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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 21, 44, and 45, and dependents, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 21, Applicant recites “a remote control device of a remote glucose monitor” [emphasis added]. However, this claim limitation is not found, explicitly, in the specification and it is unclear if this limitation is a typographical error of “a remote control device or a remote glucose monitor” (see the verbiage of pending Claim 32 and the previous verbiage of Claim 21 as presented on 22 January 2025) or if this claim limitation is seeking to require that the remote control device of Claim 21 is necessarily a remote control device required to be used in further association with a remote glucose monitor. Specifically, the conjunction “or” indicates an alternative where the claim may be met by either communicative coupling of the pump with a remote control device OR communicative coupling of the pump with a glucose monitor, whereas “of” requires that the coupling occur with a remote control device, wherein that remote control device is ALSO used to control a glucose monitor.
Regarding Claim 44, Applicant recites “wherein the first set of functions includes… communicatively coupling the user-wearable infusion pump with a remote control device; communicatively coupling the user-wearable infusion pump to a remote glucose monitor”. However, this limitation creates confusion because parent Claim 21 requires “…the second function comprising initiating communicative coupling of the user-wearable infusion pump with a remote control device of [sic] a remote glucose monitor”. Here, Claim 44 identifies the second function from Claim 21 as part of the first set of functions when Claim 21 requires it to comprise part of the second set of functions. The conditions necessary to perform the second set of functions require the operation to be conducted “when the wireless charging signal provided by the inductive charging device [is] being received…” and the first set of functions require the operation to be conducted “when the wireless charging signal provided by the inductive charging device is not being received…”
Regarding Claim 44, Applicant recites “wherein the first set of functions includes…” However, this limitation creates confusion inasmuch as it is unclear if Claim 21 does or does not require any or all of the functions of these “first set of functions” to be performable by the device. Specifically, Claim 21 requires that input “cause the user-wearable infusion pump to execute a first function of a first set of functions in response to the input” and that this specifically includes “the first function” to comprise “initiating a medicament delivery operation”. As such, “the first function” is particularly pointed out and positively required, but the remainder of the “first set of functions” is ambiguous as to whether or not these functions are required to actually be performable by the device and whether these functions are performed, conditionally, based on the lack of a wireless charging signal being provided. Further interpretation of this claim is confounded, as discussed above, by two of the functions identified as part of the “first set of functions” (re: “communicatively coupling…”) being specifically enumerated as the “second function” of the “second set of functions”, whereby the “first set of functions” and the “second set of functions” appear to be exclusionary of one another in Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 45, Applicant recites “wherein the second set of functions includes…” However, this limitation creates confusion inasmuch as it is unclear if Claim 21 does or does not require any or all of the functions of these “seocnd set of functions” to be performable by the device. Specifically, Claim 21 requires that input “cause the user-wearable infusion pump to execute a second function of a second set of functions in response to the input” and that this specifically includes “the second function” to comprise “initiating communicative coupling…”. As such, specific “the second function” is particularly pointed out and positively required, but the remainder of the “second set of functions” is ambiguous as to whether or not these functions are required to actually be performable by the device and whether these functions are performed, conditionally, based on the presence of a wireless charging signal being provided. For the sake of prosecution, it will be presumed that Claim 45 requires the device to be configured to, situationally, perform EACH of the identified functions in the “second set of functions” based upon input at the button in the presence of the wireless charging signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 21-27, 29, 32-38, 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2017/0173261 (“O’Connor”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0274576 (“Amirouche”), U.S. Publication No. 2012/0238851 (“Kamen”), U.S. Publication No. 2013/0234656 (“Lambert”), and U.S. Publication No. 2016/0342759 (“Shapely”).
Regarding Claims 21 and 32, O’Connor discloses a user-wearable infusion pump (102), the pump comprising:
A reservoir configured to contain a medicament (Par. 14);
A drive mechanism configured to facilitate delivery of the medicament to a user (i.e. the pumping mechanism which affects release of the medicament from the reservoir, see Par. 14);
A rechargeable battery (Par. 14) configured to be charged wirelessly (Par. 44);
An input button (Par. 45); and
A processor functionally linked to the input button and configured to receive input for control of functions of the user-wearable infusion pump in response to input received via the input button (Par. 16, 39, 46, 53), wherein the processor is configured to detect an input (e.g. “tapping or pressing”) received via the input button to confirm a command to be performed (Par. 39, 46), said command being stored in memory (Par. 11, 32, 50).
