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 § 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, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 17, 19-21, 25, 27-30, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the mental concept of . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements (e.g. claim 1—processor having at least one gain, delay, filter for each ECG signal, claims 12 and 25—processor, memory, and at least one gain, delay, filter for each ECG signal; dependent claims use of an implantable medical device/IMD with electrodes, etc.) that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. The gain/filter/delay, and dependent claims IMD with electrodes, do not add a meaningful limitation as they are merely a nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim(s) and are nothing more than an attempt to generally link the system or method to a particular technological environment, and/or are just used as a housing for the computer/processor, or a means to gather or process data for the abstract idea/mental concept. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements when considered separately and in combination do not add significantly more to the exception. For example the additional limitations only process information or store information in memory and these limitations are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP 2106.05.
The claims are directed to an abstract idea and/or the end result of the system/method, the essence of the whole, is a patent-ineligible concept. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they amount to a general computer performing a calculation. The claims are directed to an abstract idea, i.e. implementing the idea of such as may be done by a mental process, critical thinking, and/or paper and pencil, or done by a mathematical equation, with additional generic computer elements, or additional structure (e.g. claim 1—processor having at least one gain, delay, filter for each ECG signal, claims 12 and 25—processor, memory, and at least one gain, delay, filter for each ECG signal; dependent claims use of an implantable medical device/IMD with electrodes, etc.) recited at a high level of generality that perform generic functions routinely used in the art, and do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they would be routine in any computer implementation or in the relevant art. Thus, the recited generic computer components perform no more than their basic computer functions. These additional elements are well‐understood, routine and conventional limitations (see cited document(s)) that amount to mere instructions or elements to implement the abstract idea. The gain/filter/delay, and dependent claims IMD with electrodes, do not add a meaningful limitation as they are merely a nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim(s) and are nothing more than an attempt to generally link the system or method to a particular technological environment, and/or are just used as a housing for the computer/processor, or a means to gather or process data for the abstract idea/mental concept. In addition, the end result of the system/method, the essence of the whole, is a patent-ineligible concept. See the recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, including Alice Corp., Myriad, and Mayo. In addition, the current claims are similar to other recent court decisions dealing with analyzing, comparing, and/or displaying data, such as Electric Power Group, Digitech, Grams, and Classen.
Based on the plain meaning of the words in the claim, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims (e.g. claim 12 having a memory and processor with gain/filter/delay, and corresponding method claims 1 and 25) is a system having a memory and processor, wherein the processor is programmed with executable instructions to perform the calculations/mental process/critical thinking. The processor is said to contain the filter/delay/gain (e.g. figures 2B-2D, etc.) and may be done by software (e.g. para. 120, etc.). The claims do not impose any limits on how the ECG information is received by the processor, and thus this step covers any and all possible ways in which this can be done, for instance by typing the information into the system, or by the system obtaining the information from another device. The claim also does not impose any limits on how the computations are accomplished, and thus it can be performed in any way known to those of ordinary skill in the art.
The calculations are simple enough to be practically performed in the human mind or through critical thinking. Note that even if most humans would use a physical aid (e.g., pen and paper, a slide rule, or a calculator) to help them complete the recited calculation, the use of such physical aid does not negate the mental nature of this limitation. Nor does the recitation of a processor in the claim negate the mental nature of this limitation because the claim here merely uses the processor as a tool to perform the otherwise mental process.
The memory and processor are recited so generically (no details whatsoever are provided other than that they are a memory and processor) that they represent no more than mere instructions to apply the judicial exception on a computer. These limitations can also be viewed as nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment of a computer. It should be noted that because the courts have made it clear that mere physicality or tangibility of an additional element or elements is not a relevant consideration in the eligibility analysis, the physical nature of these computer components does not affect this analysis. The gain/filter/delay, and dependent claims IMD with electrodes, do not add a meaningful limitation as they are merely a nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim(s) and are nothing more than an attempt to generally link the system or method to a particular technological environment, and/or are just used as a housing for the computer/processor, or a means to gather or process data for the abstract idea/mental concept. See MPEP 2106.05(I) for more information on this point, including explanations from judicial decisions including Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208, 224-26 (2014). The IMD does not add a meaningful limitation as it is merely a nominal or token extra-solution component of the claim(s) as is nothing more than an attempt to generally link the system or method to a particular technological environment, and/or is just used a housing for the computer/processor or a means to gather data for the abstract idea/mental concept.
