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
This action is responsive to the amendment filed 03/20/2026. The previous claim objections have been withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment. The previous rejections of claims 8-10, 12-22, 31 and 41 have been withdrawn in response to applicant’s amendment.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: “dampening structure” in claims 18 and 33 (see spec par 0029).
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 23-26, 30, 32-40 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holley (US 2011/0313689 A1) in view of Mansfield (US 2016/0279366 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Holley discloses a method in a processor associated with a respiratory therapy device for identifying a component of an airpath coupled to the respiratory therapy device (par 0002, 0023, 0143), the method comprising: processing a sound signal from a microphone (par 0120) representing a sound in the airpath to obtain a cepstrum (par 0029); separating an acoustic signature from the cepstrum (par 0121,0141); repeating the processing of the sound signal from the microphone, and separating at least once to generate a plurality of acoustic signatures (par 0122 “this may be improved by comparisons over several data peaks or alternately, wherein the comparisons are completed on extracted unique sets of wave features”, par 0142), combining the plurality of acoustic signature into a combined acoustic signature (par 0122, par 0142 disclosing combining with a least squares algorithm); comparing the combined acoustic signatures to a set of predetermined acoustic signatures corresponding to respective components (par 0122, 0141); and identifying the component based on the comparison of the acoustic signature to the set (par 0122).
Holley does not expressly disclose the repeating the processing derives a plurality of windows that are each in synchrony with an operation of the respiratory therapy device.
Mansfield teaches acoustic detecting of components where in repeating of acoustic measuring occurs over a plurality of windows that are each in synchrony with an operation of the respiratory device (par 0055-0056 disclose synchronizing to windows that start at the end of expiration and conclude at the onset of inspiration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to synchronize the repeating process of modified Holley with a patients breathing cycle as taught by Mansfield as doing so can allow for the measured acoustic signatures to be more streamlined as there will be less differentiation caused by the users breathing such as differences caused by inspiration vs expiration (Mansfield par 0055).
In the event that applicant finds that disclosure of synchrony with a user’s operation of the device does not disclose synchrony with operation of the device itself, Holley discloses the acoustic signal/reflection being dependent on the speed of the blower (par 0049/ fig 15, par 0095, par 0147). As Mansfield teaches utilizing windows that have similar changes in pressure it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize this window format for windows of the device operation such as windows when the flow generator is operating at the same speeds.
Regarding claim 24, modified Holley discloses the method of claim 23. Modified Holley further discloses aligning one or more of the plurality of acoustic signatures with the combined acoustic signature (Holley par 0142 disclosing least square algorithm thus disclosing aligning the signatures for combination).
Regarding claim 25, modified Holley discloses the method of claim 23. Modified Holley further discloses the combining comprises averaging the plurality of acoustic signatures (Holley par 0142 disclosing the averaging method of least squares and Mansfield par 0056 disclosing moving averages).
Regarding claim 26, modified Holley discloses the method of claim 23. Modified Holley further discloses the component is a patient interface (Holley: par 0119) and the repeating is synchronized with a breathing cycle of a patient wearing the patient interface (Mansfield: par 0007, 0055-0056).
Regarding claim 30, modified Holley discloses the method of claim 23. Holley further discloses adjusting a control parameter for operation of a pressure generator of the respiratory therapy device based on the identifying (par 0143 discloses adjusting operation of a flow generator based on the identifying/detection, par 0003 "flow generator with valve to adjust pressure” thus disclosing the flow generator may also act as a pressure generator).
Regarding claim 32, Holley discloses a device for generating a respiratory therapy (fig 13, par 0002, 0023), the device comprising: a pressure generator (#13-4 fig 13, par 0125, Par 0003 "flow generator with valve to adjust pressure” thus disclosing the flow generator may also act as a pressure generator) configured to generate a supply of pressurized air from an outlet (connection point between 13-4 and 13-1 in fig 13) along an air circuit (#13-1 fig 13) to a patient interface (#13-2 fig 13); a sensor (#13-5 fig 13, par 0124-0125 “microphone”) configured to generate a sound signal representing a sound of the pressure generator in the air circuit (par 0125 ” microphone 13-5 positioned at one end of the tube 13-1 receives the first signal coming from the FG 13-4, and then some time latter receives the same signal filtered by the tube 13-1 (reflected second signal), and reflected and filtered by the mask 13-2”); and a controller (par 0143) configured to: process the sound signal from the sensor to obtain a cepstrum (par 0029); separate an acoustic signature from the cepstrum (par 0121,0141); repeat the processing and separating at least once to generate multiple acoustic signatures with the sensor (par 0122 “this may be improved by comparisons over several data peaks or alternately, wherein the comparisons are completed on extracted unique sets of wave features”, par 0142), combine the multiple acoustic signature into a combined acoustic signature (par 0122, par 0142 disclosing combining with a least squares algorithm); compare the combined acoustic signature to a set of predetermined acoustic signatures corresponding to respective components (par 0122,0141); and identify the patient interface and / or the air circuit based on the comparison of the acoustic signature to the set (par 0122).
Holley does not expressly disclose the repeating is synchronized with an operation of the pressure generator.
Mansfield teaches acoustic detecting of components where in repeating of acoustic measuring occurs over a plurality of windows that are each in synchrony with an operation of the respiratory device (par 0055-0056 disclose synchronizing to windows that start at the end of expiration and conclude at the onset of inspiration).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to synchronize the repeating process of modified Holley with a patients breathing cycle as taught by Mansfield as doing so can allow for the measured acoustic signatures to be more streamlined as there will be less differentiation caused by the users breathing such as differences caused by inspiration vs expiration (Mansfield par 0055).
In the event that applicant finds that disclosure of synchrony with a user’s operation of the device does not disclose synchrony with operation of the pressure generator itself, Holley discloses the acoustic signal/reflection being dependent on the speed of the blower (par 0049/ fig 15, par 0095, par 0147). As Mansfield teaches utilizing windows that have similar changes in pressure it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize this window format for windows of the device operation such as windows when the flow generator is operating at the same speeds.
Regarding claim 33, modified Holley discloses the device of claim 32. Holley further discloses a dampening structure configured to reduce reflection of sound from the pressure generator along the air circuit (par 0147 discloses the incorporation of humidifiers, noise baffles and valve that contribute to acoustic losses thus disclosing a structure that dampens/reduces reflections). Alternatively, Holley discloses a dampening structure configured to reduce reflection of sound from the pressure generator along the air circuit (#1094 fig 10, par 0103 discloses a horn/cone shaped coupler connecting the sensor/conduit with the ventilator supply, as the instant spec discloses a horn/cone shape achieves a reduction in reflection it is seen that the coupler 1094 acts as a dampening structure).
Regarding claim 34, modified Holley discloses the device of claim 33. Holley further discloses the dampening structure is formed by a pass-through dampening conduit (as the coupler 1094 couples to allow for fluid communication between the ventilation supply and the conduit the coupler is seen as “pass-through”) configured to change acoustic impedance between the air circuit and a cavity of a housing of the pressure generator (as the coupler is located between the ventilator supply and the conduit it is seen that the acoustic impedance between the air circuit and the pressure generator cavity is changed by the coupler).
Regarding claim 35, modified Holley discloses the device of claim 33. Holley further discloses the dampening structure is formed by a horn (see fig 10 showing coupler 1094 in a horn shape).
Regarding claim 36, modified Holley discloses the device of claim 35. Holley further discloses the horn is open ended (as the coupler 1094 couples to allow for fluid communication between the ventilation supply and the conduit it is seen that the coupler is open-ended and therefore is an open-ended horn) and has a conical profile (see fig 10 showing coupler 1094 has a conical profile).
Regarding claim 37, modified Holley discloses the device of claim 32. Modified Holley further discloses the controller is further configured to align one or more of the multiple acoustic signatures with the combined acoustic signature (Holley par 0142 disclosing least square algorithm thus disclosing aligning the signatures for combination).
Regarding claim 38, modified Holley discloses the method of claim 32. Modified Holley further discloses to combine the multiple acoustic signatures, the controller is configured to average the multiple acoustic signatures (Holley par 0142 disclosing the averaging method of least squares and Mansfield par 0056 disclosing moving averages).
Regarding claim 39, modified Holley discloses the device of claim 32. Holley further discloses the controller is further configured to adjust a control parameter for operation of the pressure generator based on the identified patient interface and/or air circuit (par 0143 discloses adjusting operation of a flow generator based on the identifying/detection).
Regarding claim 40, Holley discloses a computer-readable medium having encoded thereon computer-readable instructions that when executed by a processor of a controller of a respiratory therapy device cause the processor to perform a method for identifying a component of an airpath coupled to the respiratory therapy device (par 0143), the computer-readable instructions comprising: processing a sound signal from a sound sensor representing a sound in the airpath to obtain a cepstrum (par 0029); separating an acoustic signature from the cepstrum (par 0121,0141); repeating the processing and separating at least once to generate a plurality of acoustic signatures (par 0122 “this may be improved by comparisons over several data peaks or alternately, wherein the comparisons are completed on extracted unique sets of wave features”, par 0142); combining the plurality of acoustic signatures into a combined acoustic signature (par 0122, par 0142 disclosing combining with a least squares algorithm); comparing the combined acoustic signature to a set of predetermined acoustic signatures corresponding to respective components (par 0122,0141); and identifying the component based on the comparison of the acoustic signature to the set (par 0122).
Holley does not expressly disclose the repeating the processing uses windows in the sound signal from the sound sensor that are each timed to coincide with a point in the breathing cycle, the point comprising a peak inspiratory flow rate.
Mansfield teaches acoustic detecting of components where in repeating of acoustic measuring occurs over windows in the sound signal from the sound sensor that are each timed to coincide with a point in the breathing cycle, the point comprising a peak inspiratory flow rate (par 0055-0056 disclose synchronizing to windows that start at the end of expiration and conclude at the onset, onset of inspiration is known to be when peak inspiratory flow rate occurs).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to synchronize the repeating process of modified Holley with a patients breathing cycle as taught by Mansfield as doing so can allow for the measured acoustic signatures to be more streamlined as there will be less differentiation caused by the users breathing such as differences caused by inspiration vs expiration (Mansfield par 0055).
Regarding claim 42, modified Holley discloses the method of claim 23. Modified Holley further discloses repeating the processing and separating includes: processing, over multiple windows, the sound signal to obtain a plurality of cepstra, the plurality of cepstra including the cepstrum; and separating a respective acoustic signature from each of the plurality of cepstra to obtain the plurality of acoustic signatures, the plurality of acoustic signatures including the acoustic signature (Holley: par 0029-0031 disclose calculation cepstrum/cepstra, 0121-0122 disclose separating and repeating “comparison over several data peaks or alternatively wherein the comparisons are completed on extracted unique sets of wave features”, Mansfield: par 0055-0056 discloses multiple windows).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Holley as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Hoshino (US 6,523,413 B1).
Regarding claim 27, modified Holley discloses the method of claim 23. Holley does not expressly disclose the combining comprises wavelet transform-based combining of the multiple acoustic signatures.
Hoshino teaches a method for identifying a blemish on a disk utilizing acoustic inspection (abstract, title) wherein the acoustic inspection utilizes wavelet transforming (col 12 In 11-24).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize wavelet transforming as taught by Hoshino for the combining of modified Holley, as wavelet transforming is well known in the art (Hoshino col 12 In 18-24) and because wavelet transform allows for both frequency and time to be broken down simultaneously (Hoshino col 13 In 1-3) thus allowing for modified Holley to examine both the frequency and timing from just the wavelet transform.
Claims 28-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over modified Holley as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Kuo (US 2013/0204617 A1).
Regarding claim 28, modified Holley discloses method of claim 23. Holley does not expressly disclose the processing comprises flattening a spectrum of the sound signal. Holley discloses the processing comprises filtering a spectrum of the sound signal (par 0116 discloses filtering the sound signal to isolate the data of interest)
Kuo teaches a similar system of utilizing acoustic signals to identify sounds (abstract), wherein the acoustic signals are processed with band-pass filters, including low pass filters, to flatten and smooth the spectrum (par 0066, 0093, 0095).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the known method of flattening a sound signal taught by Kuo in the processing of Holley as the method of Kuo is taught to allow for recognition of the acoustic signature even when there are differences in tones/pitch, and further reduces the size of the features simplifying classification/identification.
Regarding claim 29, modified Holley discloses the method of claim 28. Modified Holley further discloses flattening comprises subtracting a low-pass filtered version of a log spectrum of the sound signal from the log spectrum of the sound signal (Holley: par 0116 discloses low pass filtering and further discloses that the frequencies for detecting a patient interface are higher thus disclosing a low pass filter would successfully filter out the undesirable lower frequencies).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-2, 5-10, 12-22, 31, and 41 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 1, the closest prior art, Holley, discloses a device for generating a respiratory therapy (fig 13, par 0002, 0023), the device comprising: a pressure generator (#13-4 fig 13, par 0125, Par 0003 "flow generator with valve to adjust pressure” thus disclosing the flow generator may also act as a pressure generator) configured to generate a supply of pressurized air from an outlet (connection point between 13-4 and 13-1 in fig 13) along an air circuit (#13-1 fig 13) to a patient interface (#13-2 fig 13); a sensor (#13-5 fig 13, par 0124-0125 “microphone”) configured to generate a sound signal representing a sound of the pressure generator in the air circuit (par 0125 ” microphone 13-5 positioned at one end of the tube 13-1 receives the first signal coming from the FG 13-4, and then some time latter receives the same signal filtered by the tube 13-1 (reflected second signal), and reflected and filtered by the mask 13-2”); a dampening structure configured to reduce reflection of sound from the pressure generator along the air circuit (par 0147 discloses the incorporation of humidifiers, noise baffles and valve that contribute to acoustic losses thus disclosing a structure that dampens/reduces reflections, alternatively: #1094 fig 10, par 0103 discloses a horn/cone shaped coupler connecting the sensor/conduit with the ventilator supply, as the instant spec discloses a horn/cone shape achieves a reduction in reflection it is seen that the coupler 1094 acts as a dampening structure); and a controller (par 0143) configured to: process the sound signal so as to identify the patient interface and / or the air circuit (par 0121-0122). The dampening structure 1094 of Holley comprises an open-ended horn having a cross-section that gradually expands as the cross-section is more distant from a patient interface end of the air circuit (see fig 10).
However, Holley does not disclose the dampening structure being located within an interior cavity of a pressure generator housing, instead Holley discloses the dampening structure coupling the pressure generator to the air conduit. It would have required both improper hindsight and a significant structural and functional change to move the dampening structure of Holley to be inside the pressure generator housing and therefore would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Further relevant prior art of Soring (US 6,510,261 B2) discloses the use of a cone shape for minimizing reflection (fig 1 and col 7 ln 12-21). However, Soren fails to disclose the cone being open ended and located within a housing of a pressure generator and as noted above it would not have been obvious to locate the dampening structure inside the pressure generator of Holley absent teaching.
Therefore claim 1 and dependents therein patentably define over the prior art.
Regarding claims 8, the closest prior art of Holley discloses a method in a processor associated with a respiratory therapy device for identifying a component of an airpath coupled to the respiratory therapy device (par 0002, 0023, 0143), the method comprising: processing a sound signal, from a microphone (par 0120), representing a sound in the airpath to obtain a cepstrum (par 0029), wherein the processing comprises filtering a spectrum of the sound signal (par 0116 discloses filtering the sound signal to isolate the data of interest); generating a combined acoustic signature from a plurality of acoustic signatures from the sound signals from the microphone, by repeating the processing and separating (par 0122 “this may be improved by comparisons over several data peaks or alternately, wherein the comparisons are completed on extracted unique sets of wave features”, par 0142 disclosing combining with a least squares algorithm); separating an acoustic signature from the cepstrum (par 0121,0141); comparing the acoustic signature to a set of predetermined acoustic signatures corresponding to respective components (par 0122, 0141); and identifying the component based on the comparison of the acoustic signature to the set (par 0122).
However, Holley does not disclose the processing comprises flattening a spectrum of the sound signal that removes conduit resonance while preserving resonant frequency.
While other prior art such as Kuo teaches a similar system of utilizing acoustic signals to identify sounds (abstract), wherein the acoustic signals are processed with band-pass filters, including low pass filters, to flatten and smooth the spectrum (par 0066, 0093, 0095),no found prior art discloses the flattening removing conduit resonance while preserving resonant frequency. Both Kuo and Holley teach removing undesirable resonance through filtering (Kuo: par 0066, 0093, 0095, Holley: par 0116). The use of such band or low pass filters operate by filtering out frequencies, thus removing a conduit resonance in this manner also removes the conduit’s resonant frequency and therefore neither Holley nor Kuo teach preserving the conduit resonant frequency. Absent teaching it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a different flattening method that preserves conduit resonant frequency. Independent claims 17 and 31 call to this same preserving conduit resonant frequency limitations.
Thus claims 8, 17, 31 and dependents therein patentably define over the prior art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 17/437,966 regarding claims 23, 32 and 40 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant asserts that Mansfield fails to teach synchrony with operation of the respiratory therapy device (see pg 13 of response filed 03/20/2026). However, under the broadest reasonable interpretation the term “operation of the respiratory therapy device” is seen to include use of the respiratory therapy device. Thus, Mansfield’s disclosure of synchronizing with the user’s breathing cycle/pattern is seen to disclose synchrony with operation.
The examiner additionally provided a secondary rejection rational stating that Mansfield discloses synchronizing with varying pressures of the device (Mansfield par 0056) and that Holley discloses the acoustic signal/reflection changes according to blower speed (Holley: par 0049/ fig 15, par 0095, par 0147). While applicant asserts that Mansfield fails to teach aligning based on pressure, it remains seen that Mansfield discloses this rational by disclosing the inspiration and expiration phases are monitored by pressure changes (Mansfield: par 0056). Thus, it is further seen that these Mansfield and Holley teachings show that adjustment of blower speed/ respiratory device pressure changes the resulting acoustic signal and it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to align the acoustic signals to similar pressure/blower speed phases.
Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the examiner maintains the rejections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Sondhi US 3,925,616 discloses a cone dampening structure
Sorin US 6,510,261 B2 discloses an acoustic wave generator with a horn/cone
Gradon US 2005/0005935 A1 discloses utilizing sound waves to detect apnea
Somervell US 2011/0088693 A1 discloses utilizing acoustic waves to identify an interface
Nitta US 2018/0280643 A1 discloses a dampening structure/silencer
Hallback US 2020/0155784 A1 discloses a ventilation apparatus with a dampening arrangement
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 KIRA B DAHER whose telephone number is (571)270-0190. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Brandy Lee can be reached on (571) 270-7410. 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.
/KIRA B DAHER/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/BRADLEY H PHILIPS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799
Prosecution Insights