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 Status: Claims 1-7, 9-19, and 21-22 are pending.
Examiner’s note: Even though Claims 1-7, 9-19, and 21-22 are not rejected under prior art, it is not indicated as allowable in light of pending 35 U.S.C. 101 rejections.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on October 15, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pages 11-13, Applicant stated that the amended claim simply cannot be performed in the human mind and recite a clear improvement to the functioning of computer systems.
These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
The operations in claims 1, 9, and 16 can be performed in human mind or by hand. And if computers or other machinery merely as a tool performs an existing process, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05.
The following limitations are indicated as abstract idea: determining a variance of the first measurements; confirming that the first measurements are stable by: determining that the variance of the first measurements is below a variance threshold, and determining that a medication administered to the individual is inactive during the first time period based at least in part on determining that the first time period occurred greater than a first amount of time after the medication was administered; based on confirming that the first measurements are stable, determining a baseline of the vital sign based on the first measurements; identifying a first vital sign threshold based on the baseline; determining a second vital sign threshold associated with the second time period and based on the information indicative of the second measurements; determining that at least one of the second measurements is outside of a range bounded by the second vital sign threshold.
These steps can be performed in human mind or by hand.
And if computers or other machinery merely as a tool performs an existing process, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05.
Additionally, additional elements of a generic sensor, use of network, and outputting the result of analysis are insignificant extra-solutional activities that do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
On pages 13 and 14, Applicant stated that even if arguendo all of the features that the currently pending claims recite as “known” or “conventional”, the claims at issue are still patent eligible because the claim recites a “non-conventional and non-generic arrangement” of the features and so recite an “inventive concept” and “specific technical solution”. Applicant also stated that the Office has not established that Applicant’s claim elements constitute “well-understood, routine, conventional activities” as required by the April 2018 Memo. Applicant stated that the Office does not cite a case or MPEP section as showing the performance of the recited operations as well-understood, routine, or conventional. Nor does the office cite a case or Applicant’s specification for such a showing. In summary, Applicant argued that the Office has not made a prima facie rejection of claims under Step 2B of the Mayo test.
These arguments have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant has not pointed to any specific claim elements or arrangements that their arguments apply to or any specific section of the Office Action to support their arguments.
The previous Office Action specifically included case laws in MPEP sections to support why certain limitations were considered well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. The previous Office Action also referred to specific section of the instant application to show support for well-understood, routine, and conventional activities. Applicant’s arguments are without any evidences.
On pages 14 and 15, Applicant stated that the claims have been amended to specifically tie the claimed invention to computer-centric processes that cannot be performed in the human mind, and the amended claims now clearly effectuate technological improvements to computer technologies.
This argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
The operations in claims 1, 9, and 16 can be performed in human mind or by hand. And if computers or other machinery merely as a tool performs an existing process, use of a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more. MPEP 2106.05.
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 1-7, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a method.
To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04.
