Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's submission filed on 07/16/2025 has been entered. Accordingly, claims 1, 21-28, 30-32, 35-37, and 39 remains pending, claim 1, 25-26, 28, 31, and 39 have been amended, claims 29, 33-34, and 38 have been canceled, and claims 40-43* have been added.
*See the restriction by original presentation below, which restricts and withdraws newly presented claims 40-42.
Response to Arguments
Rejections under 35 USC 112
In light of applicant's amendments filed 07/16/2025 cancelling claims 29, 33-34, and 38, the previous rejections under 112(a) & (b) are rendered moot and have been withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 USC 102/103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new grounds of rejection has been presented. Consequently, the arguments do not apply to new references or the new combination of the references being used in the current rejection.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 40-42 directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: they are drawn to distinct species from the currently examined invention. Claim 40 corresponds to an embodiment illustrated in FIG. 13 described in [0043], [0144], claim 41 corresponds to another embodiment illustrated in FIG. 14 described in [0044], [0145], and claim 42 corresponds to yet different embodiment illustrated in FIG. 12 described in [0042], [0140].
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 40-412 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 21-28, 30-32, 35-37, 39, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite “the coupling mechanism configured to removably secure the infant support to a stationary component of the MRI device” in lines 4-6, while the term “stationary” appears to rely on the coupling mechanism that couples the RF coil assembly to an MRI device base and for positioning the infant support relative to the RF coil assembly (see [0149], FIG. 17); and that the coupling mechanism may be any suitable coupling means (e.g., screws, adhesive, soldering, welding, etc.) (see [0149]); in another embodiment, the coupling mechanism includes features that facilitate coupling of an infant support (e.g., infant support) to the coupling mechanism (see [0155], FIG. 26), one or more holes are provided in the coupling mechanism 300 for receiving one or more fasteners (i.e., a screw, wedge, etc.) that facilitate coupling of a MRI device base (e.g., MRI device base) to the coupling mechanism (see [0155]); and in yet another embodiment, the coupling mechanism comprises a wing on each side of the coupling mechanism, and the wings press down on snaps as the base is moved towards coupling mechanism to further secure the base to the coupling mechanism (see [0157], [0158], FIG. 27, FIG. 30; in this embodiment, It appears, although that it is unclear, that the component, is being indicating flexibility and not completely stationary).
However, this does not provide support for what is claimed, and no basis has been pointed to for these new limitations in applicant' s remarks. In the absence of support for the newly recited limitations, these claims and claims dependent thereon are deemed to constitute new matter. This is a NEW MATTER rejection.
Claims 25-26, 28, 39, and 43 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
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.
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(s) 1, 24-28, 30-32, 35-37, 39, and 43 are rejected u under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapoport (US20160089055), in view of Rapoport and Azulay et al. (US20180153435, hereafter “Azulay”).
Regarding claim 1, Rapoport teaches an infant support for securing an infant to be imaged using to a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) device*, the MRI device having an imaging region therein (see MRD bore 700 in FIG. 7), the infant support comprising:
a base (see as labeled in modified FIG. 3A below);
a coupling mechanism extending from the base in a direction along a longitudinal axis of the infant support, the coupling mechanism configured to couple with a component of the MRI device ([0586], [0591], see FIGS. 3A-3G having a portion in both sides of the distal end of the base, the coupling portion which extends vertically having one portion on lateral each side of the head coupling infant support to the RF 100 and hence to the MR device as seen on FIGS. 6 and 7, see as labeled in modified FIG. 3A below);
a tray extending along the longitudinal axis from a distal end of the tray to a proximal end of the tray (see as label in modified FIG. 3A below, tray structure supporting the infant); and
a bridge coupling to the base to the tray (see as labeled in modified FIG. 3A below) and to leaving a gap between the base and the tray (see vertical gap between the and tray/bridge modified FIGS. 3A, 3C-3D below), the gap providing a vertical offset between the coupling mechanism and the distal end of the tray (see modified FIGS. 3A, 3C-3D below, the vertical offset between the tray and the coupling mechanism extending from the distal end of the base in a vertical direction), but does not explicitly disclose the coupling mechanism configured to removably secure the infant support to a stationary component** of the MRI device.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Azulay teaches a coupling mechanism configured to removably secure the infant support to a stationary component** of the MRI device (claim 26, [0141], FIGS. 2, 11A-11B, the bore of the MRI device receives the infant support 210, and the bore having surfaces 1128 a, 1128 b that can complementarily engage/removably connect with the surfaces of the RF shielding structure via the connector 1126 of the bore, such that the access port 342 is closed to form a closed tubular like structure for one or more medical devices to remain connected to the infant while the infant is within bore the MRI).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infant support disclosed by Rapoport with the coupling mechanism configured to removably secure the infant support to a stationary component of the MRI device as taught by Azulay in order to provide a constant environment for the baby and a less physically challenging mechanism for transporting the baby when transporting the baby within the capsule via the cart ([0154] of Azulay).
*For the purposes of examination, the term from now on has been interpreted in light of the specification to mean any of the definitions provided in the specification including a helmet base, the helmet base comprising the groove (see [0020], [0027]); first and second B0 magnets organized in a bi-planar arrangement (see [0126]), a RF coil assembly that can be adapted for use with an infant (see [0154]); a RF coil assembly, or an MRI device alone, or an RF coil assembly alone to facilitate MR imaging of an infant (see [0184]); and/or any other structural or functional means known in the art of MR imaging capable of being used to obtain MR images of an infant subject.
**For the purposes of examination, the term from now on has been interpreted in light of the specification to mean any one of the definitions provided in the specification including a helmet (see [0080]); a cover, an enclosure, the outer shell, electronic components such as the first and second RF coils of the RF coil assembly ([0103]-[0104], FIG. 4); those which enable adaptation of an adult MRI device (see [0108]); a workstation, a controller, a pulse sequences store, a power management system, and a magnetic components including B0 magnet, shims, correction coils, pole piece, RF transmit and receive coils, and gradient coils (see [0114]-[0114], FIG. 10B); one or more power components configured to power a component of the system (see [0128]); the inclined ramp or support bridge (see [0144]); and/or any other structural or functional means known in the art of MR imaging capable of coupling a base of an infant support to a MRI device as defined in *above.
PNG
media_image1.png
444
873
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
401
602
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
602
913
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 24, Rapoport substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Rapoport discloses wherein the distal end of the tray is shaped to support a head of the infant (see above in modified FIG. 3C the distal end of the tray is shaped to support the head of the infant).
Regarding claim 25, Rapoport, in view of Azulay, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Rapoport discloses wherein the infant support is configured such that the distal end of the tray is positioned in a field of view of the MRI device when the coupling mechanism secures the infant support to the MRI device (see above modified FIGS. 3A, 3C-3D, the distal end of the tray is positioned in a field of view of the MRI device 100 in FIG. 3A, when the coupling mechanism secures the infant support to the MRI device as shown in FIGS. 3C-3D); and specifically, Azulay disclosing the coupling mechanism secures the infant support to the stationary component of the MRI device (claim 26, [0141], FIGS. 2, 11A-11B, the bore of the MRI device receives the infant support 210, and the bore having surfaces 1128 a, 1128 b that can complementarily engage/removably connect with the surfaces of the RF shielding structure via the connector/stationary component 1126 of the bore, such that the access port 342 is closed to form a closed tubular like structure for one or more medical devices to remain connected to the infant while the infant is within bore the MRI).
Regarding claim 26, Rapoport, in view of Azulay, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Rapoport discloses wherein the gap is sized to fit a portion of the MRI device extending into the gap when the coupling mechanism of the infant support is coupled to the component of the MRI device (see above modified FIGS. 3A, 3C-3D, the gap is sized to fit a portion of the MRI device 100 extending into the gap shown in FIG. 3C when the coupling mechanism of the infant support is coupled to the component of the MRI device, as shown in FIGS. 3A, 3C-3D); and specifically, Azulay disclosing the stationary component of the MRI device (claim 26, [0141], FIGS. 2, 11A-11B, the bore of the MRI device receives the infant support 210, and the bore having surfaces 1128 a, 1128 b that can complementarily engage/removably connect with the surfaces of the RF shielding structure via the connector/stationary component 1126 of the bore, such that the access port 342 is closed to form a closed tubular like structure for one or more medical devices to remain connected to the infant while the infant is within bore the MRI).
Regarding claim 27, Rapoport substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Rapoport discloses wherein the coupling mechanism comprises a first arm and a second arm, the first and second arms extending from the base in the direction along the longitudinal axis (see FIGS. 3B and 3G having a portion 109 in both sides of the tray or FIG. 3F having one portion on lateral each side of the head coupling the tray to the RF 100 and hence to the MR device as seen on FIGS. 6 and 7, see as labeled in modified FIG. 3A above, [0262]-[0263], virtual motion track provided by 109, the movable portion is connected to a sliding motion providing mechanism such as telescopic arms, folding arms, arms, angled arms, etc.).
Regarding claim 28, Rapoport, in view of Azulay, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Rapoport discloses wherein the first and second arms are configured to be received by respective receiving portions of ([0591], see modified FIGS. 3C-3D above, the handle/arms/rails of the coupling mechanism are configured for connection to the MRI device [RF coil]); and specifically, Azulay disclosing the stationary component of the MRI device (claim 26, [0141], FIGS. 2, 11A-11B, the bore of the MRI device receives the infant support 210, and the bore having surfaces 1128 a, 1128 b that can complementarily engage/removably connect with the surfaces of the RF shielding structure via the connector/stationary component 1126 of the bore, such that the access port 342 is closed to form a closed tubular like structure for one or more medical devices to remain connected to the infant while the infant is within bore the MRI).