O’Connor discloses the invention substantially as claimed except that the processor is configured to determine “types of activation” of the input button to associate each of the different “types” with corresponding functions of the pump device with these functions being stored in the memory of the device. While O’Connor does casually mention two types of activation (e.g. tapping or pressing a button – Par. 39) it is not clear if these are intended to reference to distinctly different types of input (e.g. a short press vs. long press with the duration of the input being relevant for differentiating between types) or are being used as analogs/synonyms of one another to define the same, non-distinct type of input. As such, O’Connor is ambiguous as to the ability for the process of the pump to differentiate between inputs based upon duration or frequency (e.g. a short press vs. a long press and/or a single tap vs. a double tap…etc.)
However, Amirouche discloses a related pump device (100) which like that described by O’Connor may comprise a button which can actuated by the user in order to execute functions. Amirouche discloses that the button may be multi-functional such that the processor can detect and distinguish between different types of input provided at the button by the user and differentiate between these input types to assign different pump functions dependent upon the particularly provided input characteristics (Par. 57 – e.g. the pump of Amirouche is particularly configured to differentiate a short press to provide a first function from a long press to provide a second, different function).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the button and processor of the pump device of O’Connor to be configured to differentiate between input types at the button (e.g. differentiating a long press vs. a short press), as disclosed by Amirouche, in order to allow the button to be multi-function whereby a single button can receive diverse input types to execute two different situationally relevant commands.
Among such diverse, situationally relevant commands that one having ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious to supply to the device of modified O’Connor would comprise examples such as a confirm command and a cancel command (see Kamen – Par. 89) whereby it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the device of O’Connor to utilize different input types at the button to distinguish a short-press to confirm a command at the pump versus a long-press to cancel a command at the pump (or vice versa). The ordinary artisan would have been motivated to perform such a modification to allow for unwanted or improperly set commands to be canceled, via the pump, to avoid delivering unwanted or mistakenly set operations.
O’Connor, as modified discloses that the pump device is communicatively coupled, i.e. paried, to a remote control (e.g. 116 – Par. 28) and/or a remote glucose monitor (108 – Par. 22). O’Connor, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed except that processor is configured to “determine” whether or not a wireless charging signal provided by an inductive charging device is being received by a receiving coil in the pump device. While O’Connor does suggest that wireless charging can be implemented, O’Connor fails to expand upon the exact nature of this wireless charging hardware and software. Likewise, while Amirouche also describes wireless charging (Par. 66, 73) the disclosure as to the exact hardware and software is limited, with Amirouche only broadly reciting that such wireless charging may be performed via “remote power conduction or induction” (Par. 73).
However, such inductive wireless charging systems are well-known in the art. For example, Lambert discloses a wirelessly rechargeable device (see e.g. 16) which is configured to receive a wireless charging signal provided by an inductive charging docking station (10), wherein the rechargeable device comprises a receiving coil for receiving the signal (21). Lambert discloses that this docking station may be configured to provide a two-way communication protocol (re: a “handshake” – Par. 33) such that the charger and the rechargeable device can communicate with one another to provide control over the charging operation such as heat management, i.e. the processor of the rechargeable device is able to “determine” whether or not a wireless charging signal being provided by an inductive charging device is being received by the receiving coil at any given time.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the wireless charging system of the invention of O’Connor to comprise an inductive charging coil provided in the pump device and communicating with an inductive wireless charging docking station whereby the processor of the pump executes a handshake protocol to recognize the presence of the wireless charging signal, as disclosed by Lambert, in order to allow the two devices to communicate with one another to adjust the charging operation to account for such factors as heat management and other necessary steps to regulate power exchange between the two devices.
O’Connor, as modified, discloses the invention substantially as claimed except that that the processor is configured to execute different function commands situationally depending on whether or not a wireless charging signal is being provided. Specifically, O’Connor only explicitly contemplates performing a first function (e.g. confirming a command to initiate a delivery – Par. 47, 48, 52) without any situational consideration as to the charging state of the device.
However, Shapley discloses a related delivery pump (2) which can be provided with a charging station (8), wherein the delivery pump is configured to communicate with a wireless remote handset (3) in order to assist in programming and operation of the drug delivery pump (Abstract). In order to allow for communication between the delivery pump and the handset in a secure manner Shapley describes that the delivery device and handset may undergo a “pairing” operation (Abstract; Par. 1; 10-24). To initiate the pairing operation the delivery device (2) processor (25) is configured to determine when the delivery device is received on the charging station (see Fig. 4 – S1; Par. 44) whereby following determination of a proper physical connection of the delivery device to the charger the delivery device can enter into a pairing/discovery process whereby the pump can be seen by unpaired remote handsets (Par. 44) and whereafter the remote and delivery device can be caused by user input to confirm pairing with one another to initiate the functional communicative coupling (i.e. the actual data exchange that only occurs AFTER pairing is complete).