The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, Claim 1 is directed towards a method.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the judicial exception relied upon by the instantly claimed invention is an abstract idea, and the limitation that sets forth or describes the abstract idea is: determining, by the computing device and utilizing the first processed signal, variance data indicating a variance of the first measurements; confirming, while the sensor is associated with the individual, that the first measurements are stable by: determining that the variance of the first measurements is below a variance threshold, and determining that a medication administered to the individual is inactive during the first time period based at least in part on determining that the first time period occurred greater than a first amount of time after the medication was administered; based on confirming that the first measurements are stable, generating a baseline for the vital sign based on the first measurements; generating a first vital sign threshold based on the baseline; generating a second vital sign threshold associated with the second time period and based on the second measurements; determining that at least one of the second measurements is outside of a range bounded by the second vital sign threshold”. The reason that the above limitations are abstract idea is because they are directed to mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
Please see the following analogous types of data manipulations that courts have found to be abstract ideas (all taken from MPEP § 2106.04):
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
The steps of data collection and usage carried out in Applicant's claims are akin to a mental process because they are the type of calculations that could theoretically be carried out mentally, but are merely implemented using generic collection technology. The 2019 revised§ 101 guidance makes clear that the "mental process" category of abstract ideas does not only apply to steps actually carried out mentally; it also applies to the types of processes that could be carried out mentally, but are instead carried out using generic processing/collection technology
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites “a computing device” which can be interpreted as a generic processor. The processing device and the programmable processor do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because it is merely using a generic processor as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites additional elements “receiving, via a network and from a sensor, a first signal”, “generating, by the computing device and utilizing a signal processor, a first processed signal from the first signal that indicates first measurements of a vital sign of an individual measured during a first time period”, “receiving, via the network and from the sensor, a second signal”, “generating, by the computing device and utilizing the signal processor, a second processed signal from the second signal that indicates second measurements of the vital sign of the individual measured during a second time period spaced in time from the first time period, and “in response to determining that at least one of the second measurements is outside of the range, transmitting, via the network and to at least one clinical device, a third signal indicating an alarm, wherein the third signal causes the at least one clinical device to automatically execute instructions to cause a physical component of the at least one clinical device to output the alarm”; however, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because receiving data and indicating an alarm amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The following are relevant examples of similar limitations which courts have found not to constitute improvements to computers or improvements to other technology or technical field:
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TIJ Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
It is further noted that merely collecting the necessary data using known, generic sensors (or other data gathering components) only amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity; see MPEP § 2106.05(g). Applicant's claimed invention does not affect/change the functionality of the technology being used. Rather, Applicant's claimed invention uses the claimed technology for its standard, well-known purpose, e.g. known sensors are used to collect data which they are known to be capable of collecting, known generic processing circuitry is used to perform data calculations/ comparisons, etc. Applicant's invention does not result in improved performance of the sensors, the processing circuitry, etc.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claim recites additional elements “receiving, via a network and from a sensor, a first signal”, “receiving, via the network and from the sensor, a second signal”, and “in response to determining that at least one of the second measurements is outside of the range, transmitting, via the network and to at least one clinical device, a third signal indicating an alarm, wherein the third signal causes the at least one clinical device to automatically execute instructions to cause a physical component of the at least one clinical device to output the alarm”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because it is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). See MPEP 2106.05(d)II.
The courts have recognized electronic recordkeeping as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log). See MPEP 2106.05(d)II.
Para. [0112] of the instant application states that the output devices are well known in the art and need not be discussed at length.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to the instantly rejected dependent claims 2-7, 21, and 22, these claims when analyzed as a whole are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to a judicial exception and/or do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a system.
To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04.
The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, Claim 9 is directed towards a system.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the judicial exception relied upon by the instantly claimed invention is an abstract idea, and the limitation that sets forth or describes the abstract idea is: determining, utilizing the first processed signal, a variance of the first measurements; confirming, while the sensor is associated with the individual, that the first measurements are stable by: determining that the variance of the first measurements is below a variance threshold, and determining that a medication administered to the individual is inactive during the first time period based at least in part on determining that the first time period occurred greater than a first amount of time after the medication was administered; based on confirming that the first measurements are stable, generating a baseline for the vital sign based on the first measurements; generating a first vital sign threshold based on the baseline; generating a second vital sign threshold associated with the second time period and based on the second measurements; determining that at least one of the second measurements is outside of a range bounded by the second vital sign threshold”. The reason that the above limitations are abstract idea is because they are directed to mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion).
The above steps can be performed in the mind or by hand. The 2019 revised§ 101 guidance makes clear that the "mental process" category of abstract ideas does not only apply to steps actually carried out mentally; it also applies to the types of processes that could be carried out mentally, but are instead carried out using generic processing/collection technology.