Although the processor or claim limitations may fall under several exceptions (e.g., a mathematical concept-type abstract idea or a mental process-type abstract idea), there are no bright lines between the types of exceptions. See, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(I). Thus, it is sufficient for the examiner to identify that the limitations align with at least one judicial exception, and to conduct further analysis based on that identification.
The limitations of the claims are carried out by the processor and the memory. No element has been set forth to sense the ECG signal, and the only additional element is the memory, where the processor performs the necessary software tasks so that the result of the abstract mental process is just data/detection of an arrhythmia based on calculated data. The memory limitation represents extra-solution activity because it is a mere nominal or tangential addition to the claim. The gain/filter/delay, and dependent claims IMD with electrodes, do not add a meaningful limitation as they are merely a nominal or token extra-solution components of the claim(s) and are nothing more than an attempt to generally link the system or method to a particular technological environment, and/or are just used as a housing for the computer/processor, or a means to gather or process data for the abstract idea/mental concept. See MPEP 2106.05(g), discussing limitations that the Federal Circuit has considered to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Even when viewed in combination, the additional elements in this claim do no more than automate the mental processes (e.g., the mental computation of filtering/delaying/amplifying ECG signals to combine the ECG data to form a composite ECG signal to enhance a characteristic to detect an arrythmia, etc.), using the computer components as a tool. While this type of automation may improve the life of a practitioner/physician (by minimizing or eliminating the need for mentally computing metrics), there is no change to the computers and other technology that are recited in the claim as automating the abstract ideas, and thus this claim cannot improve computer functionality or other technology. See, e.g., Trading Technologies Int’l v. IBG, Inc., 921 F.3d 1084, 1093 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (using a computer to provide a trader with more information to facilitate market trades improved the business process of market trading, but not the computer) and the cases discussed in MPEP 2106.05(a)(I), particularly FairWarning IP, LLC v. Iatric Sys., 839 F.3d 1089, 1095 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (accelerating a process of analyzing audit log data is not an improvement when the increased speed comes solely from the capabilities of a general-purpose computer) and Credit Acceptance Corp. v. Westlake Services, 859 F.3d 1044, 1055 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (using a generic computer to automate a process of applying to finance a purchase is not an improvement to the computer’s functionality). Accordingly, the claim as a whole does not integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application and the claim is directed to the judicial exception.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 17, 19-21, and 25-35 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.
In claim 1, line 7, “through a first combination of at least one…” is vague as it is unclear if more than one element is needed. The claim says it goes through a “combination” which will require two elements, but the claim also uses “at least one” which at the minimum requires a single element. The examiner has interpreted the claim as only requiring, at the minimum, one element and the claim should be amended accordingly, such as deleting “a first combination of”. Similarly, in line 9, “a second combination” is vague.
Similarly, claims 12 and 25 use this language and are vague.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 17, 19-21, and 25-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The subject matter which was not described in the original disclosure is where the combining of the first and second ECGs to form a composited ECG signal that enhances at least one of a Pwave, Rwave, Twave or R-T wave as a characteristic of interest with respect to another characteristic in the first composite ECG signal, in combination with the other elements, functions, and/or steps in the claim(s).
It is unclear where in the original disclosure this new claim limitation is located, such as enhancing at least one of a Pwave, Rwave, Twave or R-T wave as a characteristic of interest and/or with respect to another characteristic in the first composite ECG signal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 8, 12-13, 17, 19, and 25-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bennett et al (5331966). Bennett discloses the following claimed limitations:
--a subcutaneous IMD having electrodes to receive a plurality of far field ECG signals (e.g. figures 1 and 2, electrodes A, B, C, etc.)
--passing first and second ECG signals through respective gain/filter/delay (e.g. figure 10, amplifiers 252 and 254 which amplify (i.e. adds gain) and/or has filters 256, 258; figure 11, gain X and Y squared, etc.)
--combining two of the ECG signals to form a first composite signal to enhance a characteristic of interest (e.g. figures 4A-C, bottom graph; figure 10, figure 11; col. 16, lines 9-45, with the adding of the two ECG signals; to enhance the R wave, col. 14, lines 45-57; col. 20, lines 47-55; col 26, lines 10-12; col. 27, lines 26-38, etc.). These enhanced signals will be enhanced with respect to another characteristic since: the R wave from both the first and second signals are squared then a square root is taken (e.g. figure 4A, bottom picture) which will produce a larger, more enhanced R wave compared to other characteristics, such as the Twave; and the noise characteristics are lessened due to the filtering.
--analyzing the COI for detecting an arrhythmia (i.e. abstract, bradyarrhythmia and tachyarrhythmia pacer, cardioverter, defibrillator, col. 13, lines 38-53, incorporated documents, etc.; figure 6, element 150; e.g. abstract; col. 20, lines 20-55, col. 22, lines 1-13; col. 24, lines 34-45; col. 27, lines 26-38, etc.)
--for claim 25, automatically recording the ECG signals in memory in response to detecting the arrhythmia (e.g. col. 16, line 59 to col. 17, line 25; col. 18, lines 3-18; col. 22, lines 1-14, etc.).
For claims 1, 6, 12, 17, and 25, the system and method of Bennett uses a computer implemented method and system using a memory and processor in the IMD (e.g. figure 6, col. 20, lines 56-68; col. 21, lines 33-68, figure 5, etc.).
For claims: 4, adding first and second signals (e.g. figure 4A, bottom diagram); 6/17, combining occurs in the IMD (e.g. figures 5-7, 10, processor/digital circuitry, etc.); 8/19, electrodes on the housing (e.g. figures 1, 2, etc.) at far field location; 13/30/32/34, the IMD containing the gain, filter and delay (e.g. figure 10, amplifier/gain, filter, and buffer, which is a delay as it delays and requires further time for processing—in the alternative, see the 103 rejection below) plus electrodes and processor (e.g. figures 2, 6, 10, etc.); 26/31/33/35, Bennett delivers brady pacing, tachy, or cardioversion/defibrillation upon detecting the arrhythmia (e.g. abstract; col. 13, lines 38-53, incorporated documents. etc.; figure 6, element 150; e.g. abstract; col. 20, lines 20-55, col. 22, lines 1-13; col. 24, lines 34-45; col. 27, lines 26-38). For claims 27-29, 31, 33, and 35, as Bennett does have an enhanced characteristic of interest, such as the enhanced Rwave (e.g. figures 4A-C, lower graph, etc.), this will result in reducing false declarations of arrhythmia based on oversensing/undersensing of the Rwave since the Rwave is easier to detect. Bennett also discloses that the P wave can be picked up and enhanced (e.g. figures 4A-C, lower graph, col. 13, lines 23-37, etc.) and therefore this will result in reducing false declarations of arrhythmia based on oversensing/undersensing of P waves since the Pwave is easier to detect.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 6, 8-10, 12-13, 17, 19-20, 25, 27-30, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Cao et al (6699200) in view of Bennett et al. Cao discloses the following claimed elements:
--a processor and memory running software/algorithm (e.g. figure 5, abstract, col. 4, lines 16-24, etc.) located in an IMD (e.g. figures 2, 5, etc.) that has a plurality of far-field electrodes at different locations (e.g. figure 2, elements 3, etc.)
--that are used to receive ECG signals that are then combined to form a composite signal (e.g. figure 4, col. 6, lines 43-67, etc.) to enhance a characteristic of interest, such as the largest R wave and R-T peak ratio (e.g. col. 7, lines 1-5, etc.)
