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 .
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.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date under one or more of 35 U.S.C. 119(e), 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994)
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, cited as Continuing Data by the applicant, which were filed before the 08 November 2019 filing date of PCT/US2019/060642, appear to fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The instant application claims priority, to a number of patent, PCT, and/or provisional applications, as both a continuation application and/or a continuation-in-part application. The examiner has failed to identify the disclosure of the subject matter relating to at least the “one or more LED-based lighting channels adapted to generate a long red and near infrared (LRNE) red light output in a third operational mode,” as recited in independent Claim 1, in any of the prior-filed applications filed before the 08 November 2019 filing date of PCT/US2019/060642. Therefore, for the purposes of examination, the examiner assumes that the effective filing date of the instant application is 08 November 2019, corresponding to the filing date of PCT/US2019/060642.
Claim Objections
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not). Claim 48 appears twice in the response received 09 February 2026.
Claims 1, 35-38, and 41-48 are numbered correctly. Starting with the second instance of Claim 48, misnumbered Claims 48-52 been renumbered Claims 49-53.
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.
Claims 1, 35-38, and 41-53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Soler et al. (hereinafter “Soler” US 2017 / 0086274) in view of Chen et al. (hereinafter “Chen” US 2015 / 0348468).
As pertaining to Claim 1, Soler discloses (see Fig. 4a) a panel system for displaying digital content (i.e., an LED lighting system for a display panel; see Page 1, Para. [0004]), wherein the panel system comprises (see Page 1, Para. [0005] and Page 4, Para. [0037]):
one or more LED-based lighting channels (see (410, 420)) adapted to generate a first circadian stimulating energy (CSE) blue light output in a first operational mode (i.e., a daytime mode);
one or more LED-based lighting channels (again, see (410, 420)) adapted to generate a second circadian stimulating energy which provides less-CSE output in a second operational mode (i.e., a nighttime mode);
one or more LED-based lighting channels adapted to generate a long red and near infrared (LRNE) red light output in a third operational mode (i.e., a selective time-of-day mode; see Page 9 through Page 10, Para. [0072]-[0073]), wherein the LRNE red light output comprises emissions in at least one of a wavelength range from 625 nm to 700 nm, a wavelength range from 640 nm to 670 nm, and a wavelength range from 700 nm to 1400 nm (i.e., deep-red and/or infrared; see Page 10, Para. [0073]; and note that deep-red wavelengths are known to be in a range of 640nm to 670nm, and infrared wavelengths are known to be in wavelengths greater than 780nm).
While Soler discloses that the panel system for displaying digital content is applicable to a liquid crystal display (LCD; see Page 1, Para. [0004]), known in the art to include a backlight providing lighting for a plurality of pixels, Soler does not explicitly disclose that the panel system comprises a plurality of pixels arranged in a pixel array for displaying the digital content, wherein the one or more LED-based lighting channels provide individual pixels in the pixel array of the panel system, the individual pixels being microLED pixels or OLED pixels; and firmware configured to produce the digital content.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen discloses (see Fig. 6 and Fig. 9) a panel system (10) for displaying digital content, wherein the panel system (10) comprises a plurality of pixels (52) arranged in a pixel array (14) for displaying the digital content, wherein one or more LED-based lighting channels (i.e., image pixels formed from LEDs) provide individual pixels (52) in the pixel array (14) of the panel system (10), the individual pixels (52) being microLED pixels or OLED pixels (see Page 1 through Page 2, Para. [0022]-[0023]; and Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0037]) and firmware (40, 124) configured to produce the digital content (see Page 3, Para. [0038]). In fact, Chen discloses that which is implicit in the teachings of Soler, namely a liquid crystal display (LCD) panel system (10) for displaying digital content that incorporates a light-emitting diode (LED) or organic light-emitting diode (OLED) backlight (44) that provides lighting for a plurality of pixels (52; see Page 4, Para. [0055]-[0056]). Further, in this regard, Chen explicitly suggests display control circuitry for adaptively adjusting the spectral characteristics of LED-based or OLED-based lighting channels to achieve a desired effect on the human circadian system (see Page 3, Para. [0041]). Further still, Chen explicitly discloses, in the same manner as disclosed by Soler, that such adaptive adjustment is based on a time-of-day determination to reduce the adverse effects of light emission on the human viewing the displayed digital content (see Page 3, Para. [0042]; Page 4, Para. [0052]; and Page 1, Para. [0004]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Soler with the teachings of Chen, such that the panel system disclosed by Soler comprises a plurality of pixels arranged in a pixel array for displaying the digital content, wherein the one or more LED-based lighting channels provide individual pixels in the pixel array of the panel system, the individual pixels being microLED pixels or OLED pixels; and firmware configured to produce the digital content, as implied by Soler and explicitly suggested by Chen, in order to provide a predictable application of the teachings of Soler to a known base device in which the spectral characteristics of the panel system are adaptively adjusted to achieve a desired effect on a human viewer. The application of the teachings of Soler to the display panel system suggested by Chen would have yielded the predictable results of reduced adverse effects of light emission on human viewing in the display application.