Please see the following analogous types of data manipulations that courts have found to be abstract ideas (all taken from MPEP § 2106.04):
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements “at least one processor” and “memory storing instructions” executable by the at least processor, which can be interpreted as a generic processor. The processing device and the programmable processor do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because it is merely using a generic processor as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites additional elements, “receiving, via a network and from a sensor, a first signal”, “generating, by the system and utilizing a signal processor, a first processed signal from the first signal that indicates first measurements of a vital sign of an individual measured during a first time period”, “receiving, via the network and from the sensor, a second signal”, “generating, by the system and utilizing the signal processor, a second processed signal from the second signal that indicates second measurements of the vital sign of the individual taken during a second time period spaced in time from the first time period, and “in response to determining that at least one of the second measurements is outside of the range, triggering an alarm”, and transmitting, via the network and to an electronic device, a command that causes the electronic device to automatically execute instructions to cause a physical component of the electronic device to output the alarm”; however, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because receiving data and indicating and outputting an alarm amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The following are relevant examples of similar limitations which courts have found not to constitute improvements to computers or improvements to other technology or technical field:
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TIJ Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
It is further noted that merely collecting the necessary data using known, generic sensors (or other data gathering components) only amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity; see MPEP § 2106.05(g). Applicant's claimed invention does not affect/change the functionality of the technology being used. Rather, Applicant's claimed invention uses the claimed technology for its standard, well-known purpose, e.g. known sensors are used to collect data which they are known to be capable of collecting, known generic processing circuitry is used to perform data calculations/ comparisons, etc. Applicant's invention does not result in improved performance of the sensors, the processing circuitry, etc.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claim recites additional elements “at least one processor”, “memory storing instructions”, “receiving, via a network and from a sensor, a first signal”, “receiving, via the network and from the sensor, a second signal”, and “in response to determining that at least one of the second measurements is outside of the range, triggering an alarm”, and “transmitting, via the network and to an electronic device, a command that causes the electronic device to automatically execute instructions to cause a physical component of the electronic device to output the alarm”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because it is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). See MPEP 2106.05(d)II.
The courts have recognized electronic recordkeeping as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log). See MPEP 2106.05(d)II.
Para. [0112] of the instant application states that the output devices are well known in the art and need not be discussed at length.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to the instantly rejected dependent claims 10-15, these claims when analyzed as a whole are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to a judicial exception and/or do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a system.
To determine whether a claim satisfies the criteria for subject matter eligibility, the claim is evaluated according to a stepwise process as described in MPEP 2106(III) and 2106.03-2106.04.
The instant claims are evaluated according to such analysis.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Yes, Claim 16 is directed towards a system.
Step 2A (Prong 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes, the judicial exception relied upon by the instantly claimed invention is an abstract idea, and the limitation that sets forth or describes the abstract idea is: determining that the second measurements are below a first threshold; determining, by the system and utilizing the first processed signal, a variance of the first measurements; confirming, while the vital sign sensor and the movement sensor are associated with the individual, that the first measurements are stable by: determining that the variance of the first measurements is below a variance threshold, and determining that a medication administered to the individual is inactive during the first time period based at least in part on determining that the first time period occurred greater than a first amount of time after the medication was administered; based on confirming that the first measurements are stable, generating a baseline of the vital sign based on the first measurements by calculating an arithmetic mean of the first measurements; generating a second threshold of the vital sign based on the baseline, the second threshold being a predetermined percentage of the baseline; determining that the fourth measurements are below the first threshold; determining that at least one of the third measurements is outside of a range bounded by the second threshold”. The reason that the above limitations are abstract idea is because they are directed to mental process (observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) and mathematical concepts.
The above steps can be performed in the mind or by hand. The 2019 revised§ 101 guidance makes clear that the "mental process" category of abstract ideas does not only apply to steps actually carried out mentally; it also applies to the types of processes that could be carried out mentally, but are instead carried out using generic processing/collection technology.
