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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 2-7 and 9-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chetham et al. (US 20110251513 A1- Previously cited), hereinafter Chetham, further in view of Rutkove et al. (US 20120245436- Previously cited), hereinafter Rutkove.
Regarding claims 2 and 21, Chetham teaches a system for determining a body state indicator for a biological subject, the system including one or more processing devices configured to:
derive a plurality of reference signatures by mining aggregated reference impedance values acquired by performing one or more impedance measurements on a plurality of reference individuals, wherein the plurality of reference individuals include reference individuals having a healthy body state (¶ [0263], “The reference is typically derived from equivalent measurements made on a normal population (subject's not suffering from oedema) that is relevant to the subject under study,” thereby indicating a healthy body state), each respective reference signature embodying a correlation or relationship between a reference impedance indicator and a different reference body state so that the plurality of reference signatures include at least one healthy reference signature (¶ [0238,0263-265], each reference signature is correlated to an impedance indicator, e.g., impedance value, etc., and a reference body state, e.g., oedema, weight, height, age; “Therefore if the test subject has unilateral lymphoedema of the dominant arm and is female then the normalised data drawn from the normal population database will be calculated from the dominant arm impedance ratio measurements from female subjects that are present in the normal population database”);
derive at least one subject impedance indicator from at least one measured impedance value acquired by performing one or more impedance measurements on a biological subject (¶ [0017,0324,0366], “It will be appreciated that the techniques described above may be used to allow a range of different indicators relating to different subject parameters, and hence allowing diagnosis of different conditions, to be determined and displayed” indicating that at least one indicator can be drawn from the impedance values. One of ordinary skill in the art understands that impedance measurements are known to be correlated to a plurality of subject physiological indicators.); and
analyze the at least one subject impedance indicator (see ABSTRACT) using the plurality of reference signatures to determine the body state indicator, wherein the body state indicator is indicative of the biological subject being one of a healthy and having on one more of the multiple disease states (¶ [0206,0238,0263-265], impedance values of the subject are measured to determine body state based on selected population reference signature. “Thus, when the indicator is an oedema indicator, the numerical value and hence position of the pointer can be an indication of relative extracellular fluid levels in a limb, which can in turn be used to indicate the likely presence, absence or degree of oedema. In this regard, the skilled person will understand that any such indicator is not absolute, and that in practice this indicator is a mechanism for presenting information to a medical or healthcare professional” indicating that the indicators derived from the measured data and reference data give insight into additional meaningful information regarding the body state of the subject, e.g., healthy, diseased. ¶[0154,0198-205,0218], indicators are for oedema, hydration, lymphoedema).
Chetham fails to teach wherein the plurality of reference individuals include individuals having at least one disease body state of multiple body states, and so that the plurality of reference signatures includes multiple disease state reference signature, each of the multiple disease state reference signatures corresponding to a respective one of the multiple different disease state.
Rutkove teaches an impedance device configured to determine body state, e.g., tissue condition (see abstract). Rutkove further teaches that obtained electrical signatures of the subject can used for the following:
The one or more electrical properties obtained as a function of orientation may be used as a signature of the region of tissue. As discussed above, this signature may be analyzed to determine a characteristic of the tissue and/or to assess a condition of the muscle. For example, how the one or more electrical properties vary with orientation (e.g., a degree of anisotropy) may be used to assess the health of the tissue and/or diagnose a condition such as a specific neuromuscular disorder. The signature may be analyzed quantitatively, or compared to a reference signature obtained from known healthy or diseased tissue to assist in the analysis and/or diagnosis of the tissue.
¶ [0113]. Rutkove therefore teaches, to determine a body state, one of ordinary skill in the art can use reference signatures of known healthy and diseased tissue for proper analysis and diagnosis of the tissue. Furthermore, the disease state for each user is selected from neuromuscular disease, muscle atrophy, and/or muscle hypertrophy (¶[0058]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Chetham, such that the plurality of reference individuals include individuals having at least one disease body state of multiple body states, and so that the plurality of reference signatures includes multiple disease state reference signature, each of the multiple disease state reference signatures corresponding to a respective one of the multiple different disease state, as taught by Rutkove, to aid in proper analysis and diagnosis of the measured tissue.
Regarding claim 3, Chetham teaches wherein the one or more impedance measurements performed on the biological subject are performed at least one of:
for each of a plurality of body segments; at a number of different times (¶ [0183], “The location of the first electrodes will depend on the segment of the subject S under study, and can include for example, positioning electrodes on the wrist and ankles of a subject, to allow the impedance of limbs, or the whole body, to be determined” (emphasis added)); and repeatedly over a time period (¶ [0129], “Typically method includes in the process system, causing one or more impedance measurements to be performed”).
