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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 08/13/2025 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 11-13, 16, and 21 have been amended. Claims 1-21 are currently pending in the application with claims 1, 16, and 21 being independent claims.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 16, and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claims, 1, 16, and 21, the limitation “transcranial focused ultrasound” in the preamble of the claims should be changed to “pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound” so that it would be consistent with body of claims 1, 16 and 21.
Regarding claims 1, 16, and 21, the limitation: “transmitting pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound” should be changed to read “the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound” to avoid indefinite rejection.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 11-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (“Noninvasive transcranial stimulation of rat abducens nerve by focused ultrasound”, Ultrasound in Med. And Biol., Vol 38, No. 9, pp 1568-1575, 2012) hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses a method of stimulating a response in neural populations within a brain using transcranial focused ultrasound [see abstract of Kim] comprising:
Selectively targeting at least one neural population among a plurality of neural populations in the brain by transmitting the pulsed transcranial [see page 1570, right column, last paragraph, section under “determination of sonication site” disclosing using transcranial focused ultrasound pulses] focused ultrasound [ see 1569, right column, section under “Focused ultrasound sonication” disclosing a focused transducer generating focused beams], through a cranium into a region of the brain containing the plurality of neural population [see page 1570 disclosing that the focal area of the beam is 0.33 cm2; a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there are multiple neurons in that size area; neural population has been interpreted as any number of neurons more than one], wherein the at least one neural population selectively responds to the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound; [since all of the neural population in Kim respond to the stimulation, this limitation is met since “at least one” of the neural populations responds”]
wherein the transcranial focused ultrasound comprises tone-burst waves [see page 1569, right column, section under “Focused ultrasound sonication”] with an ultrasound pulse repetition frequency of between 30 Hz and 10,000 Hz. [see page 1569, right column, last paragraph disclosing the signal to have a pulse repetition frequency of 1500 Hz which is in the claimed range] and a tone burst duration of less than1000 microseconds [see page 1569, right column, last paragraph disclosing a tone burst duration of 360 microseconds which is in the claimed range]
Regarding claim 2, Kim further discloses the waves have a constant ultrasound fundamental frequency of between 200 kHz and 2,000 kHz and the tone burst duration of 200 microseconds. [see page 1569, right column, paragraph under “Focused ultrasound sonication” disclosing the fundamental frequency to be 350KHz or 650KHz which is in the specified claim range]
Regarding claim 4, Kim further discloses that that the tone-burst waves are sinusoidal. [see page 1569, right column, last paragraph disclosing that the waves generated are sinusoidal waves]
Regarding claim 11, Kim further discloses that the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound comprises tone-burst sinusoidal waves with an ultrasound pulse repetition frequency of 1500 Hz. [see page 1569 of Kim, right column, section under “materials and methods”, last paragraph lines 4-8 discloses using sinusoidal waves at 1.5KHz PRF]
Regarding claim 12, Kim further discloses that the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound comprises tone-burst sinusoidal waves with an ultrasound pulse repetition frequency of 3000 Hz. [see page 1569 of Kim, right column, section under “materials and methods”, last paragraph lines 4-8 discloses using sinusoidal waves at 1.5KHz PRF which is about 3Kz in the broadest reasonable interpretation used]
Regarding claim 13, Kim further discloses that the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound comprises tone-burst sinusoidal waves with an ultrasound pulse repetition frequency of 4500 Hz. [see page 1569 of Kim, right column, section under “materials and methods”, last paragraph lines 4-8 discloses using sinusoidal waves at 1.5KHz PRF which is about 4.5 KHz in the broadest reasonable interpretation]
Regarding claim 14, Kim further discloses that the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound is transmitted into the brain without introducing any external materials into the brain. [see FIG. 1 and page 1569-1572, disclosing the entire process of imaging and determination which does not include an introduction of external materials into the brain]
Regarding claim 21, Kim discloses a system of stimulating a response in neural populations within a brain using transcranial focused ultrasound [see abstract of Kim] comprising: at least one transducer [FUS transducer; see page 1569, right column, section under “Focused ultrasound sonication”] for transmitting the pulsed transcranial focused [ see 1569, right column, section under “Focused ultrasound sonication” disclosing a focused transducer generating focused beams] ultrasound through a cranium [see page 1570, right column, last paragraph, section under “determination of sonication site” disclosing using transcranial focused ultrasound pulses] into an area of the brain containing a plurality of neural populations;