As pertaining to Claim 35, Soler discloses (see Fig. 4a) that the CSE blue light has a first bioactive characteristic (i.e., an arbitrary biological characteristic associated with brain function, sensory reception, and/or neuron system control) related to an associated first spectral power distribution of light (i.e., any spectral power distribution of light associated with the first operation mode) generated in the first operational mode (i.e., a daytime mode; see Page 9 through Page 10, Para. [0066]-[0068] and [0070]-[0073]).
As pertaining to Claim 36, Soler discloses (see Fig. 4a) that the less-CSE blue light has a second bioactive characteristic (i.e., an arbitrary biological characteristic associated with brain function, sensory reception, and/or neuron system control) related to an associated second spectral power distribution of light (i.e., any spectral power distribution of light associated with the second operation mode) generated in the second operational mode (i.e., a nighttime mode; see Page 9 through Page 10, Para. [0066]-[0068] and [0070]-[0073]).
As pertaining to Claim 37, Soler discloses (see Fig. 4a) that the LRNE red light output has a third bioactive characteristic (i.e., an arbitrary biological characteristic associated with brain function, sensory reception, and/or neuron system control) related to an associated third spectral power distribution of light (i.e., any spectral power distribution of light associated with the third operation mode) generated in the third operational mode (i.e., a selective time-of-day mode; see Page 9 through Page 10, Para. [0066]-[0068] and [0070]-[0073]).
As pertaining to Claim 38, Soler discloses (see Fig. 4a) that the LRNE red light output has a third bioactive characteristic (i.e., an arbitrary biological characteristic associated with brain function, sensory reception, and/or neuron system control) related to an associated third spectral power distribution of light (i.e., any spectral power distribution of light associated with the third operation mode) generated in the third operational mode (i.e., a selective time-of-day mode; see Page 9 through Page 10, Para. [0066]-[0068] and [0070]-[0073]).
As pertaining to Claim 41, both Soler and Chen disclose (see Fig. 4a of Soler; and see Fig. 6 of Chen) that different combinations of different types of pixels (i.e., different colors of pixels and/or different spectral compositions of pixels) are used in the first (i.e., a daytime mode), second (i.e., a nighttime mode), and third (i.e., a selective time-of-day mode) operational modes (again, see Page 9 through Page 10, Para. [0066]-[0068] and [0070]-[0073] of Soler; and see Page 3, Para. [0042] and Page 4, Para. [0052] of Chen).
As pertaining to Claim 42, the combined teachings of Soler and Chen disclose (see Fig. 4a of Soler; and see Fig. 6 of Chen) that a first type of pixel (i.e., a first color of pixel and/or a first spectral composition of a pixel) is used (i.e., arbitrarily to produce a desired effect) in the first operational mode (i.e., a daytime mode) and the first type of pixel (i.e., the first color of pixel and/or the first spectral composition of a pixel) is not used (i.e., arbitrarily to produce a desired effect) in the second operational mode (i.e., a nighttime mode; again, see Page 9 through Page 10, Para. [0066]-[0068] and [0070]-[0073] of Soler; and see Page 3, Para. [0042] and Page 4, Para. [0052] of Chen).
As pertaining to Claim 43, the combined teachings of Soler and Chen disclose (see Fig. 4a of Soler; and see Fig. 6 of Chen) that a first type of pixel (i.e., a first color of pixel and/or a first spectral composition of a pixel) is used (i.e., arbitrarily to produce a desired effect) in the first operational mode (i.e., a daytime mode) and the first type of pixel (i.e., the first color of pixel and/or the first spectral composition of a pixel) is not used (i.e., arbitrarily to produce a desired effect) in the third operational mode (i.e., a selective time-of-day mode; again, see Page 9 through Page 10, Para. [0066]-[0068] and [0070]-[0073] of Soler; and see Page 3, Para. [0042] and Page 4, Para. [0052] of Chen).
As pertaining to Claim 44, the combined teachings of Soler and Chen disclose (see Fig. 4a of Soler in combination with Fig. 9 of Chen) that the LED-based lighting channels (see (410, 420) of Soler) provide one or more white light sources (see Page 3, Para. [0023] and Page 4, Para. [0037] of Soler) for a backlighting system (see Page 4, Para. [0055] of Chen) in the panel system.
As pertaining to Claim 45, Soler discloses (see Fig. 4a and Fig. 1) that the one or more white light sources (again, see Page 3, Para. [0023] and Page 4, Para. [0037]) are provided as white lighting channels (again, see (410, 420)) comprising an LED and an associated luminophoric medium (i.e., a desired lumiphoric material) that a produce a combined white light at a white color point (i.e., a desired white color point) within +7 DUV of the Planckian locus on the 1931 CIE Chromaticity Diagram (i.e., as a desired white color point; see Fig. 1 and Page 1, Para. [0006] and [0008]; and Page 8 through Page 9, Para. [0059]-[0065]).
As pertaining to Claim 46, Soler discloses (see Fig. 4a and Fig. 1) that the panel system comprises two or more white lighting channels (again, see (410, 420) and Page 3, Para. [0023] and Page 4, Para. [0037]), with a first white lighting channel (410, 420) used (i.e., arbitrarily) in the first operational mode (i.e., a daytime mode) and a second white lighting channel (410, 420) used (i.e., arbitrarily) in the second operational mode (i.e., a nighttime mode; see Page 6, Para. [0049]; Page 9 through Page 10, Para. [0065] and [0070]-[0073]).
As pertaining to Claim 47, Soler discloses (see Fig. 4a and Fig. 1) that the one or more white light sources (again, see Page 3, Para. [0023] and Page 4, Para. [0037]) for backlighting systems are provided as a combination of a plurality of lighting channels (again, see (410, 420) and Page 6, Para. [0049]; Page 9 through Page 10, Para. [0065] and [0070]-[0073]).
As pertaining to Claim 48, Soler discloses (see Fig. 4a) that different combinations of different types (i.e., different colors) of the plurality of lighting channels (see (410, 420)) are used (i.e., arbitrarily) in a first bioactive mode and a second bioactive mode (i.e., arbitrary biological modes associated with brain function, sensory reception, and/or neuron system control; see Page 9 through Page 10, Para. [0066]-[0068] and [0070]-[0073]).
As pertaining to Claim 49, Soler discloses (see Fig. 4a) that the third operational mode (i.e., a selective time-of-day mode) provides bioactive LRNE emissions between 625 and 700 nms (i.e., deep-red and/or infrared; see Page 10, Para. [0073]).
As pertaining to Claim 50, Soler discloses (see Fig. 4a) that the third operational mode (i.e., a selective time-of-day mode) provides bioactive LRNE emissions between 640 and 670 nms (i.e., deep-red and/or infrared; see Page 10, Para. [0073]).
As pertaining to Claim 51, Soler discloses (see Fig. 4a) that the third operational mode (i.e., a selective time-of-day mode) provides bioactive LRNE emissions between 700 and 1400 nms (i.e., deep-red and/or infrared; see Page 10, Para. [0073]).
As pertaining to Claim 52, Soler discloses (see Fig. 4a) generating a CSE circadian-inducing blue light output in the first operational mode (i.e., a daytime mode) and a less-circadian-inducing blue light output in the second operational mode (i.e., a nighttime mode; see Page 9 through Page 10, Para. [0072]-[0073]).
As pertaining to Claim 53, Soler discloses (see Fig. 4a) generating a CSE circadian-inducing blue light output in the first operational mode (i.e., a daytime mode) and a LRNE red light output in the third operational mode (i.e., a selective time-of-day mode; see Page 9 through Page 10, Para. [0072]-[0073]).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claim 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 11,783,748. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims entirely overlap in scope.
Claim 1 of Instant Application
Claims 1-3 of Reference Application
1. A panel system for displaying digital content, wherein the panel system comprises:
one or more LED-based lighting channels adapted to generate…
a first circadian stimulating energy (CSE) blue light output in a first operational mode;
one or more LED-based lighting channels adapted to generate a second circadian stimulating energy which provides less-CSE output in a second operational mode;
one or more LED-based lighting channels adapted to generate a long red and near infrared (LRNE) red light output in a third operational mode, wherein the LRNE red light output comprises emissions in at least one of a wavelength range from 625 nm to 700 nm, a wavelength range from 640 nm to 670 nm, and a wavelength range from 700 nm to 1400 nm;
a plurality of pixels arranged in a pixel array for displaying said digital content, wherein the one or more LED-based lighting channels provide individual pixels in the pixel array of the panel system,
the individual pixels being microLED pixels or OLED pixels; and
firmware configured to produce said digital content.
1. A display system for displaying digital content, wherein the display system comprises:
a plurality of LED lighting channels; a controller for independently controlling said plurality of LED lighting channels to emit display light in at least three modes, said at least three modes comprises a…
a first mode in which said display light comprises a circadian-inducing blue light,
a second mode in which said display light comprises a less-circadian-inducing blue light; and,
a third mode in which said display light comprises a long red near infrared energy (LRNE).
2. The display system of claim 1, wherein said plurality of LED lighting channels comprise pixels in a pixel array of the display system.
3. The display system of claim 2, wherein said pixels comprise microLED pixels or OLED pixels.
There is no patentable distinction between the claimed “panel system” of the instant application and the claimed “display system” of the cited U.S. Patent. The claimed “first operational mode,” “second operational mode,” and “third operational mode” of the instant application are entirely overlapped in scope by the function of the claimed “controller” of the cited U.S. Patent. The claimed requirement that “the LRNE red light output comprises emissions in at least one of a wavelength range from 625 nm to 700 nm, a wavelength range from 640 nm to 670 nm, and a wavelength range from 700 nm to 1400 nm” as recited in Claim 1 of the instant application is not a distinct requirement from the generation of “a long red near infrared energy (LRNE)” as recited in the cited U.S. Patent, because it is well-established that LRNE energy is defined to have a wavelength between 620 nm and 1400 nm. Furthermore, the claimed “firmware configured to produce said digital content” of the instant application is entirely overlapped in scope by the broader-claimed “display system for displaying digital content” of the reference application which inherently requires “firmware configured to produce said digital content.” In fact, all of the features of Claim 1 of the instant application are overlapped in scope by the features of Claims 1-3 of the cited U.S. Patent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. No claims have been amended. Rather, the applicant has argued that prior Office Action does not establish that “the prior art contains each claimed element, that a person of ordinary skill could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods while the elements perform their expected functions, and that the result would have been predictable” (see Remarks at Page 2). As best understood by the examiner, the applicant has asserted that the combined teachings of Soler and Chen, as relied upon by the examiner, do not disclose the claimed pixel-level bioactive lighting architecture because the combined teachings of Soler and Chen fail to disclose an LRNE-generating image-pixel channel operated in the claimed third operational mode and nothing in Soler and Chen establishes the claimed “integrated arrangement” as recited in independent Claim 1 (see Remarks at Pages 2 and 3). The applicant has further asserted that a “predictable application” rationale does not “bridge the missing claimed relationship” as a “general desire to reduce adverse effects of display light does not, without more, supply a reason to implement Soler’s bioactive spectra through Chen’s individual image pixels rather than through the conventional backlight architecture” (see Remarks at Page 4). Finally, the applicant has further asserted that the rejection of dependent Claims 41-43, 46, and 48 as presented in the prior Office Action all fail to establish a mapping to the claimed “mode-specific selection” and do not articulate why a skilled artisan would have made that particular selection” (see Remarks at Pages 4 and 5). The examiner respectfully disagrees.
The examiner respectfully maintains that the teachings of Soler provide for a panel system for displaying digital content at Figure 4a as an LED lighting system for a display panel. Soler further discloses one or more LED-based lighting channels (410, 420) adapted to generate a first circadian stimulating energy (CSE) blue light output in a first “daytime” operational mode; one or more LED-based lighting channels (410, 420) adapted to generate a second circadian stimulating energy which provides less-CSE output in a second “nighttime” operational mode; and one or more LED-based lighting channels adapted to generate a long red and near infrared (LRNE) red light output in a third “selective time-of-day” operational mode (see Page 9 through Page 10, Para. [0072]-[0073]). The examiner recognizes that while the teachings of Soler are directed to a pixel array for displaying digital content, the teachings of Soler do not explicitly show a plurality of pixels arranged in a pixel array for displaying the digital content, wherein the one or more LED-based lighting channels provide individual pixels in the pixel array of the panel system, the individual pixels being microLED pixels or OLED pixels.
However, the teachings of Chen at least at Figure 6 and Figure 9 explicitly disclose a panel system (10) for displaying digital content comprising a plurality of pixels (52) such that one or more LED-based lighting channels, namely image pixels formed from LEDs, provide individual pixels (52) in the pixel array (14) and the individual pixels (52) are microLED pixels or OLED pixels (see Page 1 through Page 2, Para. [0022]-[0023]; and Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0037]). Again, the teachings of Chen are expressly directed to display control circuitry for adaptively adjusting the spectral characteristics of LED-based or OLED-based lighting channels to achieve a desired effect on the human circadian system (see Page 3, Para. [0041]). Further, Chen explicitly discloses, in the same manner as disclosed by Soler, that such adaptive adjustment is based on a time-of-day determination to reduce the adverse effects of light emission on the human viewing the displayed digital content (see Page 3, Para. [0042]; Page 4, Para. [0052]; and Page 1, Para. [0004]).
The examiner respectfully maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized, given the teachings of Soler and Chen, that the panel system disclosed by Soler can be implemented using at least the plurality of pixels arranged in a pixel array for displaying the digital content, as suggested by Chen, wherein the one or more LED-based lighting channels provide individual microLED pixels or OLED pixels, in order to provide a predictable application of the teachings of Soler to a known base device in which the spectral characteristics of the panel system are adaptively adjusted to achieve a desired effect on a human viewer.
The examiner respectfully maintains that there is nothing recited in independent Claim 1 that would structurally and/or functionally distinguish the claimed invention from the teachings of Soler and Chen. Further, with respect to dependent Claims 41-43, 46, and 48, there is nothing recited in the claims that would distinguish the claimed “different combinations of different types of pixels” from the arbitrary combinations of different “types” of pixels suggested by Soler and Chen to provide a desired lighting effect.
Therefore, the rejection of Claims 1, 35-38, and 41-53 is maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Powell (US 2008 / 0275533), submitted by the applicant via Information Disclosure Statement on 12 July 2022, discloses a display panel system comprising a controller to provide a number of different operational modes in which LED-based lighting channels are controlled to support tailored circadian stimulating energy blue light output and long red and near infrared red light output (see Page 2 through Page 3, Para. [0018]-[0032]).
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON M MANDEVILLE whose telephone number is (571)270-3136. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30AM-4:00PM.
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, Chanh Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7772. 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.
/JASON M MANDEVILLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2623
Prosecution Insights