Regarding claim 4, Chetham teaches at least wherein each reference signature includes: at least one reference range, wherein the at least one reference range is one of:
derived from a distribution of the reference impedance values, and at least one impedance value measured for at least one body segment of the reference individual (¶ [0210,0263,0290,0354], “the assessment of lymphoedema in a patient uses a comparison of the impedance ratio to a normal range of impedance ratios established in a healthy population” indicating that the reference range is derived from a distribution of population impedance values), and
a plurality of reference ranges, each reference range being based on at least one of:
a distribution of impedance values measured for a respective body segment (¶ [0263-265], "The reference is typically derived from equivalent measurements made on a normal population (subject's not suffering from oedema) that is relevant to the subject under study" and " the database may include a look-up table that specifies the normal population that should be used given a particular set of subject details” indicating that a plurality of reference signatures are stored and therefore a plurality of reference ranges based on the distribution).
Regarding claim 5, Chetham teaches wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to: generate at least one subject signature using the at least one measured impedance value; compare the at least one subject signature to one or more reference signatures; and, determine a body state of the subject based on results of the comparison (¶ [0210], "the assessment of lymphoedema in a patient uses a comparison of the impedance ratio to a normal range of impedance ratios established in a healthy population" indicating that a signature/ratio is generated for comparison, and subsequently determination of a body state).
Regarding claim 6, Chetham teaches at least wherein the one or more processing device are configured to compare the at least one subject signature to the one or more reference signatures by at least one of:
comparing at least one measured impedance value to at least one reference range (¶ [0210], “the assessment of lymphoedema in a patient uses a comparison of the impedance ratio to a normal range of impedance ratios established in a healthy population” indicating that a signature/ratio is generated for comparison, and subsequently determination of a body state); and comparing the at least one impedance indicator derived from at least one measured impedance value to at least one reference range (¶ [0116,0278], “the method includes, in the processing system, displaying a representation including at least one of: [0117] a) textual information representing at least one of: [0118] i) a measurement date; [0119] ii) an indicator value; and, [0120] iii) whether or not the indicator value is in a normal range” (emphasis added) ).
Regarding claim 7, Chetham teaches wherein each respective reference signature is derived from the reference impedance values acquired by performing one or more impedance measurements on the plurality of reference individuals having the respective body state (¶ [0270], the reference signatures are obtained by measuring impedance of the reference population).
Regarding claim 9, Chetham teaches wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to: generate at least one subject signature using the at least one measured impedance value; compare the at least one subject signature to one or more reference signatures of the plurality of reference signature; select a reference signature based on results of the comparison; and determine a body state of the subject based on the body state of the selected reference signature (¶ [0265], "Thus for example, the database may include a look-up table that specifies the normal population that should be used given a particular set of subject details" indicates that a reference signature is selected based on the result of comparison give a particular set of subject details, and based on the selection, a body state can be derived).
Regarding claim 10, Chetham teaches wherein each respective reference signature is associated with one or more characteristics, and is derived from reference impedance values acquired by performing the one or more impedance measurements on a plurality of reference individuals having the respective one or more characteristics, and wherein the characteristics are at least one of: one or more physical characteristics of the reference individual, including at least one of: a height; a weight; an age; and a sex (¶ [0263], “the normal population is typically selected taking into account factors such as medical interventions performed, ethnicity, sex, height, weight, limb dominance, the affected limb, or the like”).
Regarding claim 11, Chetham teaches wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to: select multiple reference signatures using subject characteristic data indicative of at least one of: one or more physical characteristics of the subject; and compare the at least one subject signature to the multiple reference signatures (¶ [0228,0231,0265], Determining a relevant reference group may include considering one or more other factors, such as age, gender, or the like, such as those described above, determining a relevant reference group may include considering one or more other factors, such as age, gender, medication, medical history, or the like, such as those described above; thus the process requires selecting multiple reference signatures to determine best fit reference; ¶ [0080], “the method includes, in the processing system: [0081] a) determining one or more subject details; and, [0082] b) selecting the reference at least partially in accordance with the subject details”).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Chetham teaches wherein the reference signatures are further indicative of at least one other reference body parameter value obtained by performing at least one measurement on one or more other body parameters of the reference individual, wherein the reference body parameter is weight (¶ [0083], reference is selected based on at least weight).