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the device of modified O’Connor to initiate a discovery mode when the processor determines it is in the presence of a wireless charging signal indicating that it has been received by an authorized charging device, as disclosed by Shapley, in order to allow the drug delivery device and remote control device to be paired together by user input to allow the two devices to initiate a communicative coupling with one another to exchange operational data and protocol.
In the instant case Shapley fails to explicitly require that confirmation of the pairing function (i.e. initiation of the communicative coupling) is made by pressing a button at the drug delivery device when the drug delivery device determines it is on the charging station, i.e. a “second function” different from the first function. Rather, Shapley appears to expressly provide confirmation of the pairing ONLY at the remote (see S19, S22, S23 – Par. 47). However, as noted above, O’Connor suggests that for security purposes operational change commands should be confirmed at the pump device via the button (Par. 21, 39, 40). Additionally, Kamen discloses that for security purposes confirmation for initiation of the pairing should be performed at BOTH the remote interface AND the device to be paired (Par. 338). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the modified invention of O’Connor to receive input at the button while in a pairing mode such that the pairing can be either confirmed and initiated (via short press) or denied (via long press) as well as confirming the pairing at the remote control device, as disclosed by Kamen, in order to ensure that pump device cannot be paired to an remote control outside of the immediate control of the user with the user confirming the pairing at the pump itself.
As such, the invention of O’Connor when modified as described above will be configured to perform a first function (i.e. initiate delivery of a medicament bolus operation at the user-wearable infusion pump – see O’Connor, Par. 46) of a first type of operation (i.e. a drug handling operation) in situations where the device is not being charged and is in a treatment mode AND perform a second function (i.e. confirm a pairing request to initiate communicative coupling of the pump with a remote control device – see Kamen, Par. 338, said remote control device also functioning to communicate with a remote glucose monitor – see O’Connor, Par. 38) and second type of operation (i.e. a charging/device maintenance operation) when the device has been determined to be have been placed on the charging device and is therefore in the presence of a wireless charging signal, i.e. the presence of the wireless charging signal allows the device to determine that it is in a charging/maintenance mode and causes a change in function of the button to confirm or reject a pairing command instead of being used to perform a first drug delivery bolus function when the device is not being charged and instead being worn by a patient in the delivery mode.
Regarding Claims 22 and 33, O’Connor discloses the invention substantially as claimed except for explicitly reciting that the “button” is “a single button”. Examiner notes that O'Connor only recites “a button” or “the button” in the singular, never the plural, strongly implying that only a single button is present (see Par. 39, 45, 46, 53). Examiner submits that such grammar can be used as evidence to characterize the invention of O'Connor as a single button operation infusion pump. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the device of O’Connor as a single button device (supplying only the one specifically disclosed button) as it has been held that elimination of an element (and is function) requires only routine and customary skill in the art, see Ex Parte Wu,10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975). Since only a single button (and its function) are described by O’Connor, elimination of any second buttons (not described) would be obvious as no function is given to any hypothetical second button. Lacking any disclosure to a second button (and disclosure of any function associated with a second button) providing the device including only the disclosed button would be clearly obvious.
Regarding Claims 23 and 34, O’Connor explicitly illustrates the pump to not include a display screen (see Fig. 1-3B). However, O’Connor never explicitly recites that the pump positively excludes the presence of a screen, only disclosing that “a visual display” (Note not necessarily a screen) is optional (see Par. 45). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to construct the device of O’Connor without a display screen, allowing other recited structures to serve as the output device (e.g. a speaker, a vibration generator, electrodes, or lights; see Par. 45), as it has been held that elimination of an element (and is function) requires only routine and customary skill in the art, see Ex Parte Wu,10 USPQ 2031 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1989), In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347 (CCPA 1965), and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975).
Regarding Claims 24 and 35, O’Connor discloses the processor is further configured to wirelessly communicate (124, 126) pump information to a separate device for display on the separate device (see e.g. 116, 112; Fig. 1B; Par. 29).
Regarding Claims 25 and 36, O'Connor discloses that the pump may include an indicator light (Par. 45, 53).
