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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Acknowledgement is made of applicant’s amendment which was received by the office on 10/21/2025. Claims 10,20,24-25, 29-31, 34-35, 38, 42-46 and 48-52 are currently pending and under examination.
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.
Claims 48-52 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. Claim 48 recites “separating the first group of ECG signals assigned with index A from the second group of ECG signals assigned with index B”, however the second group of ECG signals has not been previously assigned with an index B therefore it is unclear what “index B” applicant is referring to, clarification is required. As best understood, for the purposes of examination, claim 48 has been interpreted to include separating the first group of ECG signals from the second group of ECG signals. Claims 49-52 directly or indirectly depend from claim 48 and are also rejected to for the reasons stated above regarding claim 48.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10,20,24-25, 29-31, 34-35, 38, 42-43, 46 and 48-52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 10,20,24-25, 29-31, 34-35, 38, 42-43, 46 and 48-52are directed to “a method” and “an apparatus” which describe one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process and an apparatus (Step 1, Yes).
The claim limitations within claims 35 and 38 that set forth or describe the abstract idea is/are: provide/providing a template with a template time pattern; setting a first time interval as a first window of interest; calculate/calculating times of annotations of the first group of ECG signals with a first group time pattern interrelating the times of annotations of the first group of ECG signals; formulate/formulating a comparison of similarity between the template time pattern and the first group time pattern, the first group time pattern being based on a difference between the times of annotation of each ECG signal of the first group and a first weighted average of the time of annotations of the first group of ECG signals; generate/generating a first EP map based on the first group of ECG signals and present/presenting the first EP map; when the comparison indicates that the first group time pattern corresponds to the template time pattern within a preset threshold, present/presenting graphically an occurrence of the template relative to a timeline representing the single heartbeat; setting/set a second time interval as a second window of interest; calculate/calculating times of annotations of the second group of ECG signals with a second group time pattern interrelating the times of annotations of the second group of ECG signals; formulate/formulating a comparison of similarity between any prior matched template time patterns and the second group time pattern, the second group time pattern being based on a difference between the times of annotation of each ECG signal of the second group and a first weighted average of the time of annotations of the second group; generating a second EP map based on the second group of ECG signals and present/presenting the second EP map; and when the comparison indicates that the second group time pattern corresponds to one of the prior matched template time patterns within a second preset threshold, recalculate/recalculating the prior matched template time pattern by incorporating the second group time pattern, separate/separating the first group of ECG signals corresponding to the template from the second group of ECG signals corresponding to the new template, generate/generating a first LAT map of the heart based on the first group of ECG signals indicative of a first arrhythmia and generate/generating a second LAT map of the heart based on the second group of ECG signals indicative of a second arrhythmia different from the first arrhythmia. The reasons that the limitations is/are considered an abstract idea is/are the following: The limitations of “provide/providing”, “set/setting”, “calculate/calculating”, “formulate/formulating”, “generate/generating”, “present/presenting”, “recalculate/recalculating”, “separate/separating” and “generate/generating” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “operating a processor in a template tracking mode” (claim 35) “processor configured to” (claim 38) and “a display”/ “on a display” (claims 35 and 38) nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example the “provide/providing” language in the context of the claim encompasses the user manually being provided a template with a template time pattern, e.g. a sheet of paper or strip containing the template time pattern, “set/setting” language in the context of the claim encompasses the user manually determining/setting a window of interest, “calculate/calculating” in the context of the claim encompasses the user manually, with the aid of pencil and paper, calculating time of annotation of the first group of ECG signals and second group of ECG signals, “formulate/formulating” in the context of the claim encompasses the user manually, with the aid of pencil and paper, comparing a comparison between the template time pattern and the first group time pattern and found template time patterns and the second group time pattern, “generate/generating” and “present/presenting” in the context of the claim encompasses the user, with the aid of pencil and paper, drawing or providing a first map based on the first group, an occurrence of the template relative to a timeline of the single heart beat when the first group time pattern corresponds to the template time pattern based on a preset threshold and a second map based on the second group ECG signals, “recalculate/recalculating” in the context of the claim encompasses the user manually, with the aid of pencil and paper, recalculating the prior matched template time pattern incorporating the second group time pattern, “separate/separating” in the context of the claim encompasses the user manually, with the aid of pencil and paper, separating the first group of ECG signal from the second group of ECG signals and “generate/generating” in the context of the claim encompasses the user, with the aid of pencil and paper, drawing and/or generating a first LAT map and a second LAT map.
The claim limitations within claim 48 that set forth or describe the abstract idea is/are: providing a template A with a template time pattern A; calculating times of annotations of the first group of ECG signals with a first group time pattern; generating a first time pattern for a first group…; comparing the first time pattern to the time pattern A and assigning index A… calculating times of annotations of the second group of ECG signals with a first group time pattern; generating a second time pattern for a second group…; comparing the second time pattern to the time pattern A…; generating a graph with the Template A with an occurrence of the first time pattern….; separating the first group of ECG signals assigned with index A from…; generating a first LAT map of the heart based on the first group of ECG signals indicative of a first arrhythmia and generating a second LAT map of the heart based on the second group of ECG signals indicative of a second arrhythmia different from the first arrhythmia. The reasons that the limitations is/are considered an abstract idea is/are the following: The limitations of “providing”, “calculating”, “comparing”, “generating”, “separating” and “generating” is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is nothing in the claim precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. For example the “providing” language in the context of the claim encompasses the user manually being provided a template with a template time pattern, e.g. a sheet of paper or strip containing the template time pattern, “calculating” in the context of the claim encompasses the user manually, with the aid of pencil and paper, calculating time of annotation of the first group of ECG signals and second group of ECG signals, “comparing” in the context of the claim encompasses the user manually, with the aid of pencil and paper, comparing a comparison between the template time pattern and the first group time pattern and the second time pattern to the time pattern A, “generating” in the context of the claim encompasses the user, with the aid of pencil and paper, drawing a graph with the Template A with an occurrence of the first time pattern and Template B with the occurrence of the second time pattern, “separating” in the context of the claim encompasses the user manually, with the aid of pencil and paper, separating the first group of ECG signal from the second group of ECG signals and “generating” in the context of the claim encompasses the user, with the aid of pencil and paper, drawing and/or generating a first LAT map and a second LAT map.
There is nothing to suggest an undue level of complexity in the steps of providing, setting, calculating, formulating, comparing, generating, presenting, recalculating, separating and generating. If a claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls with the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea. Although not drawn to the same subject matter, the claimed limitation(s) is/are similar to the concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as: collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016), selecting certain information, analyzing it using mathematical techniques, and reporting or displaying the results of the analysis in SAP America Inc. v. Investpic, LLC, 890 F.3d 1016, 126 USPQ2d 1638 (Fed Cir. 2018). The open/opening limitations, i.e. “when the comparison indicates that the second group time pattern does not correspond to any of the prior matched template time patterns with in within a second preset threshold, opening a new template using the second group time pattern” and/or “opening a Template B using the second time pattern…”, is a process that under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers organizing human activity by telling the computer what to do when a comparison does not correspond, i.e. managing interactions between computers.
Additionally, the limitations of, “calculate/calculating”, “formulate/formulating”, “generate/generating”, “comparing” and “recalculate/recalculating”, and “separate/separating” cover an abstract idea that is part of mathematical concepts. “A claim that recites a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, will be considered as falling within the “mathematical concepts” grouping.” MPEP 2106.04(a)(2). See for example, Parker v. Flook 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978) (calculating a number representing an alarm limit using a mathematical formula). The specification discloses using mathematical formulas and calculations to calculate times of annotations with a group time pattern and using mathematical calculations to formulate a similarity using a weighted average (e.g. para. [0048]-[0056]), i.e. the “calculate/calculating”, “formulate/formulating”, “generate/generating”, “comparing”, “recalculate/recalculating”, and “separate/separating” steps recited within the claims recite a mathematical calculation, when the claim is given its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification. The claimed steps of “calculate/calculating times of annotations of the first group of ECG signals with a first group time pattern interrelating the times of annotations of the first group of ECG signals; formulate/formulating a comparison of similarity between the template time pattern and the first group time pattern, the first group time pattern being based on a difference between the times of annotation of each ECG signal of the first group and a first weighted average of the time of annotations of the first group of ECG signals; generate/generating a first EP map based on the first group of ECG signals and present/presenting the first EP map; comparing the first time pattern to the time pattern A, calculate/calculating times of annotations of the second group of ECG signals with a second group time pattern interrelating the times of annotations of the second group of ECG signals; comparing the second time pattern to the time pattern A, formulate/formulating a comparison of similarity between any prior matched template time patterns and the second group time pattern, the second group time pattern being based on a difference between the times of annotation of each ECG signal of the second group and a first weighted average of the time of annotations of the second group; generating a second EP map based on the second group of ECG signals, recalculate/recalculating the prior matched template time pattern by incorporating the second group time pattern, when the comparison indicates that the second group time pattern corresponds to one of the prior matched template time patterns within a second preset threshold and separate/separating the first group of ECG signals corresponding to the template from the second group of ECG signals corresponding to the new template and/or separating the first group of ECG signals assigned with index A from the second group of ECG signals, recite a mathematical concept (i.e., mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations). The claimed steps recite performing mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly the claims recite an abstract idea. Although not drawn to the same subject matter, the claimed limitation(s) is/are similar to concepts that have been identified as abstract by the courts, such as: a formula for computing an alarm limit in Parker v. Flook 437 U.S. 584, 585, 198 USPQ 193, 195 (1978), the Arrhenius equation in Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 177 n.2, 179 n.5, 191-92 (1981), using an algorithm for determining the optimal number of visits by a business representative to a client, In re Maucorps, 609 F.2d 481, 482, 203 USPQ 812, 813 (CCPA 1979). Thus, the claim(s) are directed to a judicial exception and fall squarely within the realm of "abstract ideas," which is a patent-ineligible concept (Step 2A: Prong One YES).
Analyzing the claim as whole for an inventive concept, the claim does not include additional elements/steps that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. Claims 35, 38 and 48 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application. The additionally recited element(s) appended to the abstract idea include: “inserting a catheter into a heart of a subject, the catheter carrying a plurality of electrodes, contacting one or more of the plurality of electrodes of the catheter with tissue in the heart of the subject, detecting, via the one or more of the plurality of electrodes in contact with the tissue, a first group of ECG signals derived from a first single heartbeat of the subject; transmitting the first group of ECG signals from the one or more of the plurality of electrodes to a processor”, “receiving, from the one or more of the plurality of electrodes, the first group of ECG signals derived from the single heart beat…., (claims 35 ,38 and 48) “detecting, via the one or more of the plurality of electrodes in contact with the tissue, a second group of ECG signals derived from a second single heartbeat of the subject, transmitting the second group of ECG signals from the one or more of the plurality of electrodes to the processor” (claims 35 and 38), “receiving, from the one or more of the plurality of electrodes, the second group of ECG signals derived from the second signal heartbeat…” (claims 35, 38 and 48), “when the comparison indicates that the first group time pattern…..storing the first group time pattern in a buffer”, “when the comparison indicates that the second group time pattern does not…..storing the second group time pattern in the buffer” (claims 35 and 38), “when the comparison indicates that the first group….receiving a new group of ECG signals selected from a stream of annotations calculated from the plurality of electrodes” (claims 35 and 38), “catheter located in a heart of a subject and carrying a plurality of electrodes configured to contact tissue of the heart and sense a first group of ECG signals and sense a second group of ECG signals derived from a second single heartbeat of the subject, the catheter configured to transmit the first group of ECG signals and the second group of ECG signals from the plurality of electrodes to a processor” (claim 38) “processor..to process the ECG signals [operating] in a template tracking mode” (claims 35 and 38) and “a display/on a display” (claims 35 and 38). The additional elements reciting “catheter located in a heart of a subject and carrying a plurality of electrodes configured to contact tissue of the heart and sense a first group of ECG signals….”, “inserting a catheter into a heart of a subject, the catheter carrying a plurality of electrodes, contacting one or more of the plurality of electrodes of the catheter with tissue in the heart of the subject; detecting, via the one or more of the plurality of electrodes in contact with the tissue, a first group of ECG signals derived from a first single heartbeat of the subject; transmitting the first group of ECG signals from the one or more of the plurality of electrodes to a processor”, “receiving, from the one or more of the plurality of electrodes, the first group of ECG signals derived from the single heart beat…., “detecting, via the one or more of the plurality of electrodes in contact with the tissue, a second group of ECG signals derived from a second single heartbeat of the subject, transmitting the second group of ECG signals from the one or more of the plurality of electrodes to the processor”, “receiving, from the one or more of the plurality of electrodes, the second group of ECG signals derived from the second signal heartbeat…” merely: add insignificant extra-solution activity and are recited is at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of gathering ECG signals) and is merely nominally, insignificantly or tangentially related to the performance of the steps, i.e. amounts to mere data gathering, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity (pre-solution activity), all uses of the recited judicial exception require the pre-solution activity of data gathering. The additional elements reciting “when the comparison indicates that the first group time pattern…..storing the first group time pattern in a buffer”, and “when the comparison indicates that the second group time pattern does not…..storing the second group time pattern in the buffer” merely: add insignificant extra-solution activity and are recited at a high level of generality (i.e. as a general means of storing data) and is merely nominally, insignificantly or tangentially related to the performance of the steps, i.e. amounts to storing and receiving information in memory, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity, see MPEP 2106.05(d) and MPEP 2106.05 (g). The additional elements reciting “a display” or “on a display” is recited at a high level of generality and is nominally, insignificantly or tangentially related to the performance of the steps, i.e. amounts to mere displaying/presenting of results, which is a form of insignificant extra- solution activity (post-solution activity). As discussed above with respect to integration of abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of “a display” and a “processor configured to” (claim 38) to perform the steps recited in claims 35 and 38 amount to no more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer components. The “display” and “processor” are purely general-purpose computer components recited as carrying out the general-purpose computer functions of processing data and displaying to enable the abstract process. The disclosed processor and display are recited at a high level of generality as a processor that is running a signal analyzing algorithm and a display displaying the results (see specification, para. [0043]-[0058]). Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application (Step 2A, Prong Two, NO).
Analyzing the claim as whole for an inventive concept, the claim does not include additional elements/steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Claims 35, 38 and 48 do not include additional elements, alone or in combination, that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (i.e., an inventive concept) for the same reasons as described above. e.g., all elements are directed to insignificant extra-solution activity which merely facilitate the abstract idea and/or purely general-purpose computer components recited as carrying out the general-purpose computer function of processing data and displaying to enable the abstract process. The recited additional elements are well-understood, routine, conventional activity including receiving or transmitting data over a network, performing repetitive calculations and storing or retrieving information in memory, see MPEP 2106.05(d). Further, the use of “a catheter” located in a heart of a subject carrying a plurality of electrodes in contact with tissue in the heart, “transmitting ECG signals” from the plurality of electrodes to a processor for analysis, “a display” for presenting results and “a processor” for analyzing cardiac signals are well-understood, routine, conventional activity, see US 2013/0123652 to Rubenstein (e.g. Fig. 1, “Typically, probe 24 comprises a catheter which is inserted into the body of a subject 26 during a mapping procedure”, para. [0027]-[0031]) and/or US 2012/0184858 to Harlev et al. (Fig. 8, para. [0168]-[0172]) (both previously cited). Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception(s). Similarly, when considered as an ordered combination, the additional components/steps of the claim(s) add nothing that is not already present when the steps are considered separately (Step 2B: NO). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim(s) 10,20,24-25, 29-31, 34, 42-43, 46 and 49-52 depend directly or indirectly from claim(s) 35, 38 or 48. Therefore, the dependent claims rely upon the same abstract idea as the independent claim(s), as set forth above. Additionally, the dependent claims do nothing more than further limiting the abstract idea while failing to qualify as "significantly more", and the specificity of an abstract idea does not make it any "less abstract" as it is still directed to concepts relating to organizing or analyzing information in a way that can be performed mentally or is analogous to human mental work subject matter. The dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons: they merely a. further describe the abstract idea, wherein the presenting graphically… (claims 24-25), wherein the template is formulated by…(claim 29), wherein providing a template includes assigning an index (claim 30), wherein the preset threshold has ranges…(claim 31), wherein the template is based on user’s selection (claim 34), wherein the preset threshold ranges between… (claim 42), wherein the template is based…(claim 43), when the time pattern matches the time pattern A…(claim 49), Template A is selected by a user.. (claim 51), Template A is generated from a group of ECG signals of single… (claim 52) wherein b. further describe the pre-solution activity (or the structure used for such activity), contacting the one or more of the plurality of electrode with tissue (claim 10)…,electrodes located on a catheter… (claim 20), receiving a group of ECG signals with time of annotations derived from… (claim 50) and c. add insignificant extra-solution activity and/or merely indicate a field of use or technological environment to apply the judicial exception, see MPEP 2106.04(d)(2), activate ablation of an area of the heart (claim 46). Therefore, the dependent claim(s) are also not patent eligible for the reasons discussed above.
The instantly rejected claim(s) are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In the interest of advancing prosecution, the examiner suggests: providing evidence, for example, delineating how the abstract idea and/or additional elements appended to the abstract idea results in an improvement to the technology/technical field, which can show eligibility and/or adding a practical application of the claimed method outside of the computer. See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of providing evidence supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration. For additional guidance, applicant is directed generally to MPEP § 2106.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 44-45 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In view of the art that is relevant to the claimed invention the prior art does not teach or reasonably suggest, a method for mapping a heart, as specified within claim 44, in particular the specifics regarding calculating times of annotations of the first group of ECG signals with a first group time pattern interrelating the times of annotations of the first group of ECG signals, formulating a comparison of similarity between the template time pattern and the first group time pattern, the first group time pattern being based on a difference between the times of annotation of each ECG signal of the first group and a first weighted average of the time of annotations of the first group of ECG signals; generating a first EP map based on the first group of ECG signals and present/presenting the first EP map; when the comparison indicates that the first group time pattern corresponds to the template time pattern within a preset threshold, presenting graphically an occurrence of the template relative to a timeline representing the single heartbeat; setting a second time interval as a second window of interest, calculating times of annotations of the second group of ECG signals with a second group time pattern interrelating the times of annotations of the second group of ECG signals, formulating a comparison of similarity between any prior matched template time patterns and the second group time pattern, the second group time pattern being based on a difference between the times of annotation of each ECG signal of the second group and a first weighted average of the time of annotations of the second group; generating a second EP map based on the second group of ECG signals and present/presenting the second EP map; and when the comparison indicates that the second group time pattern corresponds to one of the prior matched template time patterns within a second preset threshold, recalculating the prior matched template time pattern by incorporating the second group time pattern, separating the first group of ECG signals corresponding to the template from the second group of ECG signals corresponding to the new template, generating a first LAT map of the heart based on the first group of ECG signals indicative of a first arrhythmia and a second LAT map of the heart based on the second group of ECG signals indicative of a second arrhythmia different from the first arrhythmia and delivering ablation based on the first and/or second LAT map. The prior art discloses various mapping procedures but does not teach or reasonably suggests the specific limitations disclosed above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that claims 35,38 and 48 recite additional elements/steps that integrate the judicial exception into practical application. Applicant further argues “Claims 35 and 38 recite separating the first group of ECG signals corresponding to the template from the second group of ECG signals corresponding to the new template despite these signals being received by the same set of electrodes on the catheter, and generating a first LAT map and a different second LAT map, based on the understanding that the first and second groups of ECG signals may indicate different arrhythmias that may originate from different regions of the heart…..These additional elements are neither merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity nor are they merely nominally, insignificantly or tangentially related to the performance of the steps. In particular, the step of separating the first group of ECG signals from the second group of ECG signals is a pre-solution activity that leads to generating the first and second LAT maps that are indicative of first and second arrhythmias. Claim 48 recites separating the first group of ECG signals assigned with index A from the second group of ECG signals assigned with index B which is also a pre-solution activity that leads to generating the first and second LAT maps that are indicative of first and second arrhythmias.”, see pgs. 11-12 of the response filed 10/21/2025. This is not persuasive. The added limitations that applicant has pointed to as being “additional elements” are not “additional elements” but are limitations which have been identified as being part of the abstract idea, see 101 rejection above. MPEP 2106.04 II states “(eligibility “cannot be furnished by the unpatentable law of nature (or natural phenomenon or abstract idea) itself.”). For a claim reciting a judicial exception to be eligible, the additional elements (if any) in the claim must “transform the nature of the claim” into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception, Alice Corp., 573 U.S. at 217, 110 USPQ2d at 1981, either at Prong Two or in Step 2B.” It is the additional elements in the claim which must transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible application. The inventive concept cannot be furnished by the abstract idea itself, see MPEP 2106.05.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GHAND whose telephone number is (571)270-5844. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM - 3:30PM ET.
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, JENNIFER MCDONALD can be reached on (571)270-3061. 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.
/JG/Examiner, Art Unit 3796 /Jennifer Pitrak McDonald/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796