 0038, note that Wood ‘806 teaches at least one or more fiducial markers, hence, using additional locational tracker is merely a design choice and obvious to increase the number of tracker for better tracking).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Salomir ‘494 to include the features of Vortman ‘323 in order to include correction factors to increase the efficiency of the treatment, and/or to include the features of Masoy ‘2004 in order to improve focusing quality of ultrasound, etc. shown in the benefit paragraph of Masoy ‘2004 on page 9 or 15/144, and to include the features of Tlusty ‘026 in order to minimize skull heating and reduce overall transmission power required by the transducer array, and to include the feature of Wood ‘806 in order to plan and guide the deposition of HIFU energy.
In re claim 9, Wood ‘806 teaches wherein the processor is further configured to register coordinates in the secondary imaging device to coordinates in the imaging device (0038).
In re claim 10, Wood ‘806 teaches at least one or more fiducial markers (0038). It would have been inherently that this fiducial markers (locational trackers) are attached to different fiducial locations such that wherein the locational trackers are attached to different fiducial locations (note that the number of locations are an obvious design choice to order to increase the tracking locations for better registration indications) while Wood ‘806 teaches at least one of the locational trackers or the fiducials are detectable by the imaging device (0038). Note that applicant has not defined any specific attaching methods or apparatus. Any marker is an attachment of the place of which is been marked.
In re claim 11, Tlusty ‘026 teaches the system further comprising a secondary imaging device for acquiring physiological characteristics of at least one of the target region or corresponding skin region (note although skin is not explicitly teaches by Tlusty ‘026, but is taught by Vortman ‘323 when conducting treatment in skull region), wherein the processor is further configured to register coordinates in the secondary imaging device to coordinates in the imaging device (0040-0041, note that it would have been inherently required to register the CT coordinates and ultrasound system coordinate in order to use the CT profile to calculate the SDR that is required by the ultrasound system). In any case, Wood ‘806 teaches a secondary imaging device for acquiring physiological characteristics of at least one of the target region or corresponding skin region (note that the target skin region is taught by Vortman ‘323 when conducting treatment in skull region), wherein the processor is further configured to register coordinates in the secondary imaging device to coordinates in the imaging device (0038).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Salomir ‘494 to include the features of Vortman ‘323 in order to include correction factors to increase the efficiency of the treatment, and/or to include the features of Masoy ‘2004 in order to improve focusing quality of ultrasound, etc. shown in the benefit paragraph of Masoy ‘2004 on page 9 or 15/144, and to include the features of Tlusty ‘026 in order to minimize skull heating and reduce overall transmission power required by the transducer array, and to include the feature of Wood ‘806 in order to plan and guide the deposition of HIFU energy.
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salomir ‘494 in view of Cain et al. (US 2016/0184616, hereinafter Cain ‘616).
In re claim 13, Salomir ‘494 fails to teach further configured to operate the ultrasound transducer based at least in part on the cavitation signals received by the cavitation detection device.
Cain ‘616 teaches further configured to operate the ultrasound transducer based at least in part on the cavitation signals received by the cavitation detection device (0033, 0043, 0052, 0053, 0057, 0068, 0069).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Salomir ‘494 to include the features of Cain ‘616 in order to provide feedback to treatment system for better treatments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 12, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that:
“the Applicant's spec refers to ultrasound transducers and cavitation detection devices as different devices. See, for example, paragraphs 0045 (referring to the ultrasound transducer array 102 and the cavitation detection devices 206 as different devices), 0059 (noting that cavitation detection devices are better at detecting cavitation when they are in direct contact with the scalp vs. attached to an ultrasound transducer). Accordingly, the spec does not describe that the cavitation detection device can be an ultrasound transducer as alleged.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant clearly describes that “the acoustic energy emitted by the transducer elements 104 may be above a threshold and thereby cause generation of microbubbles 202 in the liquid and/or plasma contained in the target region 101. The microbubbles 202 can be formed due to the negative pressure produced by the propagating ultrasonic waves or pulses, or when the heated liquid ruptures and is filled with gas/vapor, or when a mild acoustic field is applied to tissue that contains cavitation nuclei. The injected and/or generated microbubbles 202 may themselves create or facilitate the creation of additional microbubbles. Therefore, the actual microbubble cavitation effect on the target tissue 101 may result from a combination of the injected and/or directly generated microbubbles and microbubbles that are incidentally created in the tissue.” The acoustic energy emitted by transducer element is an ultrasound device. Applicant similarity describes such acoustic power and cavitation in para 0044-0046. Applicant also describes “cavitation events of the microbubbles 202 at the target region 101 are monitored by detecting cavitation signals 204 emanating therefrom using the ultrasound transducer array 102 and/or one or more cavitation detection devices (such as a transceiver or suitable alternative) 206.” Hence, Applicant provides the possibility that ultrasound transducer array/element can do both 1. Cavitation and 2. Detection of the cavitation. Hence, the Spec DOES describe that the cavitation detection device can be an ultrasound transducer. Applicant has not distinguished that the ultrasound transducer and the cavitation detection device are not the same is the only interpretation in the claim or the Spec.