wherein the transcranial focused ultrasound comprises tone-burst [see page 1569, right column, section under “Focused ultrasound sonication”] with an ultrasound pulse repetition frequency of between 30 Hz and 10,000 Hz. [see page 1569, right column, last paragraph disclosing the signal to have a pulse repetition frequency of 1500 Hz which is in the claimed range] and a tone burst duration of less than1000 microseconds [see page 1569, right column, last paragraph disclosing a tone burst duration of 360 microseconds which is in the claimed range]
wherein the transcranial focused ultrasound selectively targets at least one neural population among the plurality of neural populations in the brain, [see page 1570 disclosing that the focal area of the beam is 0.33 cm2; a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there are multiple neurons in that size area; neural population has been interpreted as any number of neurons more than one], wherein the at least one neural population selectively responds to the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound; [since all of the neural population in Kim respond to the stimulation, this limitation is met since “at least one” of the neural populations responds”]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 3, 7-10, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (“Noninvasive transcranial stimulation of rat abducens nerve by focused ultrasound”, Ultrasound in Med. And Biol., Vol 38, No. 9, pp 1568-1575, 2012) hereinafter “Kim” and Tyler (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0289869) hereinafter “Tyler”.
Regarding claim 3, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above [see rejection of claim 1]
Kim does not disclose that the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound is transmitted using a transducer having a collimator positioned at a distal end.
Tyler, directed towards pulsed transcranial neuromodulation [see abstract of Tyler] further discloses that the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound is transmitted using a transducer having a collimator positioned at a distal end. [see FIG. 16A and [0024], and [0126] disclosing a collimator attached at the distal end of the ultrasound transducer]
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the method of Kim further such that the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound is transmitted using a transducer having a collimator positioned at a distal end according to the teachings of Tyler in order to stimulated restricted brain regions in a targeted manner [see [0046] of Tyler, lines 10-12]
Regarding claim 7, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above [see rejection of claim 1]
Kim does not disclose that the collimator transmits the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound through the cranium at an angle of incidence of about 40 degrees.
Tyler further discloses that the collimator transmits the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound through the cranium at an angle of incidence of about 40 degrees [see [0153] of Tyler and FIG. 16A discloses an incident angle of 30 degrees which is considered to be about 40 degrees in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim],
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to change the method Kim further and use a collimator with an angle of incidence and make it about 40 degrees according to the teachings of Tyler in order to optimize the performance of the method by optimizing the angle of incidence and delivering the ultrasound energy to the angle of the incidence of the energy determines how shallow or deep in the brain tissue the ultrasound waves are travelling, and as the angle is changed from 0 towards 90 degrees the shallower the depth of penetration of the waves will become. Therefore, by changing the angle of incidence, the exact location of the ultrasound treatment can be modified and optimized for increased potency and accuracy of the therapy delivery.
Regarding claim 8, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above [see rejection of claim 1]
Kim does not disclose that the collimator transmits the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound through the cranium at an angle of incidence of about 0 degrees.
Tyler further discloses that the collimator transmits the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound through the cranium at an angle of incidence of about 0 degrees. [see [0153] of Tyler and FIG. 16A discloses an incident angle of 30 degrees which is considered to be about 0 degrees in the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim],
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to change the method of Kim further and use a collimator with an angle of incidence and make it about 0 degrees according to the teachings of Tyler in order to optimize the performance of the method by optimizing the angle of incidence and delivering the ultrasound energy to the angle of the incidence of the energy determines how shallow or deep in the brain tissue the ultrasound waves are travelling, and as the angle is changed from 0 towards 90 degrees the shallower the depth of penetration of the waves will become. Therefore, by changing the angle of incidence, the exact location of the ultrasound treatment can be modified and optimized for increased potency and accuracy of the therapy delivery.
