DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
The amendments to claims 2, 5, 8, 11, 14 and 17 overcome the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections. Newly added claim 19 has been addressed below.
Applicant's arguments filed 12/8/2025 with respect to the previously presented 35 U.S.C. 101 and 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
Regarding claim 1, the Application argues that Stamatopoulos uses “instantaneous peak detection and threshold crossing” and does not determine “a mean value … for a period of time after that point,” and Yi computes an “instantaneous per-frame” BTI over 26 ms windows and compares to a threshold defined as “three times” a baseline, allegedly failing to disclose the claimed “greater than twice the threshold value”. These arguments are not persuasive.
“Mean value .. for a period of time” is taught by Stamatopoulos. Stamatopoulos expressly discloses that “[t]he two thresholds … are calculated by using moving average filters on the interpolated envelope,” and further explains that “for the low threshold determination, the moving average filter uses all the envelope samples.” A moving average filter, by definition, determines an average (mean) value of samples over its window, i.e., over a period of time. Accordingly, Stamatopoulos teaches determining a mean/average value of envelope amplitude over time windows (and doing so in the context of event detection using a threshold).
Applicant’s “instantaneous” characterization is not commensurate in scope with the claimed invention. The Applicant argues that Yi is “instantaneous per-frame”. Even accepting that characterization, Claim 1 does not require a minimum duration for the “period of time after the first point.” Claim 1 broadly recites determining a mean value “for a period of time after the first point.” Stamatopoulos’ moving-average processing is explicitly time-windowed averaging and thus satisfies the “mean value…for a period of time” concept under BRI.
“Greater than twice the threshold value” is rejected under BRI by Stamatopoulos in view of Yi. Applicant argues and attempts to force “threshold value” to mean only the final multiplied decision boundary (Yi’s 3x line). Claim 1, however, recites a “threshold value” without limiting that value to the final multiplied line, and under BRI the “threshold value” reasonably reads on a baseline reference value used to define a detection criterion. Yi teaches a baseline and a multiplied relationship for a particular window, and if the BRI exceeds the threshold, then the detector indicates breathing. Thus, under BRI exceeding three times the baseline satisfies the requirement that the value is greater than twice the same baseline.
Regarding Claim 2, the application argues Ti “only [detects] breathing onset and does not determine both start and end of a respiratory cycle. The Examiner disagrees and submits that Stamatopoulos expressly discloses determining both start and end timestamps of each breath cycle: “The peaks of the envelope… [are used] in order to determine the start and end timestamps of each breath cycle.” Moreover, the Applicant’s own quotation of Yi indicates that detector distinguishes between breathing and non-breathing based on the BTI relative to the threshold. Such above and below threshold state transitions are consistent with identifying boundaries in respiration activity when applied in a cycle extraction framework and Stamatopoulos already discloses exacting cycle boundaries from the envelope.
Regarding 7-9 and 13-15, Applicant states Claims 7 and 13 are patentable for “similar reasons,” and that the dependent claims are patentable “at least for the reasons above.” These arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons provided above.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are maintained.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101
The Applicant argues that the claims are patent eligible because they are “rooted in a specific medical context”, require use of “one or more microphones configured to detect sounds emitted by the patient’s lungs,” and allegedly provide a technological improvement rather than an abstract idea. The Examiner disagrees and submits the following:
Step 2A, Prong One: Claim 1 recites mathematical/signal processing operations on received data (transforming lung sounds to an envelope, moving averages, determine mean values, threshold comparisons) The limitations amount to mere mathematical concepts and mental processes, and are all capable of being performed within the human mind.
Step 2A, Prong Two: the “microphone” is a generic data acquisition limitation and does not impose a technological restriction on how the signal is captured – the microphones are not special and are not improved in any manner, they are just generic microphones”. The claims merely collect lung sound data and analyze it to output information (start and end of respiratory cycle), without recite a specific improvement to the microphone/signal acquisition or applying the results to control/change a device or therapy.
Steph 2B: The additional elements (microphones, computer/processor, memory) are generic, and the claimed processing steps are routine signal analysis. Any more detailed sensor arrangement discussed in the specification is not claimed, therefore, the claims do not recite significantly more than the judicial exception.
Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections are maintained.
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 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 1-19 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1
Each of Claims 1-19 recites at least one step or instruction for receiving sound and processing the sound to determine a point in a respiratory cycle which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG or a certain method of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG. Accordingly, each of Claims 1-18recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claims 1-19 recite receiving sound, partitioning the sound, providing a moving average window, determining a threshold value and determining if mean is greater than twice a threshold value to determine a point in respiration cycle (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG).
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract idea in each of Claims 1-19 is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: Claim 1, microphones, Claim 7, a computing device and microphones, and Claim 13 a computing device, memory, processor, and microphones are generically recited computer elements in Claims 1-19 which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in Claims 1-19.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., computer, memory, microphones, as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in Claims 1-18 is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, Claims 1-19 are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
Step 2B
None of Claims 1-19 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: computer, memory and microphones.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc. , 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, at paragraphs [0091] and [0079], the components are described at a high level of generality as “any processor … memory” and “microphones…can be…standalone devices…detect the noises…”. Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms of a computer and memory is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the computer or memory. 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 computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are 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, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 1-18 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the subject matter of Claims 1-18 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself, or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field. None of Claims 1-18 provides meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in Claims 1-18 do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 1-19 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 1-19 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-19 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140155773 A1 of Stamatopoulos et al. (hereinafter, Stamatopoulos) in view of “A Software Toolkit for Acoustic Respiratory Analysis” to Yi.
Stamatopoulos discloses a computer-implemented method/system, including a non-transitory computer medium including a memory and computer ([0009]) for extracting a respiratory cycle of a patient’s lungs ([0002] “Embodiments according to the present invention relate to dynamically analyzing breathing sounds using an electronic device.”), the method comprising inter alia:
receiving, by one or more microphones configured to detect sounds emitted by the patient’s lungs, an auditory signal representing a vesicular sound emitted by the patient’s lungs ([0065] “Various designs may be used to create an accurate breath sound measurement. In some embodiments, as shown in FIG. 4, the user's nose may be closed to ensure the microphone at the user's mouth captures the entirety of the user's breathing. In a different embodiment, the breathing sound can be captured both at the user's nose and the mouth.”);
partitioning, by the one or more computing devices, the auditory signal into segments ([0090] “In order to do this, the spectral centroid of each block of the audio input signal 802 needs to be calculated at step 805. The spectral centroid comprises information about the center of gravity of the audio spectrum.”);
applying, by the one or more computing devices, a transformation to each of the segments to determine a signal envelope ([0018] “FIG. 6B illustrates an exemplary audio envelope extracted by filtering an input respiratory audio signal through a low-pass filter using an embodiment of the present invention.”) ([0103] “The envelope recalculation module at step 915 recalculates the envelope using a window which has a size set according to the previously estimated BPM …”) (Claims 7 and 15: “obtaining a first audio envelope by filtering …”);
applying, by the one or more computing devices, a moving average window to the signal envelope to obtain an averaged signal envelope ([0107] “At step 935, a peak interpolation is performed. A new interpolated envelope is created. This new envelope is a filtered envelope version that does not have false peaks created as a result of environmental noise.”) ([0108] “The two thresholds are calculated by using moving average filters on the interpolated envelope.”);
identifying, by the one or more computing devices, a first point where the averaged signal envelope initially has an amplitude greater than a threshold value ([0109] “At step 945, envelope thresholding is performed for signal presence detection. As discussed above, the low threshold is used to detect all the events, while the high threshold is used to discriminate between inhalation and exhalation events.”);
determining, by the one or more computing devices, a first mean value for the amplitude of the averaged signal envelope for a period of time after the first point and determining, by the one or more computing devices, whether the first mean value is greater than the threshold value ([0108] “The two thresholds are calculated by using moving average filters on the interpolated envelope. The functional difference between these two filters, in one embodiment, is that for the high threshold determination, the moving average filter uses a variable sample rate since it typically uses envelope peaks as input, whereas for the low threshold determination, the moving average filter uses all the envelope samples.”);
based on determining that the first mean value is greater than the threshold value, identifying, by the one or more computing devices, the first point as a start of the respiratory cycle (Claim 3: “The method of claim 1, wherein said recognizing comprises: obtaining a first envelope shaped spectral pattern from said audio respiratory signal; classifying lobes of said first envelope shaped spectral pattern into a plurality of classes; and defining said plurality of breath cycles and said plurality of breath phases using timestamps obtained from said classifying.”) ([0106] “The peaks of the envelope, both concave and convex, in order to determine the start and end timestamps of each breath cycle, and to gather the peak values that will be fed into the high threshold calculation module at step 950.”);
identifying, by the one or more computing devices, a second point in time subsequent to the first point, where the averaged signal envelope is less than the threshold value ([0108] “A low threshold is then calculated at step 940 and a high threshold is calculated at step 950. The low threshold calculated at step 940 is responsible for detecting signal presence. Accordingly, it detects all events, both inhalations and exhalations.”);
determining, by the one or more computing devices, a second mean value for the amplitude of the averaged signal envelope for a period of time immediately preceeding the second point in time (Claim 6 “… calculating a second envelope shaped spectral pattern using a window, wherein said window has a size set according to a respiratory rate … calculating a low threshold and a high threshold by using a moving average filter on said second envelope shaped spectral pattern …”);
determining, by the one or more computing devices, whether the second mean value is greater than the threshold value (high/low thresholds for envelope discrimination in Steps 940-958, see paragraph [0108]);
based on determining the second mean value is greater than the threshold value, identifying, by the one or more computing devices, the second point as an end of the respiratory cycle ([0106] At step 930, envelope peak detection is performed by the BPD module. The peaks of the envelope, both concave and convex, in order to determine the start and end timestamps of each breath cycle, and to gather the peak values that will be fed into the high threshold calculation module at step 950.);
determining, by the one or more computing devices, a minimum point for the amplitude of the averaged signal envelope between the start of the respiratory cycle and the end of the respiratory cycle and identifying, by the one or more computing devices, the minimum point as a start of an expiration event ([0108] A low threshold is then calculated at step 940 and a high threshold is calculated at step 950. The low threshold calculated at step 940 is responsible for detecting signal presence. Accordingly, it detects all events, both inhalations and exhalations. The higher threshold calculated at step 950 is used to discriminate between inhalation and exhalation events. The two thresholds are calculated by using moving average filters on the interpolated envelope. The functional difference between these two filters, in one embodiment, is that for the high threshold determination, the moving average filter uses a variable sample rate since it typically uses envelope peaks as input, whereas for the low threshold determination, the moving average filter uses all the envelope samples.).
Stamatopoulos discloses the claimed invention as set forth and cited above except for expressly disclosing where the first mean value is greater than twice the threshold value. However, Yi teaches envelope formation (Page 26 “An outline of the magnitude (i.e., the absolute value) of the signal looks like a slowly-varying wave, with definite peaks and troughs corresponding to the phase midpoints and endpoints, respectively. (We will refer to this outline as the envelope of the signal.)”), smoothing (Page 31 “The result d[n] is graphed in Figure 8a. It is apparent that with each successive filtering step, the signal transforms into a smoother representation of its envelope.”, and threshold crossing (Page 21 “A "Breathing Timing Index (BTI)" is computed and compared to a threshold to detect the presence or absence of breathing in the signal.”) of detected lung sounds (Page 10 “Most of the lung sound data used in this work were recorded using an electronic stethoscope (developed by Meditron and distributed by Welch-Allyn).”). Yi defines a BTI that represents the smooth amplitude and further states that the threshold is defined as three times the average BTI during apnea (no breathing) (Page 21 “The threshold is defined as three times the average BTI during apnea (or absence of breathing). The BTI is computed over contiguous windows that span 26 milliseconds.”). Thus, Yi teaches that respiration onset is indicated when the envelope measure exceeds a value greater than twice the baseline threshold, because Yi teaches a baseline threshold as the average BTI, and anything three times that amount os being indicative of breathing (Page 21 “The threshold is defined as three times the average BTI during apnea (or absence of breathing). The BTI is computed over contiguous windows that span 26 milliseconds. For a particular window, if the BTI exceeds the threshold, then the detector indicates breathing”). One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the first mean value being greater than the threshold value of Stamatopoulos to more specifically be where the first
mean value being greater than twice the threshold value, as Yi teaches their analysis method, which includes twice the baseline threshold, would have addressed technical difficulties by building a software toolkit that could be used to characterize lung sounds and would effectively classify a respiratory phase as either being inspiration or expiration. (Pages 7-8 “1.2 Goal” ).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 10, 11, 16 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140155773 A1 of Stamatopoulos et al. (hereinafter, Stamatopoulos) in view of “A Software Toolkit for Acoustic Respiratory Analysis” to Yi, and further in view of “Exploiting temporal and nonstationary features in breathing sound analysis for multiple obstructive sleep apnea severity classification” to Kim et al.
Stamatopoulos in view of Yi teach the invention as set forth and cited above. Stamatopoulos in view of Yi do not expressly teach where the period of time immediately preceding the second point in time is equal to 0.5 seconds. However. Kim teaches a method for the classification of breathing sounds (Background). Kim teaches that 0.5 second windowing is used to segment a user’s breathing. One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify the periods of time of Stamatopoulos in view of Ti to be the 0.5 seconds of Kim, as Kim teaches that the segmentations of breathing sounds represent time-frequency characteristics of breathing and would allow for classification of particular events (Kim: Time domain analysis).
Claim(s) 6, 12 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140155773 A1 of Stamatopoulos et al. (hereinafter, Stamatopoulos) in view of “A Software Toolkit for Acoustic Respiratory Analysis” to Yi, and further in view of US 20070282212 A1 to Sierra et al. (hereinafter, Sierra).
Stamatopoulos in view of Yi teach the claimed invention as set forth and cited above except for expressly disclosing where the transformation is a Hilbert transformation. However, Sierra teaches acquiring a respiratory sound signal and enveloping the obtained sound signal data using a Hilbert transform ([0057]). One having an ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have found it obvious to modify Stamatopoulos in view of Yi with the Hilbert transform of Sierra, as Sierra teaches that a Hilbert transform would decrease execution tired.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140155773 A1 of Stamatopoulos et al. (hereinafter, Stamatopoulos) in view of “A Software Toolkit for Acoustic Respiratory Analysis” to Yi, and further in view of US 20230158261 A1 to Trias et al. (hereinafter, Trias).
Stamatopoulos in view of Yi teach the claimed invention as set forth and cited above except for expressly disclosing where the processor is a FPGA. However, Triad teaches at paragraphs [0079] and [0084] that a processor can be any number of processors known in the art including a FPGA. A skilled artisan would have recognized that modifying the processor of Stamatopoulos in view of Yi to be the FPGA of Trias as this would have been a simple substitution of one processor for another to achieve the same result of detection of respiration cycles.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN PATRICK DOUGHERTY whose telephone number is (571)270-5044. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-5pm (Pacific Time).
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, Jacqueline Cheng can be reached at (571)272-5596. 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.
/SEAN P DOUGHERTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791