5428DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 25 February 2026. Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 6, 8, 13, 15, 16-18.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 15, 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 1 recites “said subject” in line 6. Examiner recommends amending to –said human or animal subject—
-Claim 1 recites “wherein the surface is the skin surface” in line 14. Examiner recommends –wherein the skin surface is—
-Claim 1 recites “the subject’s FIQ score” in line 15. Examiner recommends amending to –the FIQ score of said human or animal subject—
-Claim 4 recites “electromagnetic waves” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –the electromagnetic waves—
-Claim 15 recites –that is used—in line 4. Examiner recommends deletion of the recited limitation.
-Claim 17 recites “at least one discussion” in line 4. Examiner recommends amending to –the at least one discussion—
Appropriate correction is required.
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(s) is/are:
-Claim 1 recites “portable device” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to transmit electromagnetic waves. According to the specification the portable device includes a smartphone or smartwatch [57] and equivalents thereof.
-Claim 4 recites “a detection unit” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to detect a presence or absence of human or animal skin. Based on the specification, there is no disclosure provided to disclose the corresponding structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are 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/these limitation(s) 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(s) to avoid it/them 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(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
-Claim 1 recites “the method increases the subject’s FIQ score from a first score prior to a treatment to a second score higher than the first score after the treatment” in lines 15-17. It’s unclear whether an “increase” involves a quantitative increase in score or whether the limitation is referring to increase in terms of qualitative improvement of symptoms of fibromyalgia. Since FIQ scores typically correlate higher quantitative scores on a scale from 0 to 100 with 100 associated with more severe symptoms, this limitation is unclear in terms of what is embodied by a higher score. Further clarification should be provided.
Claim limitations “detection unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification discloses components of a transmission that could include skin sensors and transmitting components however, it is unclear whether these are associated with the claimed “transmitter” and “detection unit.” Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sikora (U.S. 20180229048) in view of Drean et al. State of knowledge on biological effects at 40-60 GHz, C.R. Physique 14, Pgs. 402-411, 2013 and in further view of Vissman (U.S. 20150335742).
Regarding Claim 1, Sikora teaches a method for treating at least one symptom of fibromyalgia in a human or animal subject [0159]—reference to chronic pain management, said at least one symptom of fibromyalgia being chosen from (i) pain [0159], (ii) stiffness, (iii) tenderness of muscles, tendons, and joints in an absence of inflammation, (iv) sleep impairments, and (v) fatigue/lack of rest, comprising applying a portable device for transmitting electromagnetic waves to a skin of said human or animal subject [0115]—describes moving the energy source relative to the patient’s surface which is interpreted to be the skin of the patient and [0187]—which includes reference to applied electromagnetic waves, wherein said portable device is capable, and a frequency value of between 60 and 61.5 GHz [0169]—reference to range of 61 to 61.5 GHz, the portable device being further capable of simultaneously exposing at least 2.5 cm2 of the skin surface to the electromagnetic waves [0045]—including the upper ranges described in this reference to 3 m2, 50 cm2, etc., wherein the surface is the skin surface of the human or animal subject
Sikora is silent on when it is affixed at a surface, of transmitting electromagnetic waves having a power flux density between 5 and 15 mW/cm2 applied at or to a skin surface. Drean teaches when it is affixed at a surface, of transmitting electromagnetic waves having a power flux density between 5 and 15 mW/cm2 applied at or to a skin surface [Pg. 408; “Therefore, IPDs between 5 and 15 mW/cm2 are usually used for hypoalgesic effects.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select a range of electromagnetic power flux density between 5-15 mW/cm2 as taught by Drean to minimize pain experienced during treatment as suggested by Sikora as Sikora discusses combining a multitude of treatment sources and therapies to reduce pain, decrease edge effect and overheating [0018] with Drean because Drean teaches causing a slight temperature increase at this power level with no patient perception of pain or heat [Pg. 408].
Sikora and Drean are silent on and for improving an Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) score of said subject, and wherein the method increases the subject's FIQ score from a first score prior to a treatment to a second score higher than the first score after the treatment. Vissman teaches and for improving an Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ) score of said subject [0457] and [Fig. 29A, “Panel A”]—depicting positive effects (-19.10%) of biopower treatment, and wherein the method increases the subject's FIQ score from a first score prior to a treatment to a second score higher than the first score after the treatment [Fig. 29A, “Baseline”, “After 6 Weeks” and “Biopower”]—depicting an increased FIQ score indicated by -19.10% where a higher score is interpreted as a decrease in quantitative score values for FIQ with further support provided by [0457; “Please note that the lower the score the better
the result.”]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use an assessment or questionnaire such as FIQ as taught by Vissman to assess and adjust treatment parameter outcomes as suggested by Sikora and Drean, as Sikora discusses using feedback throughout the course of treatment to adjust protocols [0017] and Drean which discusses monitoring thermal exposure and other parameters of MMW throughout treatment to avoid induced stress [Pg. 405] with Vissman because Vissman teaches questionnaires used to assess the effects of the invervention on parameters associated with health, sleep, pain, wellness or quality of life [0407].
Regarding Claim 4, Sikora teaches wherein the portable device comprises a detection unit that detects a presence or absence of human or animal skin [0061]—reference to contact sensors for monitoring contact with body surface, the portable device being able to signal the presence or absence of skin to be exposed to electromagnetic waves [0063]—includes reference to imaging soft tissue and processing signals related to these imaging techniques to monitor and measure processes of treatment before, during and after, and/or determine a distance separating the skin and the portable device [0064; “or location and depth in the patient soft tissue of such body liquid.”] and [0079]—describes monitoring system that monitors applied pressure and contact with the patient to adjust treatment sleeve placement, and/or determine a distance separating the skin and the portable device (not required by the claim).
Regarding Claim 6, Sikora teaches wherein said at least one symptom of fibromyalgia is chosen from (i) pain [0196], [0159], and [0012] (ii) stiffness, (iv) sleep impairments, and (v) fatigue/lack of rest (remaining limitations not required by the claim).
Regarding Claim 8, Sikora teaches wherein the frequency value of the electromagnetic waves is between 61 and 61.5 GHz [0169].
Regarding Claim 9, Sikora teaches wherein the portable device is a wristband [0013]—reference to a sleeve, and [0045]—reference to applying the device to an arm.
Regarding Claim 10, Sikora teaches wherein the human or animal subject is human [0032].
Claim(s) 13, 15, 16, 17, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sikora (U.S. 20180229048) in view of Drean et al. State of knowledge on biological effects at 40-60 GHz, C.R. Physique 14, Pgs. 402-411, 2013 and in further view of Vissman (U.S. 20150335742) and in even further view of Yoo (U.S. 20190001135).
Regarding Claim 13, Sikora teaches wherein the human or animal subject is a human subject [0115]. Sikora, Drean and Vissman are silent on and wherein the method further comprises, before, during and/or after applying the portable device, at least one step of coaching the human subject with respect to using the portable device. Yoo teaches wherein the method further comprises, before, during and/or after applying the portable device, at least one step of coaching the human subject with respect to using the portable device [0214]—reference to instructions for pad placement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide instructions, coaching and/or training as taught by Yoo to minimize mistakes and safety parameters made during treatment as suggested by Sikora, Drean and Vissman, as Sikora discusses the advantage of preventing mistakes during treatment by utilization of self-operational devices [0019], Drean which presents a discussion on safe exposure conditions in relation to power, frequency and duration [Pg. 403], and Vissman which discloses use of a system referred to as CardioCoach [0524] with Yoo because Yoo teaches reasoning for including instructions to prevent ineffective treatment caused by incorrect use [0006].