Regarding claim 9, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above [see rejection of claim 1]
Kim does not disclose that the collimator has an aperture with a diameter no less than a wavelength of the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound.
Tyler further discloses that the collimator has an aperture with a diameter no less than a wavelength of the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound. [see [0143] disclosing the size of the aperture as 2.00, 3.0 or 4.7 mm; [0125] further discloses that the ultrasound waves used had frequency of 0.5MHz which is equal to a wavelength of 2mm. therefore, the diameter of the aperture is no less than the wavelength of the pulsed ultrasound]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to change the method of Kim further and use a collimator which has an aperture with a diameter no less than a wavelength of the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound according to the teachings of Tyler in order to isolate the stimulation to only a small and isolated area of the brain corresponding to an isolated muscle group [see [0143] of Tyler]
Regarding claim 10, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above [see rejection of claim 1]
Kim does not disclose that the tone-burst waves have 100 sinusoidal wave cycles per pulse.
Tyler further discloses that tone-burst waves have 100 sinusoidal wave cycles per pulse. [see [0141] discloses that the ultrasound pulses using have between 80 and 225 cycles per pulse which includes the claimed 100 cycles per pulse recited.; FIG. 3 further shows that the acoustic waves used are sinusoidal.]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to change the method of Kim further and use a tone-burst waves have 100 sinusoidal wave cycles per pulse according to the teachings of Tyler order to optimize the amount of energy delivered to the tissue at each pulse. this is because the more the number of cycles per pulse would be, the more energy would be delivered to the tissue [see [0038] and FIG. 3 of Tyler]
Regarding claim 15, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above [see rejection of claim 1]
Kim does not disclose that the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound are transmitted through a plurality of transducers.
Tyler further discloses that the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound are transmitted through a plurality of transducers. [see FIG. 2; a plurality of transducers are used]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to change the method of Kim further such that the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound are transmitted through a plurality of transducers according to the teachings of Tyler in order to affect a larger area of interest at a single session and increase the efficiency of the method. Doing so would have been a simple substitution of one transducer with a plurality of transducers yielding in predictable results of faster processing of the brain and would have been obvious by an ordinarily skilled in the art (KSR rationale B)
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (“Noninvasive transcranial stimulation of rat abducens nerve by focused ultrasound”, Ultrasound in Med. And Biol., Vol 38, No. 9, pp 1568-1575, 2012) hereinafter “Kim” and He et al (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0143541) hereinafter “He”.
Regarding claim 5, Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above [see rejection of claim 1]
Kim does not disclose monitoring the location of the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound within the brain using scalp electroencephalography (EEG) recordings.
He, directed towards neuromodulation of the brain of a subject and monitoring the results [see abstract of Dunseath] further discloses monitoring the location of the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound within the brain [see [0039] disclosing sending ultrasound pulses using a focused ultrasound 206 to the brain tissue trans cranially; see FIG. 2] using scalp electroencephalography (EEG) recordings. [see [0042] disclosing monitoring the electromagnetic signals in the area of the brain which has been modulated by ultrasound waves; [0044] discloses that EEG electrodes are used to sense those signals]
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the method of Kim further and include monitoring the location of the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound within the brain using scalp electroencephalography (EEG) recordings according to the teachings of He in order to create a functional mapping of the brain to characterize the neural circuits and enable an understanding of how the brain operates in presence of neuro stimulation [see [0006] of He] Doing so would have been applying a known technique of EEG neural monitoring of He to a device ready for improvement of He resulting in predictable and improved results of increased knowledge of the effect of the neuromodulation on the brain activity and would have been obvious to try by an ordinarily skilled in the art (KSR Rationale D)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (“Noninvasive transcranial stimulation of rat abducens nerve by focused ultrasound”, Ultrasound in Med. And Biol., Vol 38, No. 9, pp 1568-1575, 2012) hereinafter “Kim” and He et al (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0143541) hereinafter “He” as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Dunseath (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0312523) hereinafter “Dunseath”.
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of He discloses all the limitations of claim 5 above [see rejection of claim 5]
Kim in view of He does not disclose that the EEG recordings are made using a flexible EEG cap comprising: a plurality of electrodes attached to a fabric substrate in a grid pattern.
Dunseath directed towards an apparatus for EEG detection of the brain tissue [see abstract of Dunseath] further discloses that the EEG recordings are made using a flexible EEG cap [see [0085] and [0100] of Dunseath discloses a flexible cap] comprising: a plurality of electrodes [see [0100] disclosing a plurality of EEG electrodes] attached to a fabric substrate [see [0102] of Dunseath] in a grid pattern [see FIG. 20; the grid pattern].
it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the method of Kim as modified by He further such that the EEG recordings are made using a flexible EEG cap comprising: a plurality of electrodes attached to a fabric substrate in a grid pattern according to the teachings of Dunseath in order to provide a flexible substate and provide comfort to the wearer of the EEG electrode cap. Doing so would have been substituting one type of electrode cap with another and would have been obvious to try to a person of ordinary skill level in the art (KSR Rationale B)
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Kim et al. (“Non-invasive transcranial stimulation of rat abducens nerves by focused ultrasound”, Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2013) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Mishelevich (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0246481) hereinafter “Mishelevich”
Regarding claim 16, Kim discloses a method of stimulating a long-term response in neural populations within a brain using transcranial focused ultrasound [see abstract of Kim] comprising:
Selectively targeting at least one neural population among a plurality of neural populations in the brain by transmitting the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound through a cranium [see page 1570, right column, last paragraph, section under “determination of sonication site” disclosing using transcranial focused ultrasound pulses] into an area of the brain containing the plurality of neural populations, [see page 1570 disclosing that the focal area of the beam is 0.33 cm2; a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that there are multiple neurons in that size area; neural population has been interpreted as any number of neurons more than one], wherein the at least one neural population selectively responds to the pulsed transcranial focused ultrasound; [since all of the neural population in Kim respond to the stimulation, this limitation is met since “at least one” of the neural populations responds”]
wherein the transcranial focused ultrasound comprises tone-burst waves [see page 1569, right column, section under “Focused ultrasound sonication”] with an ultrasound pulse repetition frequency of between 1 Hz and 10 KHz [see page 1569, right column, last paragraph disclosing the signal to have a pulse repetition frequency of 1500 Hz which is in the claimed range] with an inter-sonication interval of 1-100 milliseconds, and an inter-sonication frequency of 10-1000 Hz, [see page 1569, right column, last paragraph disclosing a tone burst duration of 360 microseconds which is in the claimed range] wherein the transcranial focused ultrasound produces a spatial-peak pressure of sub-mega Pa. [see page 1570, left column, second paragraph, lines 11-14 discloses that peak pressure of ultrasound waves as 0.53Mpa which is less than 1 mega pascal and therefore would be considered sub-mega Pascal]
Kim does not disclose that that the pulses have an inter-sonication interval of 1-100 milliseconds, and an inter-sonication frequency of 10-1000 Hz.
Mishelevich, directed towards optimization of the neuromodulation pulses for brain treatment [see abstract of Mishelevich] further discloses that the pulses have an inter-sonication interval of 1-100 milliseconds [see [0275] discloses pulse duration (i.e. inter-sonication interval of 0.1ms to 20millisecond which is in the claimed range], and an inter-sonication frequency of 10-1000 Hz [see [0275] disclosing modulation frequency of 500Hz which is in the claimed range]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to change the method of Kim further such that the pulses are transmitted an inter-sonication interval of 1-100 milliseconds, and an inter-sonication frequency of 10-1000 Hz according to the teachings of Mishelevich in order to optimize the amount of energy delivered to the brain tissue as higher pulse duration and higher pulse frequency will result in more power delivered to the tissue in less amount of time.