Regarding Claims 26, 27, 37, and 38, O’Connor discloses the indicator light (RE: output device; see Par. 45, 53, 46) is functionally linked to the input button such that the indicator light illuminates to indicate that input has been received via the input button (Par. 46, i.e. the “output device may similarly alert the user after execution of the action”), the indicator occurring for the commands in general (which would include the first and second function commands described above).
Regarding Claims 29 and 40, O’Connor (as modified – see above particularly Amirouche and Lambert) obviates the implementation of an inductive wireless charging signal, i.e. a specific well-known species within the genus identified by O’Connor to obtain a predictable and expected outcome.
Claim(s) 28 and 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2017/0173261 (“O’Connor”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0274576 (“Amirouche”), U.S. Publication No. 2012/0238851 (“Kamen”), U.S. Publication No. 2013/0234656 (“Lambert”), and U.S. Publication No. 2016/0342759 (“Shapely”) as applied above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2014/0175682 (“Johnson”).
Regarding Claims 28 and 39, O’Connor discloses the invention substantially as claimed except that the indicator light is illuminated differently to differentiate between the execution of the first function and the second function. However, Johnson discloses a related medical device (RE: a pump) likewise having an indicator light (Par. 62), the light being illuminated to indicate operation of different commands of the device (Par. 63) wherein the light may be differently illuminated (e.g. color or pattern; Par. 63) depending on the specific command/function being performed. It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the indicator light of the invention of O’Connor to distinctly illuminate depending on the confirmed function, as disclosed by Johnson, in order to convey additional information to the user in the form of a user comprehendible code unique to the specific function command thereby permitting the user to visually confirm proper execution of the device.
Claim(s) 43 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2017/0173261 (“O’Connor”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2013/0274576 (“Amirouche”), U.S. Publication No. 2012/0238851 (“Kamen”), U.S. Publication No. 2013/0234656 (“Lambert”), and U.S. Publication No. 2016/0342759 (“Shapely”) as applied above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2009/0128330 (“Monroe”).
Regarding Claim 43, as discussed above, O’Connor as modified is configured to differentiate between a short press and a long press (see e.g. Amirouche – Par. 57), whereby such a differentiation is held to constitute “a single press of the input button”, “holding the input button down for a predetermined period of time”, “pressing the input button a number of times [e.g. once] with a certain period”, and “a predefined sequential pattern [e.g. a single press being a single point sequence] of presses of the input button or a predetermined length of time [e.g. the time period necessary to differentiate between a short press and a long press]”. However, should Examiner’s arguments not be found persuasive the following is presented.
Monroe discloses a related drug delivery device with a button (1050) which is configured to receive and distinguish between diverse types of user input inclusive to registering distinctive patterns, e.g. a short press then a long press then a short press (Par. 232) in order to confirm the performance of different functions. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the device of O’Connor to distinguish various multi-presses of the button performed in various sequences, patterns, and durations, as disclosed by Monroe, in order to allow certain commands to be locked behind more diverse button press combinations to ensure that a user does not accidentally execute an undesired function or accidentally cancel a desired function.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed with respect to the claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (Pg. 9) “the button press at the pump device must itself initiate the communicative coupling when the device is in the presence of the wireless charging signal. This limitation is not disclosed or suggested by any reference in the combination, individually or collectively.” However, this is not persuasive. Looking to the prior art, Shapely describes an invention wherein the act of placing a delivery pump on a charging station to be charged will cause an unpaired delivery pump to undergo a pairing operation with a remote handset. Specifically, Shapely describes that “in response to the delivery device being connected to a charging device, [setting at the delivery device] a pairing indicator that the delivery device is available for pairing” (Abstract). This places the pump into a discoverable mode, whereby the remote device can be used to select the discoverable pump to be added. However, Shapely only expressly indicates that the pairing confirmation (i.e. the initiation of a communicative coupling) occurs via user confirmation at the remote (see step S22). However, it is well known (see Kamen) that initiation of a pairing for communicative coupling should occur at both the remote interface and the device to be paired (Par. 338). As such, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to configure the system of O’Connor to initiate a pairing mode when the pump is placed on a charging device thereby permitting the pump to be discoverable by a remote control interface, as disclosed by Shapely, while further modifying the pump such that a button press AT the pump itself is needed to initiate the actual communicative coupling, as disclosed by Kamen. Specifically, the communicative coupling is not the discovery mode, but rather the functional data exchange coupling which only occurs once the two devices have actually been paired together, i.e. the exchange of command data. This initiation of the pairing coupling, as modified by Kamen, requires input at both the remote device AND the pump itself. The communicative coupling is not initiated/confirmed until confirmation input is received at the pump itself (as modified by Kamen). Without a confirmation command at the pump the pairing will never be initiated for security purposes in order to ensure that the user has control over both the pump and the remote.