Please see the following analogous types of data manipulations that courts have found to be abstract ideas (all taken from MPEP § 2106.04):
collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351-52, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1740 (Fed. Cir. 2016)
Step 2A (Prong 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No, the claim recites additional elements “at least one processor” and “memory storing instructions” executable by the at least processor, which can be interpreted as a generic processor. The processing device and the programmable processor do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because it is merely using a generic processor as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claim recites additional elements, “a vital sign sensor”, “a movement sensor”, “an electronic device configured to output an alert”, “receiving, via a network and from the vital sign sensor, a first signal”, “generating, by the system and utilizing a signal processor, a first processed signal from the first signal indicating first measurements of the vital sign of an individual measured during a first time period”, “receiving, via the network and from the movement sensor, a second signal”, “generating, by the system and utilizing the signal processor, a second processed signal from the second signal indicating second measurements of the movement of the individual measured during the first time period”, “receiving, via the network and from the vital sign sensor, a third signal”, “generating, by the system and utilizing the signal processor, a third processed signal from the third signal indicating third measurements of the vital sign measured during a second time period spaced in time from the first time period, “receiving, via the network and from the movement sensor, a fourth signal indicating fourth measurements of the movement measured during the second time period”, and “in response to determining that at least one of the third measurements is outside of the range, transmitting, via the network and to the electronic device, a fifth signal indicating an instruction to output an alarm identifying the individual, wherein the instruction causes the electronic device to automatically execute instructions to cause a physical component of the electronic device to output the alarm”; however, these additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because receiving data and indicating an alarm amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity.
The following are relevant examples of similar limitations which courts have found not to constitute improvements to computers or improvements to other technology or technical field:
Gathering and analyzing information using conventional techniques and displaying the result, TIJ Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48.
It is further noted that merely collecting the necessary data using known, generic sensors (or other data gathering components) only amounts to insignificant extrasolution activity; see MPEP § 2106.05(g). Applicant's claimed invention does not affect/change the functionality of the technology being used. Rather, Applicant's claimed invention uses the claimed technology for its standard, well-known purpose, e.g. known sensors are used to collect data which they are known to be capable of collecting, known generic processing circuitry is used to perform data calculations/ comparisons, etc. Applicant's invention does not result in improved performance of the sensors, the processing circuitry, etc.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No, the claim recites additional elements “at least one processor”, “memory storing instructions”, “a vital sign sensor”, “a movement sensor”, “an electronic device configured to output an alert”, “receiving, via a network and from the vital sign sensor, a first signal”, “receiving, via the network and from the movement sensor, a second signal”, “receiving, via the network and from the vital sign sensor, a third signal”, “receiving, via the network and from the movement sensor, a fourth signal indicating fourth measurements of the movement measured during the second time period”, and “in response to determining that at least one of the third measurements is outside of the range, transmitting, via the network and to the electronic device, a fifth signal indicating an instruction to output an alarm identifying the individual, wherein the instruction causes the electronic device to automatically execute instructions to cause a physical component of the electronic device to output the alarm”. The additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, because it is simply appending well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception (See MPEP 2106.05(d)).
The courts have recognized receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data, as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Symantec, 838 F.3d at 1321, 120 USPQ2d at 1362 (utilizing an intermediary computer to forward information); TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 610, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1745 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (using a telephone for image transmission); OIP Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., 788 F.3d 1359, 1363, 115 USPQ2d 1090, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). See MPEP 2106.05(d)II.
The courts have recognized electronic recordkeeping as well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner or as insignificant extra-solution activity: Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 225, 110 USPQ2d 1984 (2014) (creating and maintaining "shadow accounts"); Ultramercial, 772 F.3d at 716, 112 USPQ2d at 1755 (updating an activity log). See MPEP 2106.05(d)II.
Para. [0112] of the instant application states that the output devices are well known in the art and need not be discussed at length.
Therefore, the claim is not patent eligible.
With regards to the instantly rejected dependent claims 17-19, these claims when analyzed as a whole are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to a judicial exception and/or do not add significantly more to the judicial exception. Therefore, the claim(s) is/are not patent eligible.
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 VYNN V HUH whose telephone number is (571)272-4684. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday from 9 am to 5 pm.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached on (571) 270-5213. 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.
/Benjamin J Klein/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/V.V.H./
Vynn Huh, February 15, 2026
Examiner, Art Unit 3792