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Mishelevich discloses all the limitations of claim 16 above [see rejection of claim 16]
Kim further discloses that the ultrasound waves are sinusoidal. [see page 1569 of Kim, right column, section under “materials and methods”, last paragraph lines 4-8 discloses using sinusoidal waves]
Claim 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (“Non-invasive transcranial stimulation of rat abducens nerves by focused ultrasound”, Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2013) hereinafter “Kim” in view of Mishelevich (U.S. Publication No. 2017/0246481) hereinafter “Mishelevich” as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Tyler (U.S. Publication 2012/0289869) hereinafter “Tyler”.
Regarding claim 17, Kim modified by Mishelevich discloses all the limitations of claim 16 above. [see rejection of claim 16]
Kim as modified by Mishelevich does not expressly disclose that the transcranial focused ultrasound is transmitted repeatedly over a 5 minute period.
Tyler, directed towards neuromodulation of the brain [see abstract of Tyler] further discloses that the transcranial focused ultrasound is transmitted repeatedly over a 5 minute period. [see FIG. 17A and [0026]-[0027] disclosing stimulation duration of 5 minutes]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to change the method of Kim as modified by Mishelevich further such that the transcranial focused ultrasound is transmitted repeatedly over a 5 minute period according to the teachings of Tyler in order to optimize the power delivered to the brain tissue as longer duration of stimulation will result in higher power being delivered to the brain.
Regarding claim 19, Kim as modified by Mishelevich discloses all the limitations of claim 16 above. [see rejection of claim 16]
Kim as modified by Mishelevich does not expressly disclose that the transcranial focused ultrasound is transmitted using a transducer having a collimator positioned at a distal end.
Tyler further discloses that the transcranial focused ultrasound is transmitted using a transducer having a collimator positioned at a distal end. [see FIG. 16A and [0024], and [0126] disclosing a collimator attached at the distal end of the ultrasound transducer]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to change the method of Kim as modified by Mishelevich further such that the transcranial focused ultrasound is transmitted using a transducer having a collimator positioned at a distal end according to the teachings of Tyler in order to stimulated restricted brain regions in a targeted manner [see [0046] of Tyler, lines 10-12]
Regarding claim 20, Kim as modified by Mishelevich discloses all the limitations of claim 16 above. [see rejection of claim 16]
Kim as modified by Mishelevich does not expressly disclose that the transcranial focused ultrasound is transmitted using a plurality of transducers.
Tyler further discloses that that the transcranial focused ultrasound is transmitted using a plurality of transducers. [see FIG. 2; a plurality of transducers are used]
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to change the method of Kim as modified by Mishelevich further such that that the transcranial focused ultrasound is transmitted using a plurality of transducers according to the teachings of Tyler in order to affect a larger area of interest at a single session and increase the efficiency of the method. Doing so would have been a simple substitution of one transducer with a plurality of transducers yielding in predictable results of faster processing of the brain and would have been obvious by an ordinarily skilled in the art (KSR rationale B)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
With regards to the amendments added to claims 1, 16, and 21, the applicant has argued that the added amendments are not disclosed in the prior art of record.
In response, the examiner notes that the wording of the added limitations are so broad that the prior art of record still reads on the language of the claims. In particular, the amendments recite that the “at least one neural population among a plurality of populations is targeted.” Firstly, the neural population is a very broad term and any number of neurons more than one could be considered a population of neurons. Further, the claim requires that at least one of these neural populations be selected. Kim does not discriminate between the types of neural populations, therefore, all of them are targeted. Since the claim requires that “at least one” of the neural populations be targeted, targeting all of the neural populations of an area reads on the language of the claim.
The applicant is advised to use more specific language consistent with the specification in order to distinguish the claims from the prior art of record.
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 MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795