In response to Applicant’s argument that:
“The spec defines the cavitation detection device as a device that detects cavitation signals emanating from microbubbles at the target region (0045-0046). Even without this definition, the plain meaning "detection device" is a device that detects something, and the plain meaning of "cavitation detection device" is a device that detects something having to do with cavitation. The ultrasound transducer in Salomir is not configured to detect anything, let alone cavitation.”
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant has not claimed a cavitation detection device to have any functions that detect anything in the claim. The current claim only requires a device that is attached to the skin region. From the Spec. as explained above, the cavitation detection device is an ultrasound transducer. Then, Salomir teaches an ultrasound transducer and that reads on the claim. Furthermore, a detection device detects any signals related to the cavitation would also read on the claim. For example, a device that can monitor and control the cavitation device can be a cavitation detection device. And, Salomir teaches that:
[0020] “the imaging system 102, 104 is, for example, an MRI system. The imaging system 102, 104 may be used to create a patient model that may be used in the planning of the medical treatment procedure (e.g., HIFU therapy). For example, the image processing system 104 is a workstation for treatment planning for HIFU therapy in the liver of a patient. In other embodiments, the imaging system 102, 104 may include, for example, a medical workstation, a computed tomography (CT) system, an ultrasound system, a positron emission tomography (PET) system, an angiography system, a fluoroscopy, an x-ray system, any other now known or later developed imaging system, or a combination thereof. The workstation 104 receives data representing or images of the patient (e.g., including at least part of the liver and parts of at least some of the ribs of the patient) generated by the imaging device 102.”
[0021] “The treatment device 106 may be image guided by the imaging system 102, 104. The treatment device 106 may be any number of treatment devices including, for example, an HIFU transducer. The HIFU transducer 106 may use HIFU to transmit acoustic energy into tissue (e.g., of the liver). The acoustic energy heats and/or destroys the tissue through ablation. The HIFU transducer 106 may be image guided to allow treatment planning and targeting before applying the acoustic energy. In one embodiment, the HIFU transducer 106 is MRI-guided (e.g., MRgHIFU). The position, transmission, or other operation of the HIFU transducer 106 may be controlled by the image processing system 104 or another controller (e.g., a beamformer system).
Hence, Salomir teaches a HIFU transducer which is an ultrasound transducer, and an ultrasound imaging device which is also an ultrasound transducer.
Salomir also teaches that:
[0040] The beamformer system includes, for example, a transmit beamformer with multiple channels for electrically forming a beam from an array of elements. In other embodiments, the beamformer system includes a transmitter for forming a beam with mechanical focus from a single element. The beamformer system may also include one or more lenses (e.g., a polystyrene lens) for focusing the ultrasound waves into the small focal zone, a controller for a wobbler array, filters, position sensors, combinations thereof and/or other now known or later developed components for HIFU.”
Hence, Salomir also teaches that such ultrasound system with beamform system can focusing the ultrasound waves into the small focal zone to guide the cavitation therapy. Hence, the ultrasound transducer can be used as a guidance of cavitation therapy imaging device, and hence it can be a cavitation detection device. Applicant has not distinguished the functions of these device in the claim.
In response to Applicant’s argument that:
“Assuming solely for the sake of argument that the Applicant's spec does equate the claimed cavitation detection device to an ultrasound transducer, such an ultrasound transducer would be required to be configured to detect cavitation if it were to read on claim 1. As noted above, the ultrasound transducer in Salomir is configured to emit an ultrasound beam - not to detect cavitation.”
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner disagrees. Applicant has not linked a cavitation detection device to have any functions that detect anything in the claim. The current claim only requires a device that is attached to the skin region. What if Applicant decides the cavitation detection device detects any signals related to the cavitation device. Hence, a device that can monitor and control the cavitation device can be a cavitation detection device. As show above that because the detection device can be an ultrasound transducer, and Salomir teaches ultrasound transducer, which again that Applicant acknowledges that ultrasound transducer can do both; hence, Salomir teaches cavitation detection device. Furthermore, Salomir teaches that:
[0020] “the imaging system 102, 104 is, for example, an MRI system. The imaging system 102, 104 may be used to create a patient model that may be used in the planning of the medical treatment procedure (e.g., HIFU therapy). For example, the image processing system 104 is a workstation for treatment planning for HIFU therapy in the liver of a patient. In other embodiments, the imaging system 102, 104 may include, for example, a medical workstation, a computed tomography (CT) system, an ultrasound system, a positron emission tomography (PET) system, an angiography system, a fluoroscopy, an x-ray system, any other now known or later developed imaging system, or a combination thereof. The workstation 104 receives data representing or images of the patient (e.g., including at least part of the liver and parts of at least some of the ribs of the patient) generated by the imaging device 102.”
[0021] “The treatment device 106 may be image guided by the imaging system 102, 104. The treatment device 106 may be any number of treatment devices including, for example, an HIFU transducer. The HIFU transducer 106 may use HIFU to transmit acoustic energy into tissue (e.g., of the liver). The acoustic energy heats and/or destroys the tissue through ablation. The HIFU transducer 106 may be image guided to allow treatment planning and targeting before applying the acoustic energy. In one embodiment, the HIFU transducer 106 is MRI-guided (e.g., MRgHIFU). The position, transmission, or other operation of the HIFU transducer 106 may be controlled by the image processing system 104 or another controller (e.g., a beamformer system).
Hence, Salomir teaches a HIFU transducer which is an ultrasound transducer, and an ultrasound imaging device which is also an ultrasound transducer. Salomir also teaches that “beamformer system includes, for example, a transmit beamformer with multiple channels for electrically forming a beam from an array of elements. In other embodiments, the beamformer system includes a transmitter for forming a beam with mechanical focus from a single element. The beamformer system may also include one or more lenses (e.g., a polystyrene lens) for focusing the ultrasound waves into the small focal zone, a controller for a wobbler array, filters, position sensors, combinations thereof and/or other now known or later developed components for HIFU.”
Hence, Salomir also teaches that such ultrasound system with beamform system can focusing the ultrasound waves into the small focal zone to guide the cavitation therapy. Hence, this guidance of cavitation therapy imaging device can be a cavitation detection device. Applicant has not distinguished the functions of these device in the claim. Applicant only distinguished the function of the cavitation detection device in claim 13 which is rejection in view of Cain. Hence, Applicant intentionally does not want to limit the cavitation detection device to receive the cavitation signal in claim 1.
In response to Applicant’s argument that:
Assuming solely for the sake of argument that the ultrasound transducer in Salomir could be mapped to the claimed cavitation detection device, claim 1 requires the cavitation detection device to be "configured for attachment to the corresponding skin region." The ultrasound transducer in Salomir is not configured for attachment to the corresponding skin region. Just the opposite - the ultrasound transducer is masked from the corresponding skin region (0043-0044). Therefore, Salomir does not disclose "at least one cavitation detection device configured for attachment to the corresponding skin region" as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner disagrees. Applicant has not explained the claim scope of “the cavitation detection device to be ‘configured for attachment to the corresponding skin region.’” Applicant merely argues that “The ultrasound transducer in Salomir is not configured for attachment to the corresponding skin region. Just the opposite - the ultrasound transducer is masked from the corresponding skin region.” What does that even mean?
The Examiner assumes that Applicant is arguing that the cavitation detection device as claimed is attached to the skin. However again, that is not what Applicant is claiming. The current claim only requires the cavitation detection device to be configured for attachment to the corresponding skin region. The scope of region includes both direct attachment and indirect attachment (i.e. a mask between the skin and the device). Hence, a device like Salomir which is attached at the skin region via a mask interface reads on the claim. Furthermore, Applicant has not excluded any “mask” in the claim that would prevent a detection device to have a mask. Hence, a device with a mask can still allow the device to attach to the skin directly because the mask can be considered as part of the device. Applicant has not detailed any specific structure that preclude the mask feature. Hence, Salomir reads on the claim.
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 BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BO JOSEPH PENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797