--that are put into an arrhythmia detector 39 to detect the arrhythmia to trigger the storage of the ECG (e.g. figure 5, col. 7, lines 12-30, etc.).
For claims 27 and 28, since Cao enhances the R wave and R-T ratio (e.g. column 7, lines 1-11, etc.), this therefore will result in reducing false declarations of arrhythmia based on at least one of oversensing or undersensing since the enhanced R wave or R-T ratio will make it easier to detect. For claims 3 and 14, note that the claims only claim “one” respective gain channel, not a gain channel for each respective ecg (in the alternative, see the 103 rejection below). For claims 9-10, and 20, Cao discloses the computer implemented method or processor does combine the ECG signals to form a second combined signal different than the first combined signal to determine the better signal quality--i.e. using 2 vectors instead of 3 vectors (e.g. col. 6, line 42 to col. 7, line 11, etc.). Under a different interpretation, Cao also continually combines the ECG vectors using different sensing electrodes, therefore providing a different composite/combination signal upon each combination (in the alternative, see the 103 rejection below).
--As to the new limitation of the gain/filter/delay for each ECG signal before passing the signals to be combined, Cao’s system also has an amplifier/gain (e.g. element 38, figure 5, etc.) for input of each ECG signal. Cao does not state he has a separate gain/filter/delay for each ECG signal before passing the signals for combining, Bennett discloses that it is known to use a gain/amplifier, filter, and/or delay/buffer (e.g. figures 10, 11, addressed above in the 102 rejection, etc.) before passing the signals to be combined so that the signals are large enough to act on and/or to filter out any high or low frequency noise in the signals. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made/before it was effectively filed to have modified the system and method as taught by Cao, with the use of a separate gain/amplifier and/or filter before passing each of the signals to be combined, as taught by Bennett, since it would provide the predictable results of amplifying the ECG signals so that they are large enough to act on and/or to filter out any high or low frequency noise in the signals so as to not interfere with the detection of arrhythmias.
Claims 4, 21, 26, 31, 33, and 35 and in the alternative claims 9, 10, and 20-21, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao. Cao discloses that the signals are combined and that multiple different combined signals are used to determine the best signal quality to use for the R wave or RT ratio, but does not state the combination of ECG signals is done by adding the two signals together (e.g. claim 4) or that the different combined signals are done automatically/by the processor to determine the best signal quality, such as R, RT ratio, P or T wave (e.g. claim 21), between the two different combined ECGs. Cao also discloses that the software system can be part of a web-based expert system to trigger an appropriate therapy (e.g. col. 4, lines 25-34, etc.), but does not specifically state that upon detection of the arrhythmia the system and method delivers a therapy (claim 26). In addition or in the alternative, Cao does not state that the computer/processor is causing the system to use a second combined ECG different than the first combined ECG and to determine the which of the two has a better R/T peak ratio or P or T wave. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made/before it was effectively filed to have modified the system and method as taught by Cao, with the: combination of ECG signals being done by adding the two signals together; that the different combined signals are done automatically/by the processor to determine the best signal quality, such as R, RT ratio, P or T wave, between the two different combined ECGs; delivery of therapy once the arrhythmia was detected; and in the alternative that the computer/processor is causing the system to use a second combined ECG different than the first combined ECG and to determine the which of the two has a better R/T peak ratio or P or T wave, as is well known and common knowledge in the art (mpep 2144I, 2144.03) since it would provide the predictable results of: combining the signals to better accentuate the features of interest, such as an R, P or T wave; allowing the system to automatically and quickly determine the best combined ECG signal to use that provides the best R, P, or T wave so that a user does not have to interact with the system and method; treating the patient’s heart condition when an arrhythmia is determined so the patient can function normally and/or does not die; and in the alternative, allowing the system to automatically run through all the different ECG electrode combinations to select the best ECG combinations that provide the best R, P, or T wave or R-T ratio for processing to determine an arrhythmia. In addition for claims 9, 10, 20, and 21, it has been held that providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958)).
In the alternative for claims 13, 30, 32, and 34, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bennett, or over Cao in view of Bennett. Bennett, or Cao in view of Bennett discloses the use of a buffer for each ECG signal line (e.g. figure 10, etc.) which necessarily provides a delay, but does not specifically call the element a delay element. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made/before it was effectively filed to have modified the system and method as taught by Bennett, or Cao in view of Bennett, with the use of a delay for each ECG signal line, as is well known and common knowledge in the art (mpep 2144I, 2144.03) since it would provide the predictable result of allowing the signals to be properly timed so that the signals can be synchronized, so that temporary noise can settle, and/or to make timing adjustments between the signals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
101
The claims only contain generic computer elements—a memory and processor--to process data and are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. They do not contain any element to actually sense the data, such as electrodes, and they do not contain any element to provide the result to a user to diagnose the patient or to deliver specific therapy to revert the arrhythmia. Lacking such, the claims are directed to the abstract idea and do not contain any post solution activity that practically integrates the mental concept/abstract idea into a complete system or method. It is noted that claims 26, 31, 33, and 35 are not included in this 101 rejection as they apply therapy based on the arrhythmia determination.
The argument that the claims cannot be practically performed in the human mind is not persuasive. No time limit has been set forth in the claims for how fast the system or method operate and therefore the processing could be done over hours/days/months/etc. The human mind contains memory, instructions, and processes data, which is exactly what the claims recite. The argument that a human is not mentally capable of coupling to a memory or processor, and the claims contain additional elements or specific use of the claimed circuitry, is not persuasive as the Supreme Court in the Alice decision specifically pointed out that the method claims, which simply require generic computer implementations, fail to transform the abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Similarly, the system claims are no different in substance from the method claims, reciting a handful of generic computer components configured to implement the same idea.
The claims only set forth that data/signals are received, not that electrodes are sensing the signals. The data/signals then are filtered, delayed, and/or amplified (as set forth in the disclosure, this is done by the processor/microcontroller/software) and combined to provide a characteristic of interest (e.g. R wave) that is analyzed to determine an arrhythmia. This sort of process has been done for decades by physicians reading ECG displays or paper graphs. The simple use of “combining” is later claimed as a simple addition or subtraction of signals, which also can be done in the mind. In addition, as set forth by the examiner in the previous 101 rejection, even if a physical aid is used, such as paper and pencil, calculator, or slide rule, this does not negate the mental nature of the claimed limitations. Note that no time limit is given/claimed on when this combining and analyzing are done.
The argument that a human mind cannot receive a plurality of ECG signals from a subcutaneous IMD is not persuasive as the independent claims do not set forth how this data is received and do not positively recite the subcutaneous IMDs. The independent claims do not impose any limits on how the ECG information is received by the processor, and thus this step covers any and all possible ways in which this can be done, for instance by typing the information into the system, or by the system obtaining the information from another device, by the person looking at ECG graph paper, or by looking at an ECG screen.
102
The argument that Bennett does not apply different first and second combinations of gain, filtering, and/or delay is not persuasive as the claims do not state that different combinations are used. In addition, Bennett shows in figure 10 the use of gain, filtering, and/or delay/buffer for each ECG signal. The argument that Bennett does not enhance a characteristic of interest in regards to another characteristic is not persuasive (as addressed above in the 102 rejection) as Bennett enhances an Rwave more than other signals/waves/characteristics due to the larger R wave signal, and since the noise is reduced in the composite signal compared to the enhanced R wave signal.
Similarly, the arguments about Cao are not persuasive as Cao enhances the signals to get the largest R wave amplitude (e.g. col. 7, lines 1-5, etc.) when compared to other characteristics, such as a T wave, S wave, noise, etc.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and shows some of the well-known in the art elements.
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 George Robert Evanisko whose telephone number is (571)272-4945. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Benjamin Klein can be reached on 571-270-5213. 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.
/George R Evanisko/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3792 7/24/26
Prosecution Insights