Applicant argues (Pg. 10) that “[t]he charger placement is the operative trigger fro communicative coupling in Shapely…” However, this is not persuasive. Shapely indicates that the discovery mode is initiated by placement of the pump into the charger (Abstract; Step S1) but does not permit initiation of the actual communicative coupling until Step S22 which requires user input before the actual communicative coupling operation can be performed. Prior to receipt of user input there is no “communicative coupling” in the sense of an actual, encrypted, paired relationship, but rather only a higher level negotiation as to whether or not a pairing relationship SHOULD be performed. As modified in view of Kamen it would have been obvious to require input at BOTH the remote AND the pump to initiate pairing, i.e. the communicative coupling, as a security feature requiring that the user have access to BOTH the pump AND the remote.
Applicant argues (Pg. 10) “Kamen’s teaching is limited to confirmation of a pairing requires – not initiation”. However, this is not persuasive as the “communicative coupling”, as understood in the claim, is not the pairing request, per se, but the actual pairing operation which permits encrypted functional data exchange between the pump and the remote. This actual exchange is not performed/initiated UNTIL, as Kamen suggests, confirmation to the request is received at BOTH the remote and the pump. Actual pairing and subsequent data exchange is not actually initiated until AFTER confirmation.
Applicant argues (Pg. 10) “a manually depressed switch on the delivery device could be accidentally depressed (and then paired with another handset), or would only require a brief opportunity to access the delivery device to perform pairing”. However, Examiner submits that here, Shapely is referencing a button press at the pump device, alone, to make the device discoverable and pairable, not expressly admonishing the use of an additional button press to confirm initiation of a pairing operation with the remote. Modification, in view of Kamen, does not run contrary to the teachings of Shapely, but merely supplements the user input confirmation to initiate pairing at Step S22 which is to be performed at the remote handset to require an additional security step of providing additional input at the pump device itself. Such duplicative confirmation as described by Kamen is understood to be beneficial as it requires clear possession of both the remote and the pump to confirm pairing and is further echoed by O’Connor (Par. 21, 39, 40).
Examiner submits that the broadest reasonable interpretation of “initiating communicative coupling” is not necessarily made in pertinence to a “discovery mode”, but the initiation of the actual operation of “pairing”, i.e. confirming the pairing request such that the pairing operation may be performed to actually place the two devices into communicative data exchange of operation control data. Initiation of a discovery mode is certainly one type of communicative coupling, but it is not the same communicative coupling that is relied upon for the instant claim limitation. Here the initiated communicative coupling is the exchange of encrypted operational control data which only occurs after the pairing function has actually been performed – initiation of this coupling, in view of Kamen, requires input at BOTH the remote AND the pump. Discovery mode is a non-encrypted broadcast of availability where the pump effectively announces that it is available for pairing, but is itself not an operative pairing communication.
In other words, the device of O’Connor, as modified, is placed on the charging device, this initiations a discovering mode for the pump where it becomes discoverable by a remote control (see S1 – Shapely). The remote device is activated to search for discoverable pumps (see S2, S4 – Shapely) and the pump, once found, is selected at the remote (S5, S7 – Shapely). A pairing request is then sent to the pump (S18 – Shapely). Confirmation of this request requires input at the pump itself before actual pairing can be initiated (see Kamen, Par. 338; O’Connor, Par. 21, 39, 40) as well as confirmation at the remote (see S22 – Shapely). As such, initiation of the communicative coupling (i.e. the actual pairing operation itself) is not performed UNTIL after the confirmation command is received at the pump by depressing the button. Again, “discovering” the pump, while an operation which is certainly necessary for pairing to be performed, is not the same as the actual paired communication link which is not initiated until AFTER a pairing request is confirmed. Discovery is a distinctive operation that occurs prior to establishing a pairing, communicative link.
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 WILLIAM R CARPENTER whose telephone number is (571)270-3637. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. to Thus. - 7:00AM to 5:00PM (EST/EDT).
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, KEVIN SIRMONS can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/WILLIAM R CARPENTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
06/01/2026
Prosecution Insights