Regarding claim 30, Rapoport substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Rapoport discloses wherein the first arm comprises a first snap at a distal end of the first arm, and the second arm comprises a second snap at a distal end of the second arm, the first and second snaps being configured to facilitate secure positioning of the infant support relative to an RF coil assembly of the MRI device (see modified FIG. 3F below, S1 (a first S1 and second S1 snap on each respective side of the base, only one side is illustrated), and S2 (having a first S2 and second S2 snap on each respective side of the RF coil), are snaps and both S1 and S2 snap together for secure positioning of the infant support relative to an RF coil assembly).
PNG
media_image4.png
467
753
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 31, Rapoport substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Rapoport discloses wherein the first and second arms slope upward in the direction along the longitudinal axis ([0111], [0258], [0276] the arms may tilt/incline/sloped and/or angled in such a way to allow maneuvering of the infant support).
Regarding claim 32, Rapoport substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Rapoport discloses wherein the first and second arms comprises first second snaps, respectively, and wherein the first and second snaps are elevated with respect to the base (see modified FIG. 3F above, S1 being a first S1 and second S1 snap on each respective side of the base, only one side is illustrated, are snaps and both S1 snaps are elevated with respect to the bottom of the base).
Regarding claim 35, Rapoport substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Rapoport discloses wherein the tray comprises sides extending upwards from the tray for supporting a head of the infant therebetween (see tabs 105 at top of tray 101 for supporting the infant’s head in FIG. 3B, and as described in [0590]).
PNG
media_image5.png
593
585
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 36, Rapoport substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Rapoport discloses in another embodiment wherein the sides comprises slots sized to receive a restraint for wrapping around a body of the infant (FIG. 4A, [0278], [0641] the sides of the tray comprise means to confine the infant, including as a belt (112) having a buckle (113) [illustrated as having a slot in FIG. 4A), loop, latch, or straps, hugger, restraint, concave shaped sponge like support, etc. including various combinations of immobilizing at least one body part or limb of the infant).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tray of the infant support disclosed by the first embodiment of Rapoport with having sides which comprise slots sized to receive a restraint for wrapping around a body of the infant in order to hold the body position of the neonate, so as to restrict movement of the neonate when the belt is inserted into the slots to be in a closed position immobilizing the patient during a time of imaging ([0024], [0278], [0642] of Rapoport).
Regarding claim 37, Rapoport substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Rapoport discloses wherein the infant support is separate from the MRI device and removably securable thereto ([0598], FIG. 5 describes infant support being separate and configured to linearly reciprocate an RF coil assembly/MRI device), and wherein the infant support is configured to be movable away from the MRI device when decoupled from the MRI device ([0660], FIGS. 1-11 describes removing the infant support away from MRI device when imaging is not required).
Regarding claim 39, Rapoport, in view of Azulay, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Rapoport discloses in another embodiment wherein when the coupling mechanism is secured to a component of the MRI device ([0641], FIGS. 8A-8E, a sliding mechanism permits at least a linear movement of the RF coil with relation to the infant support along the neonate's body longitudinal axis via movement on a track under the infant support. The sliding mechanism further comprises a latching device configured for locking the position of the RF coil is the desired location), the distal end of the tray is inserted into an RF coil assembly of the MRI device (see distal end of infant support is inserted into the MRI device on the right-hand side of FIGS. 8A-8E); and specifically, Azulay disclosing wherein when the coupling mechanism is secured to the stationary the stationary component of the MRI device (claim 26, [0141], FIGS. 2, 11A-11B, the bore of the MRI device receives the infant support 210, and the bore having surfaces 1128 a, 1128 b that can complementarily engage/removably connect with the surfaces of the RF shielding structure via the connector/stationary component 1126 of the bore, such that the access port 342 is closed to form a closed tubular like structure for one or more medical devices to remain connected to the infant while the infant is within bore the MRI).
Regarding claim 43, Rapoport, in view of Azulay, substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Azulay discloses wherein the stationary component of the MRI device is an RF coil assembly fixedly coupled to a base of the MRI device (FIGS. 11A-11B, the bore of the MRI device receives the infant support 210, and the bore having surfaces 1128 a, 1128 b, the connector/stationary component 1126 is fixed to an internal base surface of the bore of the MRI device).
Claim(s) 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapoport, in view of Azulay, as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Srinivasan (US20040075437).
Regarding claim 21, Rapoport substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Rapoport discloses wherein the base has a first length along the longitudinal axis, the bridge has a second length along the longitudinal axis, and the tray has a third length along the longitudinal axis (see above modified FIGS. 3A-3C illustrating the base having the coupling mechanism at the distal end of base included in the first length along the longitudinal axis, the bridge having a second length along the longitudinal axis, and the tray having a third length along the longitudinal axis), and wherein the first length of the distal end of the base extends beyond the length of the second length of the distal end of the bridge (see above modified FIGS. 3A-3C illustrating the coupling mechanism at the distal end of base where the coupling mechanism extends vertically is also shown as extending beyond the longitudinal length bridge in a distal direction on a longitudinal axis of the infant support), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first length of the base along its entire longitudinal axis as being greater than the second length along the entire longitudinal axis of the bridge.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Srinivasan teaches wherein the first length of the base along the longitudinal axis (see modified FIG. 8 below, base 102 having a first length in along longitudinal axis) is greater than the second length along the longitudinal axis of the bridge (see modified FIG. 8 below, bridge (see as labeled in figure (no reference number)) illustrated in the left-hand side of the figure as extending between a portion the base 102 and a portion the tray 104, the bridge having a second length in along longitudinal axis shown as being less than the first length of the base along the longitudinal axis).
PNG
media_image6.png
620
794
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infant support of Rapoport with the first length of the base along the longitudinal axis being greater than the second length along the longitudinal axis of the bridge as taught by Srinivasan in order to so that the infant patient on the tray may be positioned off of the base and elevated to be positioned closer to the magnetic bore for imaging ([0067]-[0068] of Srinivasan).
Regarding claim 22, Rapoport discloses wherein the base has a first length along the longitudinal axis, the bridge has a second length along the longitudinal axis, and the tray has a third length along the longitudinal axis (see above modified FIGS. 3A-3C illustrating the base having the coupling mechanism at the distal end of base included in the first length along the longitudinal axis, the bridge having a second length along the longitudinal axis, and the tray having a third length along the longitudinal axis), and the third length at the distal end of the tray extends beyond the length of the second length of the bridge of the distal end (see above modified FIGS. 3A-3C illustrating the distal end of tray is shown as extending beyond the longitudinal length of the distal end of the bridge along the longitudinal axis of the infant support), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the third length of the tray along its entire longitudinal axis as being greater than the second length along the entire longitudinal axis of the bridge.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Srinivasan teaches wherein the third length of the tray along the longitudinal axis (see modified FIG. 8 above, tray 104 having a first length in along longitudinal axis) is greater than the second length along the longitudinal axis of the bridge (see modified FIG. 8 below, bridge (see as labeled in figure (no reference number)) illustrated in the left-hand side of the figure as extending between a portion the base 102 and a portion the tray 104, the bridge having a second length in along longitudinal axis shown as being less than the third length of the tray along the longitudinal axis).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infant support of Rapoport with the third length of the tray being greater than the second length of the bridge as taught by Srinivasan in order so that the infant patient on the tray may be positioned off of the base so that the local coil may be positioned over the infant patient for imaging ([0067]-[0068] of Srinivasan).
Regarding claim 23, Rapoport discloses wherein the base has a first length along the longitudinal axis, the bridge has a second length along the longitudinal axis, and the tray has a third length along the longitudinal axis (see above modified FIGS. 3A-3C illustrating the base having the coupling mechanism at the distal end of base included in the first length along the longitudinal axis, the bridge having a second length along the longitudinal axis, and the tray having a third length along the longitudinal axis), and wherein both the first length of the distal end of the base and the third length at the distal end of the tray extends beyond the length of the second length of the bridge of the distal end (see above modified FIGS. 3A-3C illustrating distal portion of the first length the base where the coupling mechanism extends vertically and the distal end of the third length of tray are both shown as extending beyond the distal end of second length of the bridge along the longitudinal axis of the infant support), but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first length of the base along its entire longitudinal axis and the third length of the tray along its entire longitudinal axis as both being greater than the second length along the entire longitudinal axis of the bridge.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Srinivasan teaches wherein both the first length and the third length (see modified FIG. 8 above, base 102 having a first length in along longitudinal axis and the tray 104 having a first length in along longitudinal axis) are greater than the second length (see modified FIG. 8 above, bridge (see as labeled in figure (no reference number)) illustrated in the left-hand side of the figure as extending between a portion the base 102 and a portion the tray 104, the bridge having a second length in along longitudinal axis shown as being less than both the first length of the base along the longitudinal axis and the third length of the tray along the longitudinal axis).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infant support of Rapoport with both the first length of the base and the third length of the tray being greater than the second length of the base as taught by Srinivasan in order that the local coil may be positioned over the infant patient and so that the infant patient on the tray may be positioned off of the base as to be elevated in order to be positioned closer to the magnetic bore for imaging and ([0067]-[0068] of Srinivasan).
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 AMY SHAFQAT whose telephone number is (571)272-4054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-5:30PM MST.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798