Regarding Claim 15, Sikora, Drean and Vissman are silent on wherein the at least one step of coaching comprises (i) providing therapeutic education to the human subject about the portable device that is used; and/or (ii) improving adherence and effectiveness, by conducting regular assessments of an ease of use of use of the portable device by the human subject, an adherence of the human subject using the portable device, and any health benefits of the human subject from using the portable device, and then dispensing personalized advice according to the regular assessments; and/or (iii) discussing use of the portable device among subjects afflicted by fibromyalgia; and/or (iv) collecting data to be used by a health practitioner. Yoo teaches wherein the at least one step of coaching comprises (i) providing therapeutic education to the human subject about the portable device that is used; and/or (ii) improving adherence and effectiveness, by conducting regular assessments of an ease of use of use of the portable device by the human subject, an adherence of the human subject using the portable device, and any health benefits of the human subject from using the portable device, and then dispensing personalized advice according to the regular assessments; and/or (iii) discussing use of the portable device among subjects afflicted by fibromyalgia; and/or (iv) collecting data to be used by a health practitioner [0258].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide education and data collection of treatment parameters to be used by a health professional as taught by Yoo to optimize effective treatment as suggested by Sikora, Drean, and Vissman, as Sikora discusses the use of sensors, monitoring devices and feedback information to improve effectiveness of the treatment [0060] and Drean which discusses the use of safety margins for certain populations [Pg. 404], and Vissman which discloses judgement of a practitioner used depending on the disease/condition treated, the mode of administration, requirements of the individual and severity of the disease [0102] with Yoo because Yoo teaches reasoning for including instructions to prevent ineffective treatment caused by incorrect use [0006].
Regarding Claim 16, Sikora, Drean and Vissman are silent on wherein the at least one step of coaching comprises conducting at least one discussion, by telephone, in person or through a digital platform, between a coach and the human subject. Yoo teaches wherein the at least one step of coaching comprises conducting at least one discussion, by telephone, in person or through a digital platform, between a coach and the human subject [0058]—reference to clinical services related to using the stimulator is interpreted as a discussion, conversation or guidance on how to use the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide education and device use services by phone as taught by Yoo to optimize effective treatment as suggested by Sikora, Drean and Vissman, as Sikora discusses guiding by means of a external control unit which could include a smart phone [0080] and Drean which discusses promising clinical results by use of millimeter waves [Pg. 403], and Vissman which discloses regularly consulting with physician or physical therapist to discuss treatment [0340] with Yoo because Yoo teaches clinicians use of digital platforms to counsel the user, maintain compliance and ensure correct use of the portable therapeutic device [0086].
Regarding Claim 17, Sikora, Drean, and Vissman are silent on wherein the at least one step of coaching comprises conducting the at least one discussion before applying the portable device or transmitting the electromagnetic waves, and conducting at least one discussion after applying the portable device or transmitting the electromagnetic waves. Yoo teaches wherein the at least one step of coaching comprises conducting the at least one discussion before applying the portable device or transmitting the electromagnetic waves, and conducting at least one discussion after applying the portable device or transmitting the electromagnetic waves [0058]—reference to clinical services related to using the stimulator is interpreted as a discussion, conversation or guidance on how to use the device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide education and device use services by phone as taught by Yoo to optimize effective treatment as suggested by Sikora, Drean and Vissman, as Sikora discusses guiding by means of an external control unit which could include a smart phone [0080] and Drean which discusses promising clinical results by use of millimeter waves [Pg. 403], and Vissman which discloses regularly consulting with physician or physical therapist to discuss treatment [0340] with Yoo because Yoo teaches clinicians use of digital platforms to counsel the user, maintain compliance and ensure correct use of the portable therapeutic device [0086].
Regarding Claim 18, Sikora, Drean and Vissman are silent on wherein the at least one step of coaching occurs before applying the portable device or transmitting the electromagnetic waves; and at least one additional coaching step occurs after applying the portable device or transmitting the electromagnetic waves. Yoo teaches wherein the at least one step of coaching occurs before applying the portable device or transmitting the electromagnetic waves; and at least one additional coaching step occurs after applying the portable device or transmitting the electromagnetic waves [0191]—reference to assessment after a therapy session.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide education, assessment and adjustment before and after treatment as taught by Yoo to adjust subsequent treatment protocols and parameters as suggested by Sikora, Drean and Vissman, as Sikora discusses adjusting treatment parameters [0078] and Drean which discusses analyzing and monitoring the effects of millimeter waves [Pg. 405], and Vissman which discloses utilizing a team coach to evaluate testing [0271] with Yoo because Yoo teaches clinicians use of digital platforms to counsel the user, maintain compliance and ensure correct use of the portable therapeutic device [0086].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 25 February 2026 with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive, however; new objections are presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 25 February 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive however; new rejections are
presented in light of the amendments.
Applicant’s arguments filed 25 February 2026 with respect to the rejection of
claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 under 35 U.S.C.103 have been fully considered and are persuasive, however; new rejections are presented above in light of the amendments citing Sikora, in view of Drean, and in further view of Vissman. Regarding claim 1, applicant contends that Sikora does not disclose or even suggests the treatment of fibromyalgia or a symptom thereof. On page 7, the applicant contends that Drean does not teach the treatment of fibromyalgia or a symptom thereof. The examiner cites [0159] of the Sikora reference and is including further support for treating symptoms of fibromyalgia including pain that are referenced throughout the rest of the document in response to the applicant’s argument. These references can be found in [0158-0161]—including a treatment energy source applying different frequencies to treat chronic pain, acute pain and sub-acute pain and [0012]—which references body treatment therapies provided by the described method and invention to relieve patient body pain. Pain and chronic pain are considered symptoms of fibromyalgia as referenced and supported by the limitation “at least one symptom of fibromyalgia being chosen from (i) pain, (ii) stiffness, (iii) tenderness of muscles, tendons, and joints in an absence of inflammation, (iv) sleep impairments, and (v) fatigue/lack of rest.”
The applicant further contends that the frequency value in the range of 61 to 61.5 GHz taught by Sikora for in paragraph [0169] is for heating soft tissue and is not the purpose of the invention. In support of the response to this argument, the examiner cites [0012] which describes the invention as being used to treat and relieve pain by heating soft tissue: “Changing temperature of the soft tissue before, during and/or after treatment may be provided by thermal diffusion from a warmer object (and/or substance e.g. air, liquid) and/or by thermal radiation, light waves, RF waves, acoustic waves, plasma, mechanical friction and/or by another treatment energy source. Various aesthetic skin and/or body treatment therapies may be provided by the present methods and devices and/or relieving of a patient body pain); analgesic effects resulting from specific frequencies of the delivered signal influencing on nerves.”] This limitation regarding the treatment of a pain symptom of fibromyalgia is satisfied by the teaching of Sikora.
The applicant also further contends that Sikora is silent on when it is affixed at a surface, of transmitting electromagnetic waves having a power flux density between 5 and 15 mW /cm2 of skin surface. The examiner agrees with this assertion as evidenced by the office action citing “Sikora is silent on when it is affixed at a surface, of transmitting electromagnetic waves having a power flux density between 5 and 15 mW/cm2 applied at or to a skin surface. Drean teaches when it is affixed at a surface…skin surface.” In view of the foregoing, these 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections citing Sikora in view of Drean and in further view of Vissman are maintained in light of the claim amendments.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant further contends that Sikora does not teach a wristband device. The examiner cites [0013]—reference to a sleeve, and [0045]—reference to applying the device to an arm, which encompass the structural characteristics of a wristband or band wrapping around a wrist/arm. In view of the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections citing Sikora in view of Drean and in further view of Vissman are maintained.
Regarding claims 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, applicant contends that Yoo fails to teach treating fibromyalgia or one of its symptoms. The examiner maintains that this teaching is met by the Sikora reference as discussed in reference to the arguments for claim 1. The applicant also further contends that Yoo fails to teach MMW. The examiner maintains that this teaching is met by the limitations presented citing Drean as shown in the rejection of claim 1. In view of the foregoing, the examiner maintains the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections citing Sikora in view of Drean and in further view of Vissman and in even further view of Yoo for claims 13, 15, 16, 17, 18.
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 BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights