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 .
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the response to the amendment filed on 02/25/26.
Claim 12 has been amended and is hereby entered.
Claim 19 has been canceled.
Claims 1-11, 13-17, 24 were previously canceled.
Claims 12, 18, 20-23, 25-34 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is made final.
Priority
Applicant’s claim to the benefit of and priority to US Provisional Application 63/132,871 is acknowledged. Accordingly, a priority date of 12/31/2020 has been given to this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 12, 18, 20-23, 25-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 12, 18, 20-23, 25-34 are drawn to a method, which is within the four statutory categories. Claims 12, 18, 20-23, 25-34 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Step 2A Prong 1
Claim 12 recites implementing the steps of:
receiving input from a patient regarding a period of interest of insulin therapy of the patient
defining the period of interest based on the input from the patient and two or more blocks of time of the period of interest, wherein the two or more blocks of time are displayed at a first region of a graphical representation;
obtaining groups of bar charts by obtaining a group of bar charts for each block of the two or more blocks of time, respective bar charts of the group representing a specific quality factor contributing to quality of glucose control;
assembling the groups of bar charts into a time-in-range bar chart ("TIR bar chart") that represents a quality of glucose control for the block of the two or more blocks of time associated with a given group of bar charts, wherein the groups of bar charts are displayed at a second region of the graphical representation;
obtaining information about one or more changes to rapid-acting insulin dosing for one or more meals that were applied during or before the period of interest and defining indicators for the one or more changes to rapid-acting insulin dosing for one or more meals, wherein the indicators comprise graphic elements; and
assigning the TIR bar chart and the indicators to the graphical representation of the change in quality of glucose control of the patient for the period of interest, wherein the indicators are shown on the graphical representation at a third region of the graphical representation between the first region and the second region and correspond to a time associated with the one or more updates to the changes to rapid-acting insulin dosing for one or more meals, and
presenting an information section visually in front of a portion of the graphical representation in response to a patient selecting an interaction with an indicator of the plurality of indicators, wherein the information section comprises information associated with the one or more changes to rapid-acting insulin dosing for the one or more meals, and wherein a portion of the graphical representation is visible when the information section is displayed such that the TIR bar chart and the information associated with the one or more changes to rapid-acting insulin dosing are shown simultaneously.
These steps amount to managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions
between people and therefore recite certain methods of organizing human activity. Tracking a patient’s glucose control for a particular time period by gathering data to construct graphs to represent glucose quality control during one or more time periods and indicate on the graphs when rapid-acting insulin dosing changes were made for one or more meals, and providing an information section in front of the graphical representation in response to a patient’s selection of an indicator to show the TIR chart and information associated with insulin changes at the same time, are personal behaviors that may be performed by a healthcare provider or by patients themselves.
Claim 12 is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional
elements within the claims only amount to:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
Claim 12 additionally recites:
a processor of a mobile electronic device, wherein the processor comprises a GUI builder configured to generate the graphical representation based on a patient selected period of interest of insulin therapy of the patient, and generate one or more interactive elements selectable by the patient and the GUI builder as implementing the steps of the abstract idea
a display of the mobile electronic device as implementing the step of displaying two or more blocks of time, groups of bar charts, and indicators representing change in quality of glucose control
information “pane” as a means of displaying information in a particular section of a display
interactive elements as a means of displaying information on the graph
The broad recitation of general purpose computing elements at a high level of generality only amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using computing components as tools.
Regarding the processor, Para. [0023] discloses various types of processors with which the claimed invention may be implemented, including “a general purpose processor, a special purpose processor, a digital signal processor (DSP), an Integrated Circuit (IC), an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC), a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) or other programmable logic device, discrete gate or transistor logic, discrete hardware components, or any combination thereof designed to perform the functions described herein. A general-purpose processor (may also be referred to herein as a host processor or simply a host) may be a microprocessor, but in the alternative, the processor may be any conventional processor, controller, microcontroller, or state machine. A processor may also be implemented as a combination of computing devices, such as a combination of a DSP and a microprocessor, a plurality of microprocessors, one or more microprocessors in conjunction with a DSP core, or any other such configuration”. Therefore, this element is given its broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose computing element.
Regarding the mobile electronic device and display, Para. [0030] of the instant specification discloses a “user device” which may be a mobile phone, tablet computer, wearable computer or personal computer, or “communication equipment suitable for electronic communication with therapy services via network”. Para. [0045] discloses a “touch display” of a GUI element; Para. [0082] discloses “A computing apparatus for operative coupling to a display or including a display, the computing apparatus comprising: a controller to control presentation of a graphical representation at the display”. No particulars of the mobile device, or display are disclosed. Therefore, these elements are given the broadest reasonable interpretation as a general purpose computing device with a display, e.g., a smartphone or PC, functioning in its ordinary capacity.
Regarding the “GUI Builder”, para. [0052] discloses “Processor executable instructions 318 include instructions, executable by processor 320, for generating a graphical representation and a GUI, such as a graphical representation 228 and a graphical user interface 214, without limitation. Processor executable instructions 318 include instructions for executing graphical representation builder 302 and instructions for executing GUI builder 306”; GUI builder 306 may be configured, generally, to generate GUI elements that overlay a graphical representation and facilitate interaction with the graphical representation. For example, GUI builder 306 may be configured to generate GUI element definitions and layouts of such GUI elements so that, when executing the GUI, a user of display portion 200 may interact with a TIR or setting update indicators to cause display of information panes such as information pane 230 and information pane 232”. GUI Builder is understood to be instructions executed by the processor (understood to be a general purpose processor as explained above) to generate a particular layout of elements on the user interface of a general purpose computing device in a particular way, which only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea using a computer.
Regarding the “information pane”, this amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using a computer to show information in a “pane”, or individual section, of a display area. Per [0030] of specification, this is understood to be an implemented via a general purpose computing device such as a laptop, mobile phone, personal computer, etc., operating in its normal capacity. Therefore, this only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, e.g., displaying information on a computer.
Regarding the “interactive elements”, this amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, e.g., using a selectable element to electronically access information (see paras. [0045], [0048], [0074]). Per [0030] of specification, this is understood to be an implemented via a general purpose computing device such as a laptop, mobile phone, personal computer, etc., operating in its normal capacity. Therefore, this only amounts to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea, e.g., using a graphical “interactive element” to access information electronically on a general purpose computer.
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Claim 12 additionally recites:
receiving, by a processor of a mobile electronic device, glucose data from a continuous glucose monitoring assembly worn by the patient;
receiving, by the processor, insulin information received from a device configured to monitor insulin administered by a medication delivery device;
The above steps only amount to mere data gathering and constitute insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of pre-solution activity.
These elements in Sections A and B above are therefore not sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually.
Claim 12, as a whole, is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B
The present claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to
more than the abstract idea because the additional elements or combination of elements amount to no more than a recitation of:
A. Instructions to Implement the Judicial Exception. MPEP 2106.05(f)
As explained above, claim 12 only recites the aforementioned computing elements as tools for performing the steps of the abstract idea, and mere instructions to perform the abstract idea using a computer is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. MPEP 2106.05(f).
B. Insignificant Extra-Solution Activity. MPEP 2106.05(g)
Likewise, as explained above, the steps in Claim 12 of receiving, by a processor of a mobile electronic device, glucose data from a continuous glucose monitoring assembly worn by the patient; and receiving, by the processor, insulin information received from a device configured to monitor insulin administered by a medication delivery device, only amount to mere data gathering and constitute insignificant extra-solution activity.
C. Well-Understood, Routine and Conventional Activities. MPEP 2106.05(d)
In addition to amounting to insignificant extra-solution activity the elements in Section B
above constitute well-understood, routine and conventional activity. The steps of receiving, by a processor of a mobile electronic device, glucose data from a continuous glucose monitoring assembly worn by the patient; and receiving, by the processor, insulin information received from a device configured to monitor insulin administered by a medication delivery device, only amount to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been previously held to be well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the
above-identified judicial exception. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds
nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Their
collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Depending Claims
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which are also certain methods of organizing human activity or further narrow/define the abstract idea embodied in the claims:
Claim 18 recites receiving, by the mobile electronic device, insulin data from an accessory that attaches to the medication delivery device, which comprises an additional element that amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity in the form of data gathering. In addition to constituting extra-solution activity, this limitation constitutes well-understood, routine and conventional activity given that it amounts to receiving or transmitting data over a network, which has been previously held to be well-understood, routine and conventional when claimed at a high level of generality or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II).
Claim 21 recites particular aspects of initiating presentation of information comprising information about a quality factor contributing to a quality of glucose control for a block of time of the two or more blocks of time; Claim 22 recites particular aspects of comprising obtaining information about one or more changes to long-acting insulin dosing that were applied during or before the period of interest and defining indicators for each of the one or more changes to long-acting insulin dosing. But for recitation of “information pane”, and/or “by the processor”, Claims 21-22 include limitations that are certain methods of organizing human activity as a healthcare provider may present any of the information recited by the claims. Regarding recitation of “information pane” in Claim 21, this amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea using a computer to show information in a particular layout in organized “panes” on a display screen as discussed above with respect to Claim 12. Per [0030] of specification, this is understood to be an application operating on a general purpose computing device such as a laptop, mobile phone, personal computer, etc., operating in its normal capacity. Regarding recitation of “by the processor” in Claims 21, 22, this amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract using computing components as tools, and the discussion above with respect to independent claim 12 and the additional element of the processor is equally applicable to Claims 21 and 22.
Claims 23, 35-32, 34 recite limitations which further narrow the scope of independent claim 12.
Claim 20 recites particular aspects of initiating presentation of the information by tapping the TIR bar chart or the indicator, which comprises an additional element which amounts to insignificant application of the abstract idea, e.g., outputting information after performance of the abstract idea. This has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. As evidenced by the prior art of record, tapping a display icon to initiate presentation of information is a well-understood, routine, and conventional element in the field of computerized healthcare. See US Publication 20170347903A1 at [0095], US Publication 20200319770A1 at [0033], US Publication 20200365258A1 at [0131]). Well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Claim 33 recites comprising delivering insulin to the patient by the medication delivery device, which comprises an additional element. This amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity. As stated in MPEP 2106.05(g), "[t]he term "extra-solution activity" can be understood as activities incidental to the primary process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim." In the present claim, the function of delivering insulin to the patient is only nominally or tangentially related to the process of constructing time-in range bar charts, and accordingly constitutes insignificant extra-solution activity. This element has been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. As evidenced by the prior art of record, delivering insulin to a patient via a medication delivery device such as an insulin pump is well-understood, routine, and conventional elements in the field of computerized healthcare (see Zhong at Paras. [0133]-[0143]; see Hayter ‘085 at [0058]; see Wei at [0024]). Well-understood, routine, conventional activity cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”). As such the claim is not patent eligible.
Looking at the limitations of the dependent claims as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation. This is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more.
Dependent claims 18, 20-23, 25-34, when analyzed as a whole, are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the additional recited limitation(s) fail(s) to establish that the claim(s) is/are not directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. These claims fail to remedy the deficiencies of their parent claims above, and are therefore rejected for at least the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above, and incorporated herein.
For the reasons stated, Claims 12, 18, 20-23, 25-34 fail the Subject Matter Eligibility Test and are consequently rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Response to Applicant’s Remarks/Arguments
101 Rejections
Applicant’s remarks regarding the 101 rejections of Claims 12, 18, 20-23, 25-33 under 35 USC 101 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues:
(a) At prong II of Step 2A, claim 12 integrates the alleged abstract idea into a practical
application and provides an improvement to the technological field of user interfaces for glucose monitoring systems for diabetes management (at page 7)
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Regarding integration of an abstract idea into a practical application by providing an improvement to the “technological field of user interfaces for glucose monitoring systems for diabetes management”, MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves another technology. See also MPEP 2106.05(a)(II). Applicant’s claim is confined to a general-purpose computer (see Spec. Para. [0023], disclosing various types of general purpose processors that may be used; Para. [0030], disclosing various types of “user devices” may be a mobile phone, tablet computer, wearable computer or personal computer etc.) and does not recite “another technology.” Because no other technology is recited in the claim, the claim cannot improve another technology (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(i) describing an example of an improvement to another technology where the abstract idea implemented on a computer improved the claimed additional element of a rubber molding machine). Applicant’s claimed invention recites the additional element(s) of a processor (see Spec. Para. [0023], disclosing various types of general purpose processors that may be used), a mobile electronic device (see Para. [0030], disclosing various types of “user devices” may be a mobile phone, tablet computer, wearable computer or personal computer etc.), and a GUI builder (see [0052], instructions executed by the processor; [0054], GUI Builder may be configure do generate GUI elements that overlay graphical representations and generates GUI element definitions and layouts to display information) and does not recite “another technology” as discussed above. While these additional elements implement the steps of the abstract idea, there is no indication that these additional elements operate in a manner different than they normally operate. (For example, assembling data into a chart and assigning indicators to the chart, and displaying the information graphically on the screen of the user device does not improve the user device or the screen of the user device. The user device and screen are operating as they normally operate.) Operating a general purpose computing device such as a tablet computer or mobile phone in the manner it normally operates is insufficient to improve that other technology. As such, these additional elements do not provide an improvement to the abstract idea, and a practical application is not present. This argument is not persuasive.
(b) Both the technical problem and the improvement would have been apparent to one having skill in the art at the time the application was filed (pages 7-8) (with respect to Core Wireless)
Regarding (b), the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the instant claims are analogous to Core Wireless. Examiner submits that in Core Wireless, the specification confirmed that the claims disclosed an improved user interface for electronic devices, particularly those with small screens, by teaching that prior art interfaces had many deficits relating to the efficient functioning of the computer, and disclosed the particular problems associated with prior art interfaces to which the claimed invention provided an improvement. By providing improved user interfaces that allowed quicker access to applications and stored data within an electronic device, the functionality of the electronic device was physically improved. Applicant has not cited to analogous support in the instant specification to show how the claimed invention provides an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself.
Regarding remarks at page 8 pertaining to the August 4, 2025 USPTO memorandum, Examiner respectfully submits that there is no apparent technical improvement as there are no problems with interfaces discussed in the specification. Rather, the background (paras. [0002]-[0008] focus on the burdens on a healthcare provider and/or person with diabetes faces with the mental task of manually evaluating therapy data, manually determining a dosing recommendation, manual entry of data, and evaluating the outcome tradeoffs associated with adopting a therapy setting recommendation. Examiner respectfully submits that the improvement has to be evident to a person having skill in the art; based on the instant specification, it is not evident that the claimed invention provides a technical improvement as no issues with displaying information on small screens are disclosed.
With regard to Core Wireless, Examiner submits that Core Wireless made it known that there is a problem with small screens as it relates to the particular application in Core Wireless e.g., navigating menus. It in no way stated that all small screens inherently have a problem displaying data. Therefore, remarks at top of page 8 are not persuasive.
(c) In the present application, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the features recited in amended claim 12 provide an improved graphical user interface that displays the time in range (TIR) bar charts over time to illustrate glucose control over a user-selected period, and further by user selection of interactive elements, the information about the insulin dosing can be displayed in combination with the TIR information to provide a full visualization of the impact of a change in insulin dosing on glucose control (page 8)
Regarding (c), the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s position. Examiner submits that any improvements fall within the scope of an improvement to the abstract idea. Constructing a graph which shows (“displays”) particular information (e.g., glucose control over a user-selected period in combination with TIR information) falls within the scope of the abstract idea; it is a personal behavior that may be performed by a healthcare provider or the PWD himself/herself. Applicant further remarks, at page 8, “As explained in paragraph [0033] of the Specification, "graphical representations discussed herein enable visualization of change in quality of glucose control following insulin-setting changes, and such visualization may in turn may facilitate a user's appreciation for effect of insulin setting changes on quality of glucose control” (Emphasis Examiner); Examiner submits this citation provides further evidence of the improvement being to the abstract idea itself, e.g., the claimed invention improves the capability of the HCP/PWD to understand (“appreciate”) the effect of insulin setting changes on quality of glucose control. Similarly, placement of elements on the interface to “facilitate user interaction with the graphical representation and further assist with visualizing changes in quality of glucose control and outcomes of applying therapy setting updates (as cited at page 8-9, specification [0074]; Emphasis Examiner) also provides evidence of the improvement being to improve the capability of the user to understand the association of therapy setting updates and quality of glucose control by adding icons to specific places on the graphical representation.
Regarding remarks at top of page 9, “Therefore, to solve the problem of presenting large amount of glucose data in a meaningful manner that illustrates the user's glucose control and the results of therapy changes on glucose control, the Specification discloses an improved graphical user interface that allows for interactive visualization of insulin therapy data simultaneously with a TIR bar chart to illustrate the effect of therapy changes on glucose control on a single screen. The claimed invention improves upon static displays of glucose data known in the art and avoids the need to navigate between multiple windows to view the glucose and insulin therapy data”, Examiner respectfully submits that this amounts to an improvement to the abstract idea, e.g., presenting multiple data sets (glucose data and insulin therapy setting updates) on one display. The specification does not disclose any problems associated with navigating between multiple windows nor is there a clear nexus between any technical problems in the specification and the current limitations of the instant claims. The examiner does not dispute that an improvement is present; however, the there is no technical problem and thus applicant's invention does not meet this particular test for a practical application; as such, the abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Further, Examiner notes that per MPEP 2106.05, “claiming the improved speed or efficiency inherent with applying the abstract idea on a computer” does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide an inventive concept.
Examiner maintains the position that the claimed invention appears to seek to improve the capability of the healthcare provider or patient to associate therapy settings with changes in glucose quality control by allowing a user to select a specific time period of interest, rather than improving computer function or another technology. As stated above, the claimed invention may provide an improvement to the abstract idea itself, e.g., it may create a graph that is easier for the user to understand their glucose control in association with insulin therapy setting updates concurrently, but it does not improve the functioning of a computer or other technology, and accordingly, does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea. Please see MPEP 2106.05(a) which states “It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements.” As discussed in previous Office Actions, the independent claim does not recite any additional elements which provide an improvement to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application; the additional elements are understood to be general purpose computing elements functioning in their ordinary capacities, which is not sufficient to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Examiner further submits that a claim to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis” (Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A) was found to be directed to an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106. Furthermore, with regard to Electric Power Group, see MPEP 2106.05(f): When determining whether a claim simply recites a judicial exception with the words "apply it" (or an equivalent), such as mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, examiners may consider the following: (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it". See Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1356, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1743-44 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
(d) While not necessary to proceed to Step 2B, claim 12 should alternatively be found to be patent eligible at Step 2B (page 9)
Regarding (d), the Examiner respectfully disagrees that the claimed invention is found eligible at Step 2B. Regarding consideration of additional elements both individually and in combination, Examiner respectfully submits that this has been done; see Non-Final Action dated 12/10/25 at page 8 and page 9 where it explicitly states, at both 2A Prong 2 and 2B, that looking at the limitations (additional elements) as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. Applicant has not provided, nor can Examiner find, evidence of how the additional elements, when considered alone or together, amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Regarding remarks at page 9 pertaining to “interactive elements” being “mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer”, Examiner maintains the position that this only amounts to using the computer to select which information to display and subsequently displaying that information. For example, a patient could select which type of information to request for display, and a healthcare provider could use that information to construct a graphical instruction showing an information panel/section (e.g. “pane”) in front of a graphical representation which shows information associated with changes to rapid-acting insulin dosing for the one or more meals, in which a portion of the graphical representation is visible when the information panel (pane) is displayed so that the TIR bar chart and the information associated with the one or more changes to rapid-acting insulin dosing are shown simultaneously. Constructing a graph in a particular manner, based on a particular request, to show specific information falls within the scope of the abstract idea; it does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. This argument is not persuasive.
For all of the above reasons, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
The rejections of Claims 12, 18, 20-23, 25-34 under 35 USC 101 are maintained.
Conclusion
Examiner respectfully requests that Applicant provides citations to relevant paragraphs of specification for support for amendments in future correspondence.
The following relevant prior art not cited is made of record:
US Publication 20180228408 A1, teaching on remote analyte monitoring of a user utilizing selectable icons to access data
US Publication 20210217527 A1, teaching on systems and methods for providing patient data corresponding with progression milestones for providing treatment options and outcome tracking, including using a graphical interface to display markers in a particular time period of interest
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3370. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00am-5:00pm EST, and generally schedules interviews in the timeframe of 2:00-5:00pm 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, Fonya Long, can be reached on 571-270-5096. 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.
/ANNE-MARIE K ALDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3682