Regarding claim 14, Chetham at least teaches wherein each respective reference signature includes at least one of:
at least one reference range derived from a distribution of the reference body parameter values (¶ [0210,0263,0290,0332,0354,0339], “the assessment of lymphoedema in a patient uses a comparison of the impedance ratio to a normal range of impedance ratios established in a healthy population”, “the BMI is an index defining weight ranges”, and “the reference is based on mean and standard deviation values derived for normalised resistance and reactance measurements (R/h).sub.mean, (Xc/h)/mean, (R/h).sub.std.dev and (XC/h).sub.std.dev, for a normal population group selected based on the patients sex, age and BMI” indicating that the reference range is derived from a distribution of population impedance values).
Regarding claim 15, Chetham teaches wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to generate at least one subject signature using at least one measured body parameter value for the subject (¶ [0228], “the subject details will typically include information such as limb dominance, details of any medical interventions, as well as information regarding the subject as the subject's age, weight, height, sex, ethnicity or the like” indicating that body parameters are used in creating subject signatures).
Regarding claim 16, Chetham teaches wherein the one or more processing device are configured to:
obtain user data for each of the plurality of reference individuals;
using the user data, determine for each reference individual:
at least one reference impedance value obtained data by performing at least one impedance measurement on the reference individual;
at least one reference impedance indicator derived from at least one reference impedance value obtained by performing at least one impedance measurement on the reference individual (¶ [0219], “a reference population is available, and accordingly this is used to determine mean impedance and standard deviations for equivalent impedance ratio measurements made for a relevant sample population. The indicator representation also includes a mean indicator 310 representing the mean impedance ratio for the normal population, which is set to a value of "0" on the scale 301. The upper and lower thresholds are set to be three standard deviations from the mean 310, and are set to be positioned at "-10" and "+10" on the scale 301 respectively” indicating that indicators are derived from impedance values);
a reference body state indication indicative of any body states associated with the reference individual (¶ [0269], “the use of predetermined reference values allows an oedema indicator to be derived”); and
reference characteristic data indicative of one or more characteristics for the reference individual, and, mine aggregated user data to establish the plurality of reference signatures (¶ [0263], “Thus, the normal population is typically selected taking into account factors such as medical interventions performed, ethnicity, sex, height, weight, limb dominance, the affected limb, or the like” indicating that reference characteristic data is obtained to establish reference signatures).
Regarding claim 17, Chetham teaches wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to: obtain user data for the biological subject, determine, at least in part using the user data for the biological subject: subject characteristic data indicative of one or more physical characteristics of the subject (¶ [0228], “subject details are determined and provided to the processing system 102. The subject details will typically include information such as limb dominance, details of any medical interventions, as well as information regarding the subject as the subject's age, weight, height, sex, ethnicity or the like”),
the at least one measured impedance value obtained data by performing at least one impedance measurement on the biological subject (¶ [0234], impedance measurements from subject are performed); and
at least one subject impedance indicator derived from at least one measured impedance value obtained by performing the one or more impedance measurement on the biological subject, and generate a signature using the user data (¶ [0269,0280] and fig. 11A, oedema indicator is derived based on subject data and a signature is generated based on determinations).
Regarding claim 18, Chetham teaches wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to obtain user data indicative of:
measurement data indicative of the at least one measured impedance value acquired by performing the one or more impedance measurement on the biological subject (see ABSTRACT);
a user identifier associated with the biological subject (¶ [0231], “a subject identifier, such as a unique number assigned to the individual upon admission to a medical institution, or may alternatively be performed on the basis of name or the like”);
body parameter data indicative of at least one other body parameter value obtained by performing at least one measurement on one or more other body parameters of the biological subject (¶ [0228], wight information is obtained);
and characteristic data indicative of one or more physical characteristics of the biological subject (¶ [0228], height information is obtained).
Regarding claim 19, Chetham teaches wherein the system includes at least one measuring device capable of performing impedance measurements on a user, the measurement device including:
at least one signal generator 111 electrically connected to drive electrodes to apply a drive signal to a user; at least one sensor 112 electrically connected to sense electrodes to measure a response signal in the user (¶ [0238]); and
a measuring device processor 102 that at least in part: controls the at least one signal generator (¶ [0177-179], measuring device controls the signal generator);
receives an indication of a measured response signal from the at least one sensor; and generates measurement data indicative of at least one measured impedance value (¶ [0180], “processing system 102 may be any form of processing system which is suitable for generating appropriate control signals and interpreting an indication of the measured signals to thereby determine the subject's bioelectrical impedance, and optionally determine other information such as the presence, absence or degree of oedema, or the like”(emphasis added) ).
Regarding claim 20, Chetham teaches wherein the system includes a client device 102 in communication with the measuring device (¶ [0180-182,0266], the processing system can be a client device such as a smartphone and communicate with a server–separate from the measurement device 100, signal generator, and sensors), wherein the client device:
receives the measurement data (¶ [0180], the client device 102 ); generates user data indicative of the measurement data; and communicates the user data via a communication network (¶ [0179-182,0266], “the processing system 102 may be connected to the signal generator 111 and the sensor 112 via wired or wireless connections” indicating that the client device 102 communicates the user data via a communication network), and wherein the one or more processing devices are configured to:
receive the user data (¶ [0201], “It will be appreciated that the application of the current and voltage signals may be controlled by a separate processing system to that used in performing the analysis to derive an indicator” indicating that a plurality of processors can receive user data); and one of:
upon a determination that the user is a subject, use the user data to determine the at least one measured impedance value (¶ [0228] and fig. 4, subject details are determined and then impedance measurements are extracted and stored according to each user ).
Chetham fails to explicitly teach wherein upon a determination that the user is a reference individual, use the user data to determine at least one reference impedance value. However, Chetham has provided the steps on determining when a specific type of user, e.g., subject, has input their data and therefore correlate the information received to the user. As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the device of Chetham, such that the type of user is determined and the respective user data is correlated/stored/used based on the user type, e.g., reference user, subject user, as taught by Chetham, to aid in separating stored data and performing the data analysis steps between subject and reference. The step of user determination and further processing the data is already performed for the subject, therefore it is capable of performing the same for reference users.
Regarding claims 22-33, Chetham teaches at least a system for determining a body state indicator for a biological subject, the system including one or more processing devices configured to analyze at least one measured impedance value acquired by performing one or more impedance measurements on a subject by using reference signatured derived by mining aggregated reference impedance values acquired by performing one or more impedance measurements on a plurality of reference individuals (¶ [0206,0238,0263-265], impedance values of the subject are measured to determine body state based on selected population reference signature. “Thus, when the indicator is an oedema indicator, the numerical value and hence position of the pointer can be an indication of relative extracellular fluid levels in a limb, which can in turn be used to indicate the likely presence, absence or degree of oedema. In this regard, the skilled person will understand that any such indicator is not absolute, and that in practice this indicator is a mechanism for presenting information to a medical or healthcare professional” indicating that the indicators derived from the measured data and reference data give insight into additional meaningful information regarding the body state of the subject),
wherein the plurality of reference individuals include reference individuals having a healthy body state so that the plurality of reference signatures include at least one healthy reference signature (¶ [0263], “The reference is typically derived from equivalent measurements made on a normal population (subject's not suffering from oedema) that is relevant to the subject under study,” thereby indicating a healthy body state),
wherein each respective reference signature includes a plurality of reference ranges, each reference range being based on at least one of:
a distribution of impedance values measured for a respective body segment (¶ [0263-265], "The reference is typically derived from equivalent measurements made on a normal population (subject's not suffering from oedema) that is relevant to the subject under study" and " the database may include a look-up table that specifies the normal population that should be used given a particular set of subject details” indicating that a plurality of reference signatures are stored and therefore a plurality of reference ranges based on the distribution),
a distribution of the reference impedance values, and at least one impedance value measured for at least one body segment of the reference individual (¶ [0210,0263,0290,0354], “the assessment of lymphoedema in a patient uses a comparison of the impedance ratio to a normal range of impedance ratios established in a healthy population” indicating that the reference range is derived from a distribution of population impedance values);
a distribution of reference impedance values for a respective body segment, and at least one impedance value measured for at least one body segment of the reference individual (¶ [0210,0263,0290,0354], “the assessment of lymphoedema in a patient uses a comparison of the impedance ratio to a normal range of impedance ratios established in a healthy population” indicating that the reference range is derived from a distribution of population impedance values);
a distribution of differences in a reference impedance indicators measured for different respective body segments (¶ [0208,0267-268,0324], “the reference values are based on the mean impedance ratio, and an impedance ratio value three standard deviations from the mean impedance ratio for the normal population” and “It will be appreciated that the techniques described above may be used to allow a range of different indicators relating to different subject parameters, and hence allowing diagnosis of different conditions”).
Chetham fails to teach wherein the plurality of reference individuals include individuals having at least one disease body state, and so that the plurality of reference signatures include at least one of disease state reference signature.
