DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the Amendment and Reply Under 37 C.F.R. § 1.111 filed 8 December 2025. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 3-7, 9, 13-14, and 17-20. Claims 1-20 are pending, with claims 8 and 11-12 being previously withdrawn.
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 Interpretation
Examiner Notes: currently, NO limitation invokes interpretation under § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Examiner’s Note Regarding Machine Learning: The Examiner’s note regarding the claimed neural network on p. 3 of the Non-Final Rejection dated 11 July 2025 is maintained.
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.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 19-20 is/are 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 5 recites the limitation “performing… an inverse wavelet transform on the instance indicating the respiratory abnormality and the instance indicating no respiratory abnormality” [lines 2-3, emphasis applied by Examiner], which is considered indefinite, as the Examiner notes that claim 3 [from which claim 5 depends] recites that there is only one extracted signal [extract a signal from the auditory signal (claim 3, lines 4-5, emphasis applied by Examiner)] that is considered to only either be an instance indicating the respiratory abnormality [lines 9-10] OR an instance indicating no respiratory abnormality [lines 12-13], such that it is unclear how an inverse wavelet transform can be performed on BOTH the extracted signal indicating the respiratory abnormality and the extracted signal indicating no respiratory abnormality, as there should only be one extracted signal. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the indefinite limitation to refer to performing an inverse wavelet transform on the extracted signal, wherein the extracted signal is considered to either be the instance indicating the respiratory abnormality or the instance indicating no respiratory abnormality. The Examiner notes that claim 19 recites similarly indefinite subject matter [lines 1-4], which is similarly interpreted to the interpretation of claim 5 as noted above.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “performing… an inverse wavelet transform on the instance indicating the respiratory abnormality, and the instance indicating no respiratory abnormality” [lines 1-5, emphasis applied by Examiner], which is considered indefinite, as the Examiner notes that claim 4 [from which claim 6 depends] recites that there is only one extracted amplitude adjusted signal or extracted width adjusted signal [lines 3-5, depending on whether the amplitude or width is adjusted] that is considered to only either be an instance of the respiratory abnormality [lines 9-13] OR an instance indicating no respiratory abnormality [lines 14-17], such that it is unclear how an inverse wavelet transform can be performed on BOTH the extracted amplitude adjusted signal or the extracted width adjusted signal indicating the respiratory abnormality, and the extracted amplitude adjusted signal or the amplitude adjusted signal or the extracted width adjusted signal indicating no respiratory abnormality, as there should only be one extracted amplitude adjusted or width adjusted signal. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted the indefinite limitation to refer to performing an inverse wavelet transform on the extracted amplitude adjusted or width adjusted signal, wherein the extracted amplitude adjusted or width adjusted signal is considered to either be indicating the respiratory abnormality or indicating no respiratory abnormality. The Examiner notes that claim 20 recites similarly indefinite subject matter [lines 1-5], which is similarly interpreted to the interpretation of claim 6 above.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-10, and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Each claim has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Representative claim(s) 1 [representing all independent claims] recite(s):
A computer-implemented method for de-noising an auditory signal, the method comprising:
partitioning, by one or more computing devices of a digital stethoscope, an auditory spectrogram representing the auditory signal into a plurality of windows of equal length timeframes, wherein each of the windows indicates a frequency response of the auditory signal within each of the timeframes; and
processing, by the one or more computing devices, each of the windows using a neural network trained to remove unwanted noise signals from the auditory signal, wherein the processing comprises:
(i) identifying an odd number of consecutive windows,
(ii) identifying a middle window from the odd number of consecutive windows, wherein the middle window is a window to have the unwanted noise signals removed,
(iii) identifying an even number of windows preceding the middle window,
(iv) identifying an even number of windows following the middle window,
(v) inputting the middle window, the even number of windows preceding the middle window, and the even number of windows following the middle window into the neural network, and
(vi) computing, using the neural network, a vector representing the auditory signal with the unwanted noise signals removed.
(Emphasis added: abstract idea, additional element)
Step 2A Prong 1
Representative claim(s) 1 recites the following abstract ideas, which may be performed in the mind or by hand with the assistance of pen and paper:
“partitioning… an auditory spectrogram representing the auditory signal into a plurality of windows of equal length timeframes, wherein each of the windows indicates a frequency response of the auditory signal within each of the timeframes” – may be performed by merely observing known or collected data and drawing mental conclusions of arbitrary timeframes therefrom [Applicant’s Specification ¶0031]
“wherein the processing comprises: (i) identifying an odd number of consecutive windows” – may be performed by merely observing known or collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom
“(ii) identifying a middle window from the odd number of consecutive windows, wherein the middle window is a window to have the unwanted noise signals removed” – may be performed by merely observing known or collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom
“(iii) identifying an even number of windows preceding the middle window” – may be performed by merely observing known or collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom
“(iv) identifying an even number of windows following the middle window” – may be performed by merely observing known or collected data and drawing mental conclusions therefrom
“(vi) computing a vector representing the auditory signal with the unwanted noise signals removed” – may be performed by merely applying known or derived mathematical relationships or outputs on at least a limited amount of data under no particular time constraints [Applicant’s Specification ¶0036]
If a claim, under BRI, covers performance of the limitations in the mind but for the mere recitation of extra-solutionary activity (and otherwise generic computer elements) then the claim falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea under Step 2A Prong 1 of the Mayo framework as set forth in the 2019 PEG.
No limitations are provided that would force the complexity of any of the identified evaluation steps to be non-performable by pen-and-paper practice.
Alternatively or additionally, these steps describe the concept of using implicit mathematical formula(s) [i.e., “(vi) computing a vector representing the auditory signal with the unwanted noise signals removed”] to derive a conclusion based on input of data, which corresponds to concepts identified as abstract ideas by the courts [Diamond v. Diehr. 450 U.S. 175, 209 U.S.P.Q. 1 (1981), Parker v. Flook. 437 U.S. 584, 19 U.S.P.Q. 193 (1978), and In re Grams. 888 F.2d 835, 12 U.S.P.Q.2d 1824 (Fed. Cir. 1989)]. The concept of the recited limitations identified as mathematical concepts above is not meaningfully different than those mathematical concepts found by the courts to be abstract ideas.
The dependent claims merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea [e.g. limitations relating to the data gathered or particular steps which are entirely embodied in the mental process] and amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they are merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Thus, these concepts are similar to court decisions of abstract ideas of itself: collecting, displaying, and manipulating data [Int. Ventures v. Cap One Financial], collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis [Electric Power Group], collection, storage, and recognition of data [Smart Systems Innovations].
Step 2A Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application.
Representative claim 1 only recites additional elements of extra-solutionary activity – in particular, extra-solution activity of generic computer function [the Examiner notes that there is no positive recitation of any type of data gathering] – without further sufficient detail that would tie the abstract portions of the claim into a specific practical application (2019 PEG p. 55 – the instant claim, for example does not tie into a particular machine, a sufficiently particular form of data or signal collection – via the claimed extra-solution activity of generic computer function, or a sufficiently particular form of display or computing architecture/structure).
Dependent claim(s) 2-7, 10, 13-14, 16-20 merely add detail to the abstract portions of the claim but do not otherwise encompass any additional elements which tie the claim(s) into a particular application/integration [the dependent claim(s) recite generic ‘units’ or ‘steps’ which encompass mere computer instructions to carry out an otherwise wholly abstract idea].
Accordingly, the claim(s) are not integrated into a practical application under Step 2A Prong 2.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claims 1 and 15 as individual wholes fail to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception at Step 2B. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of extra-solutionary activity [i.e., generic computer function] and generic computer elements cannot amount to significantly more than an abstract idea [MPEP § 2106.05(f)] and is further considered to merely implement an abstract idea on a generic computer [MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality].
For the independent claim portions and dependent claims which provide additional elements of extra-solutionary data gathering, MPEP § 2106.05(g) establishes that mere data gathering for determining a result does not amount to significantly more. The extra-solutionary activity of processor steps of acquiring, storing, filtering signals, etc. as presently recited, cannot provide an inventive concept which amounts to significantly more than the recited abstract idea.
For the independent claims as well as the dependent claims merely reciting generic computer elements and functions [a memory and one or more processors each recited at a high level of generality and their functions recited therein], MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II) establishes computer-based elements which are considered to be well understood, routine, and conventional when recited at a high level of generality.
Accordingly, the generic computer elements and the generic computer functions, as presently limited, cannot provide an inventive concept since they fall under a generic structure and/or function that does not add a meaningful additional feature to the judicial exception(s) of the claim(s).
Claims 1 and 15 recite “a digital stethoscope”. Such a “digital stethoscope” is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Applicant’s disclosure is not particular regarding the particular structure of the generically claimed “digital stethoscope”, and recites the digital portions of the stethoscope at a high level of generality [The digital stethoscope 510 is an acoustic device for detecting and analyzing noises from a patient's body (Applicant’s Specification ¶0073); The digital stethoscope 510 can include one or more components. For example, in aspects, the digital stethoscope510 can include a display unit 502, one or more microphones 506, and a first housing 508. The display unit 502 can be any graphical user interface such as a display, a projector, a video screen, a touch screen, or any combination thereof that can present information detected or generated by the digital stethoscope 510 for visualization by a user of the system 100 (Applicant’s Specification ¶0074)]. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the medical technology arts. Thus, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the field of respiratory analysis. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional element because it describes such an additional element in a manner that indicates that the additional element is sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. 112(a) [see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, Page 3, (III)(A)(1), not attached]. Adding hardware that performs “well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible [TLI Communications].
Dong (US-20110222697-A1, previously presented) [Many conventional digital stethoscopes already have the function of selecting a segment from a sound signal, and then only make the selected segment recurrently shown in an information window during receiving the sound signal (Dong ¶0055)]
McLane (US-10709414-B1, previously presented) [allows the digital stethoscope 110 to generate the classification value 266 and display the indicator in real time when used in conjunction with the architecture of the digital stethoscope 110 because it uses less computing resources, such as processing power and memory as opposed to conventional methods of detecting a respiratory abnormality (McLane Col 25:45-51)]
Deslauriers (US-20020186851-A1, previously presented) [The disclosed invention relates to a method for the holding of a power source, such as a battery, within the head of a digital stethoscope in order to provide power to electronic and digital features offered by certain electronic stethoscopes (Deslauriers Abstract)]
Claims 1 and 15 recite “a neural network”. Such a “neural network” recited at a high level of generality is considered to refer to machine learning, which is considered well-understood, routine, and conventional, as known by at least:
Hu (“Intelligent Sensor Networks”, previously presented) [In supervised learning, the learner is provided with labeled input data. This data contains a sequence of input/output pairs of the form xi, yi, where xi is a possible input and yi is the correctly labeled output associated with it. The aim of the learner in supervised learning is to learn the mapping from inputs to outputs. The learning program is expected to learn a function f that accounts for the input/output pairs seen so far, f (xi) = yi, for all i. This function f is called a classifier if the output is discrete and a regression function if the output is continuous. The job of the classifier/regression function is to correctly predict the outputs of inputs it has not seen before (Hu, Page 5)]
Huang (“Kernel Based Algorithms for Mining Huge Data Sets”, previously presented) [In supervised learning, the learner is provided with labeled input data. This data contains a sequence of input/output pairs of the form xi, yi, where xi is a possible input and yi is the correctly labeled output associated with it. The aim of the learner in supervised learning is to learn the mapping from inputs to outputs. The learning program is expected to learn a function f that accounts for the input/output pairs seen so far, f (xi) = yi, for all i. This function f is called a classifier if the output is discrete and a regression function if the output is continuous. The job of the classifier/regression function is to correctly predict the outputs of inputs it has not seen before (Huang, Page 1)]
Mitchell (“The Discipline of Machine Learning”, previously presented) [For example, we now have a variety of algorithms for supervised learning of classification and regression functions; that is, for learning some initially unknown function f : X [Calibri font/0xE0] Y given a set of labeled training examples {xi; yi} of inputs xi and outputs yi = f(xi) (Mitchell, Pages 3-4)]
Examiner’s Note Regarding Particular Treatment or Prophylaxis: Claim(s) 3-4, 13-14, and 17-18 recite subject matter regarding “indicating a respiratory abnormality”, which the Examiner notes is not considered to be a particular treatment or prophylaxis, as none of the identified claims positively recite or include language that is considered to be a particular treatment or prophylaxis as an additional element to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or allow the identified claims to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception [MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2)].
Accordingly, the claim(s) as whole(s) fail amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B.
Examiner’s Note Regarding Prior Art
The Examiner’s Note regarding the closest prior art of record and the subject matter not considered to be taught by any prior art reference on p. 14-15 of the Non-Final Rejection dated 11 July 2025 is maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 10, filed 8 December 2025, with respect to objections to claims 7 and 14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to claims 7 and 14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 10-11, with respect to the rejections of claims 5-7, 9-10, 13-14, and 19-20 under § 112(b) have been fully considered but they are not entirely persuasive.
The Examiner notes that not all of the rejections under § 112(b) were properly addressed. The Examiner notes that the applied rejections of claims 5-6 and 19-20 are directed towards the language indicating that transformations are performed on recited instances, when based on the claims 5-6 and 19-20 are dependent on, there is only one extracted signal that is considered to be an instance indicating the respiratory abnormality OR an instance indicating no respiratory abnormality, such that the transform would be applied to only one or the other of an extracted signal that is an instance indicating the respiratory abnormality OR an extracted signal that is an instance indicating no respiratory abnormality, such that it is understood that the transform may be applicable to either type of instance. Reciting that the transform is performed on both types of instances renders the identified claims indefinite, as it is unclear how there are two concurrent instances, when prior claims that claims 5-6 and 19-20 are dependent from only indicate that there is one instance.
Applicant's arguments , see Applicant’s Remarks p. 11-15, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-7, 9-10, and 13-20 under § 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that the claimed features are not directed to mental processes because a fair reading of the claims indicates that the claims specifically relate to a tangible and real technology, in reference to the claimed digital stethoscope that performs the claimed de-noising, which the Applicant notes is a special purpose device that does not have a generic use. The Applicant also asserts that the specification indicates that the problem solved by the claimed invention is to enable health care providers a more precise way to detect important noise signals that are correlated to disease progression of respiratory diseases [¶¶0004, 0006-0007]. The Applicant further asserts that humans do not possess the ability to detect sounds to a precision that enables them to correlate these sounds to disease progression [Applicant’s Specification ¶0005] and notes that the claimed features cannot be performed in the human mind because a human mind is not akin to a digital stethoscope and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that an auditory spectrogram can only be generated using highly specialized computer devices. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that the arguments that the claimed digital stethoscope and computing devices recited at a high level of generality therein were analyzed at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B as being directed towards a well understood, routine, and conventional element [see Non-Final Rejection dated 11 July 2025, p. 9-13], such that while the digital stethoscope and computing devices are related to tangible and real technology, the mere recitation of such is not considered to integrate the identified abstract ideas into a practical application or allow the claims as individual wholes to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea(s). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that while the Applicant asserts that the claimed invention is for improving “other technology or technical field” [problem solved as indicated by the Applicant’s Specification ¶¶0004, 0006-0007], the improvement is recited within limitations that have been identified as being abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer with additional elements that are considered to be well-understood, routine, and conventional. The “improvements” are not considered to be additional elements, as the limitations directed towards the correlation of noise signals to disease progression, are identified as being abstract ideas. As such, under MPEP 2106.05(a), "an improvement in the abstract idea itself (e.g. a recited fundamental economic concept) is not an improvement in technology". Specifically, the "improvements" analysis in Step 2A determines whether the claim pertains to an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to another technology without reference to what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity [MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1)]. It is important to note, the judicial exception alone cannot provide the improvement. The improvement can be provided by one or more additional elements. See the discussion of Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. 175, 187 and 191-92, 209 USPQ 1, 10 (1981)) in subsection II, below. In addition, the improvement can be provided by the additional element(s) in combination with the recited judicial exception [MPEP § 2106.05(a)]. It is important to note that in order for a method claim to improve computer functionality, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim must be limited to computer implementation. That is, a claim whose entire scope can be performed mentally, cannot be said to improve computer technology. Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 120 USPQ2d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a method of translating a logic circuit into a hardware component description of a logic circuit was found to be ineligible because the method did not employ a computer and a skilled artisan could perform all the steps mentally) [MPEP § 2106.05(a)(I)]. As such, the claims do not recite additional elements that may integrate the abstract ideas into a practical application of the abstract ideas, and thus the claimed invention is not considered to improve other technology or technical field. Moreover, with respect to the specific arguments that “humans do not possess the ability to detect sounds to a precision that enables them to correlate these sounds to disease progression” and “that an auditory spectrogram can only be generated using highly specialized computer devices” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In light of such arguments, the Examiner notes that amending to include such limitations may still be considered extra-solution activity of generic data gathering at Step 2A Prong 2.
The Applicant further asserts that a human mind cannot perform the processes claimed with respect to partitioning the auditory spectrogram, and performing the de-noising in the manner claimed, by using a neural network, as a neural network is a computing model that is grounded in technology and does not make sense outside of the technological environment as claimed. The Applicant also asserts that the output as claimed is also something that cannot be generated in the human mind and simply dismissing these technical features as mental processes disregards the crux and context of the invention. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that the claim language directed towards the use of a neural network were not identified at Step 2A Prong 1 as being an abstract idea and were instead analyzed at Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B as being directed towards well understood, routine, and conventional subject matter [see Non-Final Rejection dated 11 July 2025, p. 9-13]. The limitations that were identified as being directed towards abstract ideas were identified as being performable in the mind or by hand based on the claimed functionality and lack of specificity with respect to specific requirements of technology to perform the claimed functions.
The Applicant asserts that the Examiner provides no analogous situation in which a human mind can perform these claimed limitations, or a situation where these functions can be performed using a pen and paper, and merely makes conclusory statements and generic assertions. The Applicant cites Ex Parte Robert James Catherall, Anthony Neil Berent, Rhys David Copeland, Mark Edgeworth, & Jonathan Stephen Black, No APPEAL 2019-002160, 2020 WL 3571649, with respect to the oversimplification of the claims by looking at them generally and failing to account for the specific requirements of the claims, and submits that the claims are not abstract ideas in the first instance and do not fall under a judicially created exception because they cannot be performed practically in the human mind or using pen and paper. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that Ex Parte Robert James Catherall, Anthony Neil Berent, Rhys David Copeland, Mark Edgeworth, & Jonathan Stephen Black is not considered to be precedential with respect to the § 101 analysis, and is further considered to be directed towards non-analogous subject matter. The Examiner notes that while general statements are made in the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis of limitations that are considered to be directed towards abstract ideas, the Examiner has cited portions of the Applicant’s Specification that are considered to provide context to the claim limitations, and the Examiner further notes that the claim limitations identified as being directed towards abstract ideas are generally recited as well and do not contain such specificity that would prevent one of ordinary skill from performing the claimed functions in the mind or by hand [partitioning data into windows, identifying an odd number of windows, counting windows before and after a middle window, computing a vector indicative of information].
The Applicant further asserts that even if the claims are deemed abstract ideas, the claims are still patent eligible because the claims integrate into a practical application, citing Example 48 as being analogous and noting that the claims provide an improvement in audio processing through the use of the novel processes and the digital stethoscope to enable improved signal detection to identify disease progression. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the analysis of Example 48 and the reasoning as to why claim 2 of Example 48 is considered to be patent eligible over § 101 is not analogous to the instant invention, as the specific limitation of claim 2 of Example 48 that is not performable in the mind or by hand is the synthesis and combination of speech waveforms, which is further identified as being an improvement to existing computer technology or to the technology of speech separation to exclude audio from an undesired source, such that the limitation further integrates the abstract ideas into a practical application and allows the claim as a whole to amount to significantly more. The Examiner notes that such language or similar language directed towards an improvement in an additional element without reference to well understood, routine, or conventional activity is not present in the instant claims. The Examiner further notes that with respect to the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis, in the Step 2A Prong 1 analysis of Example 48 the claimed “partitioning…” has no limits as to how the partitioning is performed, such that there is nothing in the claim language that precludes the step from being practically performed in the mind; and wherein the recitation of a DNN does not negate the mental nature of the claim limitations, as the claim merely uses the DNN as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process.
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 SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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.
/CHARLES A MARMOR II/Supervisory Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3791
/S.P.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3791