Rutkove teaches an impedance device configured to determine body state, e.g., tissue condition (see abstract). Rutkove further teaches that obtained electrical signatures of the subject can used for the following:
The one or more electrical properties obtained as a function of orientation may be used as a signature of the region of tissue. As discussed above, this signature may be analyzed to determine a characteristic of the tissue and/or to assess a condition of the muscle. For example, how the one or more electrical properties vary with orientation (e.g., a degree of anisotropy) may be used to assess the health of the tissue and/or diagnose a condition such as a specific neuromuscular disorder. The signature may be analyzed quantitatively, or compared to a reference signature obtained from known healthy or diseased tissue to assist in the analysis and/or diagnosis of the tissue.
¶ [0113]. Rutkove therefore teaches, to determine a body state, one of ordinary skill in the art can use reference signatures of known healthy and diseased tissue for proper analysis and diagnosis of the tissue. Furthermore, the disease state for each user is selected from neuromuscular disease, muscle atrophy, and/or muscle hypertrophy (¶[0058]).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Chetham, such that the plurality of reference individuals include individuals having at least one disease body state of multiple body states, and so that the plurality of reference signatures includes multiple disease state reference signature, each of the multiple disease state reference signatures corresponding to a respective one of the multiple different disease state, as taught by Rutkove, to aid in proper analysis and diagnosis of the measured tissue.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chetham in view of Rutkove, as applied to claim 7, and further in view of Banet et al. (US 20170188965), hereinafter Banet.
Regarding claim 8, Chetham teaches wherein the body state is at least one of: a presence, absence or degree of: oedema; and lymphoedema (¶ [0154]). Chetham-Rutkove fail to explicitly teach where the body state is one of heart failure and congestive heart failure.
Banet teaches a physiological monitoring system for identifying heart failure/congestive heart failure (abstract and ¶[0004-5,0014]). Identification of heart failure is based on obtaining bio-impedance measurements that are calibrated with known reference signatures e.g. SV, CO (¶[0098]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to have modified the system of Chetham-Rutkove, such that the body state is one of heart failure and congestive heart failure, as taught by Banet, to provide a single system capable of detecting various disease states and/or managing the user’s health conditions (¶[0063]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
Applicant contends that multiple disease state reference signatures corresponding to multiple different states is not disclosed by any of the cited references, on page 12 of the Remarks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Chetham, it is disclosed that a reference signatures is derived from a normal population, predetermined values (¶[0077-90]). The reference signature consists of the measured impedance and subject details which corresponds to a particular subject state i.e. having oedema, lypho, unhealthy/healthy fat mass, (¶[0110,0373-74,0210,0264], “Therefore if the test subject has unilateral lymphoedema of the dominant arm and is female then the normalised data drawn from the normal population database will be calculated from the dominant arm impedance ratio measurements from female subjects that are present in the normal population database” (emphasis added)). That is, the population establishes what a healthy/normal subject’s measurements is considered and makes the determination based on the current subject falling within the healthy or having a condition determination. However, Chetham lacks details of the population comprising unhealthy subjects with a particular signature. Rutkove teaches that an impedance signature can be analyzed to calculate a user state by comparing the impedance signature to a reference signature of known diseased subjects and healthy subjects (¶[0113]). Therefore, together they teach using a plurality of impedance signatures that corresponds to multiple states, i.e. healthy, unhealthy, anisotrophy, oedema, lymphoedema, fat, etc., to aid proper analysis and diagnosis of the subject (¶[113] of Rutkove. ¶[0263-265] of Chetham). Additionally, Chetham discloses the wide applicability of the invention for various conditions and illnesses, which indicates that there would need to be relevant signatures for each diseased state that is being monitored for (¶[0393] of Chetham).
Applicant contends that the cited references do not teach a body state indicator generated based on different disease states, on page 12 of the Remarks. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In Chetham, impedance values of the subject are measured to construct a signature and determine body state based on selected population reference signature. “Thus, when the indicator is an oedema indicator, the numerical value and hence position of the pointer can be an indication of relative extracellular fluid levels in a limb, which can in turn be used to indicate the likely presence, absence or degree of oedema.” (emphasis added) (¶[0011,0206,0238,0263-265], “displaying a representation of the indicator”).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Averina teaches using information about a subject's respiratory tidal volume, a candidate previous treatment event can be identified when the stored physiologic information indicates a change in a subject's respiratory tidal volume. When the subject retains excess pulmonary fluid, such as due to heart failure, the subject's tidal volume can be reduced relative to a reference tidal volume. In response to a diuresis treatment, overall fluid loss can be evidenced by an increase in the subject's tidal volume relative to the reference tidal volume or to a previously-observed tidal volume (e.g., observed one or more days prior to the treatment. US 20160000380
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 MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7801. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:10 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Robert (Tse) Chen can be reached at (571) 272-3672. 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.
/MARTIN NATHAN ORTEGA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /TSE CHEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights