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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed 14 October 2025 have been entered. Claims 1 – 20 are pending, Claim 20 is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112 previously applied in the office action dated 14 July 2025.
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.
Regarding Claims 1 and 19, the claims each recite an apparatus, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1). The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception (Step 2A, Prong 1).
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 observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed invention involves making observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions, which are concepts performed in the human mind under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, each of Claims 1 - 19 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Independent Claims 1 and 19 recite (underlined are observations, judgements, evaluations, or opinions, which are grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG) (additional elements bolded, see Step 2A, prong 2);
Claim 1
A biological information measurement apparatus comprising:
a sensor configured to detect a light intensity;
a memory that stores a plurality of predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement periods; and
a processor coupled to the memory and the sensor, the processor being programmed to:
use the light intensity to measure an oxygen circulation time;
if a predetermined number of a plurality of measurements of an oxygen circulation time are to be performed, before a predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement period ends during a first measurement of the oxygen circulation time,
notify a test subject of a breath-hold instruction as a preparation for a second measurement of the oxygen circulation time, the test subject being a person for whom the oxygen circulation time is measured, the second measurement being a subsequent measurement to the first measurement,
wherein the first measurement of the oxygen circulation time extends into a predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement period of the second measurement.
Claim 19
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process for biological information measurement, the process comprising:
using a light intensity detected by a sensor to measure an oxygen circulation time;
if a predetermined number of a plurality of measurements of an oxygen circulation time are to be performed, before a predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement period ends during a first measurement of the oxygen circulation time,
notifying a test subject of a breath-hold instruction as a preparation for a second measurement of the oxygen circulation time, the test subject being a person for whom the oxygen circulation time is measured, the second measurement being a subsequent measurement to the first measurement,
wherein the first measurement of the oxygen circulation time extends into a predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement period of the second measurement.
(observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG);
These underlined limitations describe a mathematical calculation and/or a mental process, as a skilled practitioner is capable of performing the recited limitations and making a mental assessment thereafter. Examiner notes that nothing from the claims suggests that the limitations cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or by using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps in real time. Examiner additionally notes that nothing from the claims suggests and undue level of complexity that the mathematical calculations and/or the mental process steps cannot be practically performed by a human with the aid of a pen and paper, or using a generic computer as a tool to perform mathematical calculations and/or mental process steps. For example, in Independent Claims 1 and 19, these limitations include:
Observation and judgment to notify a test subject of a breath-hold instruction as a preparation for a second measurement of the oxygen circulation time, (if a predetermined number of a plurality of measurements of an oxygen circulation time are to be performed, before a predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement period ends during a first measurement of the oxygen circulation time)
Observation and judgment to use the light intensity detected (by the sensor) to measure an oxygen circulation time;
Similarly, Dependent Claims 2 – 18 include the following abstract limitations, in addition the aforementioned limitations in Independent Claims 1 and 19 (underlined observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG and certain methods of organizing human activity):
vary a breathing adjustment period in accordance with a measurement condition of the oxygen circulation time of the test subject
organizing the human activity of breathing to vary a breathing adjustment period in accordance with observation and judgment of a measurement condition of the oxygen circulation time of the test subject
control the breathing adjustment period such that the breathing adjustment period becomes longer as a measurement of the oxygen circulation time of the test subject approaches a final measurement.
organizing the human activity of breathing to control the breathing adjustment period such that the breathing adjustment period becomes longer as observation and judgment of measurement of the oxygen circulation time of the test subject approaches a final measurement.
perform control such that the breathing adjustment period corresponds to a period from when the test subject who is instructed to resume breathing after a breath-hold until an inflection point at which oxygen saturation in blood of the test subject turns from a decrease to an increase is detected in association with resumption of breathing of the test subject.
perform conscious control to organize the human activity of breathing such that breathing adjustment period corresponds to a period from when the test subject who is instructed to resume breathing after a breath-hold until observation and judgment that an inflection point at which oxygen saturation in blood of the test subject turns from a decrease to an increase is detected in association with resumption of breathing of the test subject.
perform control such that measuring the oxygen circulation time is continued until the inflection point is detected during a final measurement of the oxygen circulation time of the test subject.
observation and judgment such that measuring the oxygen circulation time is continued until the inflection point is detected during a final measurement of the oxygen circulation time of the test subject.
control a breath-hold period such that the breath- hold period becomes shorter as a measurement of the oxygen circulation time of the test subject approaches a final measurement
perform conscious control to organize the human activity of breathing such that the breath- hold period becomes shorter as a measurement of the oxygen circulation time of the test subject approaches a final measurement
vary a breath-hold period in accordance with a difference between a minimum value of oxygen saturation in blood of the test subject and a predetermined reference value of oxygen saturation prescribing a minimum value of oxygen saturation necessary to measure the oxygen circulation time
organize the human activity of breathing to vary a breath-hold period in accordance with observation and judgment of a difference between a minimum value of oxygen saturation in blood of the test subject and a predetermined reference value of oxygen saturation prescribing a minimum value of oxygen saturation necessary to measure the oxygen circulation time
make the breath-hold period shorter if the minimum value is less than or equal to the reference value; make the breath-hold period longer if the minimum value exceeds the reference value.
organize the human activity of breathing to lengthen or shorten the breath-hold period with observation and judgment that if the minimum value is either less than or equal to, or exceeds the reference value
all of which are grouped as mental processes or certain methods of organizing human activity under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The above-identified abstract ideas in each of Independent Claims 1 and 19 (and their respective Dependent Claims 2 - 18) are not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified in Claims 1 - 19), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract ideas to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of:
“non-transitory computer medium”
“computer”
“processor”
“sensor”
“memory”
Additional elements recited include an “non-transitory computer medium”, “computer”, “processor”, “sensor”, and “memory” in Independent Claims 1 and 19 (and their respective Dependent Claims 2 - 18). These component are recited at a high level of generality, , i.e., as a non-transitory computer medium performing a generic function of storing a program (the storing); a processor performing a generic function of processing data (the controlling and notifying); and a computer performing a generic function of running programs (the executing). These generic hardware component limitations for “non-transitory computer medium”, “computer”, “processor”, “sensor”, and “memory” are no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. As such, these additional elements do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Further additional elements from Independent Claims 1 and 19 includes pre-solution activity limitations, such as:
the test subject being a person for whom the oxygen circulation time is measured, the second measurement being a subsequent measurement to the first measurement.
A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a program causing a computer to execute a process for biological information measurement
a sensor configured to detect a light intensity;
a memory that stores a plurality of predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement periods;
coupled to the memory and the sensor, the processor being programmed
wherein the first measurement of the oxygen circulation time extends into a predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement period of the second measurement.
In addition the aforementioned extra-solution activity limitations in Independent Claim 25, additional extra-solution activity limitations recited in Dependent Claims 2 - 18 include:
the breathing adjustment period being a period from when the test subject who is instructed to resume breathing after a breath-hold until the test subject is instructed to hold breath again for the second measurement of the oxygen circulation time
the breath-hold period being a period from when the test subject is instructed to hold breath until the test subject is instructed to resume breathing.
These pre-solution measurement elements are insignificant extra-solution activity, setting up the parameters of the system, and serve as data-gathering for the subsequent steps.
The “non-transitory computer medium”, “computer”, “processor”, “sensor”, and “memory” as recited in Independent Claims 1 and 19 (and their respective Dependent Claims 2 - 18) are generically recited computer and hardware elements 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 ideas identified above in independent Claims 1 and 19 (and their dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
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 processor 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 independent Claims 1 and 19 (and their dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and 19 (and their dependent claims) 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: “non-transitory computer medium”, “computer”, “processor”, “sensor”, and “memory” as recited in independent Claims 1 and 19 (and their dependent claims).
The additional elements of the “non-transitory computer medium”, “computer”, “processor”, “sensor”, and “memory” in independent Claims 1 and 19 (and their dependent claims), as discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer and hardware components. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B.
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, the “non-transitory computer medium” is described generically on page 81 as something to store a program. The non-transitory computer medium is presented as generic box element “ROM 1020B” in Figure 25.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “computer“ is described generically in [Page 78, Paragraph 4], “a computer by executing a program” and generic processor examples on [Page 81, paragraph 3 – 4]. The computer is presented as generic box element “Controller 1020” in Figure 25.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “processor” is described generically on [Page 81, paragraph 3 – 4] “examples of the processor include general processors…” It is shown as generic box element “CPU 1020A” in Figure 25.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “sensor” is described on [Page 15, 3rd – 5th Full Paragraphs] as “photoelectric sensor 11” and that it includes a light emitting element that radiates IR light having a central wavelength of “about 850 nm” and a light emitting element that radiates red light having a central wavelength of “about 660 nm”, an a light receiving element that receives the light. It is shown as generic box element “photoelectric sensor 11” in Figures 4 and 8 and elements 1A and 1B in Figures 5 and 6.
Per Applicant’s specification, the “memory” is described generically on [Page 23, Paragraphs Bottom] – [Page 24, 1st Full Paragraph] as “a read only memory (ROM) 22, a random access memory RAM) 23, a non-volatile memory 24…for example a semiconductor memory is used…may also be a hard disk. It is shown as generic box elements “ROM 22”, “RAM 23”, and “Non-Volatile Memory 24” in Figure 8.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed terms “non-transitory computer medium”, “computer”, “processor”, “sensor”, and “memory” are reasonably construed as a generic computing and hardware devices. 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 “non-transitory computer medium”, “computer”, “processor”, “sensor”, and “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 independent Claims 1 and 19 (and their dependent claims) 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 apparatuses of Claims 1 - 19 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 - 19 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 for Step 2A Prong 2 in independent Claims 1 and 19 (and their dependent claims) 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
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.
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 – 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai et. al. (US Patent Application Publication US 2019/0290174 A1), hereinafter Sakai, in view of ”Training charts in Prana Breath” as posted by Olekdia on Youtube, hereinafter Prana, further in view of Kobayashi, et. al., (United States Patent Application Publication US 2006/0173258 A1), hereinafter Kobayashi. Examiner-annotated screenshots of the Youtube video are provided below for reference in regard to Claims 1 – 10 and 19.
PNG
media_image1.png
497
711
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A: Examiner-annotated screen capture of timestamp 0:42.
PNG
media_image2.png
487
708
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure B: Examiner-annotated screen capture of timestamp 0:58.
PNG
media_image3.png
586
713
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figure C: Screen capture of timestamp 0:37
Regarding Claims 1 and 19, Sakai discloses A biological information measurement apparatus ([0210] “biological information measurement device”) comprising:
a sensor configured to detect a light intensity ([0050] “measuring the intensity of light reflected from or transmitted through arteries…light receiver 3”) ;
a memory ([0109] “read-only memory (ROM) 20B, and random access memory (RAM) 20C”) that stores a measurement period ([0109] “stores the biological information measurement program…”); and
a processor ([0210] “a computer to execute the functions of each component…”) coupled to the memory ([0109]) and the sensor ([0050]; Fig 12, [0103]), the processor being programmed ([0210]; [0109] “biological information measurement program”) to:
use the light intensity to measure an oxygen circulation time ([0093] “measuring the lung to finger circulation time (LFCT)”; [0099] – [0100] “…LFCT measurement…detect the change in the blood oxygen concentration…the amplitude ratio of two pulse wave signals of different wavelengths…”; [0050]);
For Claim 19:
A non-transitory computer readable medium ([0002] “non-transitory computer readable medium”) storing a program causing a computer to execute a process for biological information measurement ([0109] including “…stores the biological information measurement program”), the process comprising:, respectively.
Using a light intensity detected by a sensor to measure an oxygen circulation time ([0093] “measuring the lung to finger circulation time (LFCT)”; [0099] – [0100] “…LFCT measurement…detect the change in the blood oxygen concentration…the amplitude ratio of two pulse wave signals of different wavelengths…”; [0050] “measuring the intensity of light reflected from or transmitted through arteries…light receiver 3”);:
For both Claims 1 and 19, Sakai further discloses if a predetermined number of a plurality of measurements of the oxygen circulation time are to be performed ([0005] “oxygen transport circulation time measurement method”),
notify a test subject of a breath-hold instruction ([0150], Fig 17 Step 106), the test subject being a person for whom the oxygen circulation time is measured ([0005]; [0125] “Note that one example of a method for causing the amount of inhaled oxygen to change is the method of holding one's breath and the like…”),
wherein the first measurement of the oxygen circulation time ([0150] “In step 104, the correction unit 31…an instruction to start measuring the LFCT”; Fig 20) extends into a predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement period ([0150] “In step 104, the correction unit 31…an instruction to start measuring the LFCT”; Fig 20).
For Claim 1, Sakai does not specifically disclose stores a plurality of predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement periods. For the remainder of Claims 1 and 19, Sakai does not disclose before a predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement period ends during a first measurement of the oxygen circulation time, notify a test subject of a breath-hold instruction as a preparation for a second measurement of the oxygen circulation time and Sakai broadly discloses an oxygen transport circulation time measurement method, which could be repeated for 1 or any number of measurements that include a breath hold period, including a measurement for the “first time” when the sensor is initialized to start recording ([0150] and Figure 20).
Prana teaches an application that communicates cues for breathing cycles including inhales, breath holds, and exhales, which can occur for customizable durations. Specifically for Claims 1 and 19, Prana teaches if a predetermined number of a plurality of measurements of an oxygen circulation time are to be performed (Examiner-annotated Figure A; “Total training duration” 7 minutes), before a predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement period ends during a first measurement of the oxygen circulation time (Examiner-annotated Figure B , Progress line is halfway through breath “Hold 1” during a first measurement of the oxygen circulation time”)(Examiner notes that the indicator “7 02 line” on the figure shows what a user would see during the first breath hold of the first measurement of the oxygen circulation time (before it ends), as there are 2 seconds left to “retain” breath. Examiner notes that the duration of each leg of the breath cycle is customizable to be however long or short the user’s application requires, by adjusting on the “Ratio per breath cycle” or “Seconds per ratio unit” input rectangle in Examiner Figure C., timestamp 0:37.)
notify a test subject of a breath-hold instruction as a preparation for a second measurement of the oxygen circulation time (Examiner-annotated Figure B, breath “Hold 2”)(Examiner notes that the second measurement of oxygen circulation time could occur each breath hold individually, and this is the “second” breath hold)(Examiner notes that the imminent breath-hold is shown as part a time-line along which an indicator sides, (7 02 line in the figure), thereby visually notifying the subject), the second measurement being a subsequent measurement to the first measurement (Examiner-annotated Figure B, “Hold 2” after the “Hold 1” line).
Prana gives a motivation to combine at [Timestamp 0:00-0:03] “It’s easy to add and edit breath methods for every single cycle.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention would recognize that having an “easy” means to cue a subject with customizable breathing instructions, as with the Prana Breathe app shown in the video, would be useful for an oxygen circulation time measurement apparatus that measures in accordance with given breathing instructions (Sakai’s Box 106 “hold breath”). It would have been predictable to use the customizable breathing cycle instruction cues in Prana in any similar human breathing-over-time process requiring subject instructions, as it would continue to operate with the function of instructing a subject when to breathe or hold their breath, in a customizable way for the requirements of the breathing application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the [0150] “Please hold your breath” displayed instruction disclosed in Sakai with the displayed customizable breathing cycle instruction cues taught by Prana, creating a single oxygen circulation time measurement apparatus to visually instruct the subject with particular breath-hold parameters during measurement. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved.
Prana does not disclose stores a plurality of predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement periods and wherein the first measurement of the oxygen circulation time extends into a predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement period of the second measurement
Kobayashi teaches a sensor system and method for measuring oxygen circulation time relative to multiple positions on the body. Specifically for Claims 1 and 19, Kobayashi teaches stores a plurality of predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement periods (Fig 7, “Display/Recorder 32” for “brow”, “finger”, and “foot” measuring; [0018] “A plurality of sensors may be attached to a plurality of prescribed positions on the subject”; Fig 11b, “threshold”, [0067] “…prescribed threshold value”) wherein the first measurement of the oxygen circulation time (Fig 11b, “Th”; Fig 9 “transit time measuring section”; [0067]) extends into a predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement period (Fig 11b, “threshold”; Fig 9 “transit time measuring section”; [0067] “transit time…the differential values are calculated with respect to a prescribed threshold value.”)(Examiner notes that the measurement is predetermined to continue in a period starting from the time of oxygen inhalation and ending at the point of reaching the “threshold” level, at which time the Th oxygen circulation time measurement is recorded. leading to a predetermined period for this oxygen. The brow (Th) measurement overlaps the time of the fingertip measurement (Tf), which also overlaps into the toe measurement (Tf).) of the second measurement (Fig 11b, “Tf”; Fig 9 “transit time measuring section”; [0067]).
Sakai and Kobayashi both disclose and teach devices and methods to measure oxygen circulation time relative to breathing instruction: Sakai with a light emitter/receiver to measure oxygen circulation time following a “breath hold” instruction and Kobayashi with sensors at the brow, fingertip, and toe to measure “transit time of oxygen” in the blood, following breath hold instructions (Fig 6A and 6B) or 100% oxygen inhalation (Fig.10). Kobayashi provides a motivation to combine at [0035] with “A condition of oxygen delivery to each of the prescribed positions can be ascertained on the basis of oxygen concentrations in blood obtained with use of the sensors… cases where blood flow is deteriorated by development of thrombus or atheroma can also be detected on the basis of the transit time.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would recognize that having sensors in multiple locations gathering measurements that end at overlapping times would be useful for obtaining more comprehensive oxygen circulation times for multiple points in the body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the breath hold instruction and oxygen circulation measurement device with light sensors disclosed by Sakai with the measurement of oxygen circulation time at multiple locations with overlapping measurements having multiple measurement stop times (a plurality of predetermined measurement periods) taught by Kobayashi, creating a single creating a single oxygen circulation time measurement apparatus to gather oxygen circulation time data for multiple locations to alert for potential blood flow deterioration.
Regarding Claim 2, Sakai in view of Prana, further in view of Kobayashi discloses as described above, The biological information measurement apparatus according to Claim 1 wherein the processor. For the remainder of Claim 2, Sakai discloses in accordance with a measurement condition of the oxygen circulation time of the test subject ([0093]; Fig 17)(Examiner notes that the measurement is occurring based on breath holds elapsing, so the measurement condition is that active measurement of breath hold data is occurring.)
Sakai does not disclose is configured to vary a breathing adjustment period in accordance with a measurement condition of the oxygen circulation time of the test subject, the breathing adjustment period being a period from when the test subject who is instructed to resume breathing after a breath-hold until the test subject is instructed to hold breath again for the second measurement of the oxygen circulation time.
Prana teaches is configured to vary a breathing adjustment period (Examiner-annotated Figure A and B, 3.2 seconds for “Breathe 1” (inhale), and 6.4 seconds for “Breath 2” (exhale).)(Examiner again notes that the timing or ratios for each portion of the breath cycle are adjustable for the desired application, by adjusting on the “Ratio per breath cycle” or “Seconds per ratio unit” input rectangle in Examiner Figure C., timestamp 0:37.), in accordance with the oxygen circulation time of the test subject (Examiner-annotated Fig A and B)(Examiner notes that oxygen circulation is occurring within the user while they are following the adjustments instructed by this breathing pattern, so this is an oxygen circulation time of the test subject.), the breathing adjustment period being a period from when the test subject who is instructed to resume breathing after a breath-hold until the test subject is instructed to hold breath again for the second measurement of the oxygen circulation time (Examiner-annotated Figure A and B; “Breathe 2” is between the horizontal breath-hold “retain” “Hold 1” and “Hold 2” periods in this cycle.).
The combination of Sakai with Prana allows for the breathing pattern to be varied in accordance with, or on the condition, that the breathing is occurring during the active measurement condition. Sakai offers a motivation to combine in [0125] including “Note that one example of a method for causing the amount of inhaled oxygen to change is the method of holding one's breath and the like.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention would recognize that having an “easy” means to cue varying breath holds and recovery periods to a user (as with the Prana app) during oxygen circulation time measurement would be useful for more easily discerning data corresponding to the relationship between breaths and oxygen circulation. It would have been predictable to use the varying breathing adjustment period instruction cues in Prana in any similar human breathing-over-time process requiring subject instructions, as it would continue to operate with the function of instructing a subject when to breathe or hold their breath, in a customizable way for the requirements of the breathing application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the [0150] “Please hold your breath” displayed instruction disclosed in Sakai with the customizable breathing cycle instruction cues with varying breathing adjustment periods taught by Prana, creating a single oxygen circulation time measurement apparatus to visually instruct the subject with varying breathing adjustment time parameters during measurement. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved.
Regarding Claim 3, Sakai in view of Prana, further in view of Kobayashi discloses as described above, The biological information measurement apparatus according to Claim 2, wherein the processor. For the remainder of Claim 3, Sakai does not disclose is configured to control the breathing adjustment period such that the breathing adjustment period becomes longer as a measurement of the oxygen circulation time of the test subject approaches a final measurement.
Prana teaches is configured to control the breathing adjustment period such that the breathing adjustment period becomes longer (Examiner-annotated Figure A and B, 6.4 seconds for “Breathe 2” (exhale) is longer than the 3.2 seconds for ”Breathe 1” (inhale))(Examiner again notes that the timing and repetition for each portion of the breath cycle are adjustable, by adjusting on the “Ratio per breath cycle” or “Seconds per ratio unit” input rectangle in Examiner Figure C., timestamp 0:37. The hash-marked intervals at the bottom of Figure B are breathing cycles),
The motivation for Claim 3 to combine Sakai and Prana is the same as that described in Claim 2. In summary, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the [0150] “Please hold your breath” displayed instruction disclosed in Sakai with the customizable breathing cycle instruction cues with lengthening breathing adjustment periods taught by Prana, creating a single oxygen circulation time measurement apparatus to visually instruct the subject with lengthening breathing adjustment time parameters during measurement. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved.
Regarding Claim 4, Sakai in view of Prana, further in view of Kobayashi discloses as described above, The biological information measurement apparatus according to Claim 2. For the remainder of Claim 4, Sakai discloses wherein the processor is configured to perform control ([0210]) such that the breathing adjustment period ([0099] “…when respiration resumes after stopping respiration for a period”) corresponds to a period from when the test subject who is instructed to resume breathing after a breath-hold until an inflection point ([0099] including “inflection point”, Fig 11) at which oxygen saturation in blood of the test subject ([0072] “Oxygen saturation in the blood is one example of the blood oxygen concentration”) turns from a decrease to an increase is detected in association with resumption of breathing of the test subject ([0099] “LFCT…the amount of time from…when respiration resumes after stopping respiration for a fixed period, until the inflection point that indicates that the oxygen saturation has recovered”)
Regarding Claim 5, Sakai in view of Prana, further in view of Kobayashi discloses as described above, The biological information measurement apparatus according to Claim 4. For the remainder of Claim 5, Sakai discloses wherein the processor is configured to perform control ([0210]) such that measuring the oxygen circulation time is continued until the inflection point ([0099] “inflection point”) is detected ([0099] “LFCT is obtained by measuring…”) during a final measurement of the oxygen circulation time of the test subject ([0099] “LFCT is obtained by measuring…”)(Examiner notes that the inflection point is measured for each of the pieces of collected data for which there is a breath hold, which would include the final measurement, meaning that the “measuring” continues at least until the inflection point is detected.)
Regarding Claims 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, Sakai in view of Prana, further in view of Kobayashi discloses as described above, The biological information measurement apparatus according to Claim 1, “ “ ….according to claim 2,” “…according to claim 3,” “…according to claim 4, and “ ”…according to claim 5, respectively. For the remainder of Claims 6 - 10, Sakai discloses wherein the processor is configured to control a breath-hold period ([0210]; Fig 17; [0150]), the breath-hold period being a period from when the test subject is instructed to hold breath (Fig 17, Block 106; [0150]) until the test subject is instructed to resume breathing (Fig 17, Block 107; [0150]).
Sakai does not disclose such that the breath- hold period becomes shorter as a measurement of the oxygen circulation time of the test subject approaches a final measurement
Prana teaches such that the breath- hold period becomes shorter as a measurement of the oxygen circulation time of the test subject approaches a final measurement (Examiner-annotated Figure A, horizontal “retain” breath section 1 at top = 4 seconds, subsequent horizontal “retain” breath section 2 at bottom = 1 second)(Examiner notes that the second breath-hold period shown is closer in time to the end of the session than the beginning, thereby approaching a final measurement.)
Sakai offers a motivation to combine in [0125] including “Note that one example of a method for causing the amount of inhaled oxygen to change is the method of holding one's breath and the like.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention would recognize that having an “easy” means to cue varying breath holds to a user (as with the Prana app) during oxygen circulation time measurement would be useful for controlling the amount of inhaled oxygen to change, more easily discerning data corresponding to the relationship between breaths and oxygen circulation. It would have been predictable to use the varying breathing adjustment period instruction cues in Prana in any similar human breathing-over-time process requiring subject instructions, as it would continue to operate with the function of instructing a subject when to breathe or hold their breath, in a customizable way for the requirements of the breathing application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the [0150] “Please hold your breath” displayed instruction disclosed in Sakai with the customizable breathing cycle instruction cues with varying breath hold periods taught by Prana, creating a single oxygen circulation time measurement apparatus to visually instruct the subject with varying breathing adjustment time parameters during measurement. The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved.
Claims 11 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai in view of Prana, further in view of Kobayashi, further in view of Skow et. al., “The ins and outs of breath holding: simple demonstrations of complex respiratory physiology”, hereinafter Skow.
Regarding Claims 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, Sakai in view of Prana, further in view of Kobayashi discloses as described above, The biological information measurement apparatus according to Claim 1, “ “ ….according to claim 2,” “…according to claim 3,” “…according to claim 4, and “”…according to claim 5, respectively. For the remainder of Claims 11 – 15, Sakai discloses wherein the processor is configured to ([0210]; Fig 17; [0150]), the breath-hold period being a period from when the test subject is instructed to hold breath (Fig 17, Block 106; [0150]) until the test subject is instructed to resume breathing (Fig 17, Block 107; [0150]).
Sakai does not disclose vary a breath-hold period in accordance with a difference between a minimum value of oxygen saturation in blood of the test subject and a predetermined reference value of oxygen saturation prescribing a minimum value of oxygen saturation necessary to measure the oxygen circulation time
Skow teaches a variety of breathing experiments to demonstrate the effect of different intervals of controlled breath holding on physiological parameters. Specifically for Claims 11 – 15, Skow teaches vary a breath-hold period ([Page 227, Left Column, 3RD Full Paragraph] “…stopped from holding their breath”)(Examiner notes that the breath-hold period is varied by making it time length 0.) in accordance with a difference between a minimum value of oxygen saturation in blood of the test subject and a predetermined reference value of oxygen saturation prescribing a minimum value of oxygen saturation necessary to measure the oxygen circulation time ([Page 227, Left Column, 3RD Full Paragraph] “If a pulse oximeter is available, the participant should be stopped from holding their breath if SpO2 reaches 85%.)(Examiner notes that 85% is the minimum value of oxygen saturation in the blood necessary to measure the blood circulation time in terms of safety, as taught by Skow. The participant is instructed to stop holding their breath if the difference between the subject’s measured oxygen saturation and the predetermined reference value of 85% is 0. It is understood that the breath-hold instruction would also be discontinued if the subject’s SpO2 goes lower than 85%.)
Skow provides a motivation to combine with Sakai at [Page 227, Left column, , 2nd - 3RD Full Paragraph] including “Extreme and prolonged hyperventilation can cause dizziness and lightheadedness, so the observer should be monitoring the participants for any signs of dizziness.” A person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing data of the claimed invention would recognize that subjects could have discomfort, dizziness, or adverse safety effects at or below 85% SpO2. A parameter necessary permitting oxygen circulation time to be recorded could be subject safety, therefore having a reference value at 85% SpO2 at which safety is maintained would be useful.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the [0150] “Please hold your breath” displayed instruction disclosed in Sakai with the participant instruction to stop holding breath at or below the 85% SpO2 cutoff condition taught by Skow, creating a single oxygen circulation time measurement apparatus to safely measure oxygen circulation time in subjects.
Regarding Claims 16, 17, and 18, Sakai in view of Prana, further in view of Kobayashi, further in view of Skow discloses as described above, The biological information measurement apparatus according to Claim 11, “ “ ….according to claim 12, and ““…according to claim 13, respectively. For the remainder of Claims 16 – 18, Sakai discloses wherein the processor is configured to ([0210])
Sakai does not disclose make the breath-hold period shorter if the minimum value is less than or equal to the reference value and make the breath-hold period longer if the minimum value exceeds the reference value.
Skow teaches make the breath-hold period shorter if the minimum value is less than or equal to the reference value ([Page 227, Left Column, , 3RD Full Paragraph] “If a pulse oximeter is available, the participant should be stopped from holding their breath if SpO2 reaches 85%.)(Examiner notes that the breath-hold period is shortened by discontinuing at the point that the subject’s SpO2 is detected lower than 85% and cessation instructions are communicated. It is understood that the breath-hold instruction would also be discontinued if the subject’s SpO2 goes lower than 85%, and that the urgency and need to end, or shorten the breath-hold period, would persist as the magnitude of the subject’s measured SpO2 grows below the 85% threshold.) and make the breath-hold period longer if the minimum value exceeds the reference value ([Page 227, Left Column, , 1st - 3RD Full Paragraph], “maximal breath hold”)(Examiner notes that the breath-hold is made longer on the condition that the Sp02 is greater than 85%, in that is not discontinued. The SpO2 minimum value exceeds the reference value of 85%.)
The motivation for Claims 16 - 18 to combine Sakai, Prana, and Kobayashi with Skow is the similar as that described in Claims 11 - 15. In summary, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the [0150] “Please hold your breath” displayed instruction disclosed in Sakai with the participant instruction to stop holding breath at or below the 85% SpO2 cutoff condition (and hold breath per protocol above the 85% SpO2 cutoff) taught by Skow, creating a single oxygen circulation time measurement apparatus to safely measure oxygen circulation time in subjects.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 14 OCTOBER 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101:
Applicant argues at [Page 9, “Step 2A Prong 1: Not Directed to an Abstract Idea” section] that the amended limitations are directed to a specific improvement in the functioning of a biological information measurement apparatus by shortening the time for measuring a plurality of oxygen measurement times as opposed to measuring them in series. There is nothing particularly recited in the claims that indicates that the measurement time is shortened. Further, there is nothing particularly recited in the claims that indicates increased performance for the well-understood, routine, and conventional broadly-recited hardware of “sensor”, “memory”, and “processor”. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 9, “Step 2A Prong 1: Not Directed to an Abstract Idea” section] that it is impractical for a human mind to detect a light intensity, use a light intensity to measure an oxygen circulation time, and notify a test subject of a breath hold instruction in preparation of a second measurement, such that when taken as a whole, the limitations of claim 1 do not fall under mental processes of abstract ideas. As described in the 35 U.S.C 101 analysis above, the sensor detecting a light intensity is pre-solution activity, collecting data for later use. A person can use a sensor as a tool to broadly “use” the light intensity to measure an oxygen circulation time, by observing a graphical output of the sensor and making a judgment of the point of the output that corresponds to an oxygen circulation time. Further, a medical professional could communicate to a test subject with oral or written instructions to hold their breath, a type of instruction that is common for tests in the a medical setting. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 9 - 10, “Step 2B Prong 2: Practical Application” section] that a solution is provided to the technical problem of inaccuracy in the measurement of oxygen circulation time by setting a period of breath-holding in advance. Based on the applied prior art above, the idea of setting how long the breath will be held in an oxygen circulation time trial is not new as, for example, Sakai discloses at [0151] “after a fixed period elapses (for example, after 20 seconds elapse) since the start of the breath holding, the correction unit 31 instructs the test subject to resume breathing.” The period of breath-holding is set at 20 seconds in the example in Sakai. Further, it is common in breathing instruction to give a subject an indication of how long they will be holding their breath during a breath hold, as exemplified by Prana’s teaching of breath holds with visual indicators. There is nothing particularly recited in the claims that is an indicator or increased accuracy for the well-understood, routine, and conventional broadly-recited hardware of “sensor”, “memory”, and “processor”. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 10, “Step 2B: Inventive Step” section] that the limitations of claim 1, particularly the last clause are not routine or conventional technical solutions, as they add an inventive concept to the claims by not being disclosed by the cited art. From MPEP § 2106.05 I: Although the courts often evaluate considerations such as the conventionality of an additional element in the eligibility analysis, the search for an inventive concept should not be confused with a novelty or non-obviousness determination. See Mayo, 566 U.S. at 91, 101 USPQ2d at 1973 (rejecting “the Government’s invitation to substitute §§ 102, 103, and 112 inquiries for the better established inquiry under § 101”). As made clear by the courts, the “‘novelty’ of any element or steps in a process, or even of the process itself, is of no relevance in determining whether the subject matter of a claim falls within the § 101 categories of possibly patentable subject matter.” Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1315, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (quoting Diamond v. Diehr, 450 U.S. at 188–89, 209 USPQ at 9). See also Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor Graphics Corp., 839 F.3d 1138, 1151, 120 USPQ2d 1473, 1483 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“a claim for a new abstract idea is still an abstract idea. The search for a § 101 inventive concept is thus distinct from demonstrating § 102 novelty.”). In addition, the search for an inventive concept is different from an obviousness analysis under 35 U.S.C. 103. See, e.g., BASCOM Global Internet v. AT&T Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1236, 1242 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“The inventive concept inquiry requires more than recognizing that each claim element, by itself, was known in the art. . . . [A]n inventive concept can be found in the non-conventional and non-generic arrangement of known, conventional pieces.”). The argument is not persuasive.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103:
Applicant argues at [Page 11, Bottom – All of Page 12] that Sakai and Prana do not disclose overlapping measurements of oxygen circulation time in order to teach the limitation in the amended claim 1 of “wherein the first measurement of the oxygen circulation time extends into…” Based on the amendment adding the ”extends into a predetermined oxygen-circulation-time measurement period of the second measurement” limitation, Sakai is combined with an additional reference (Kobayashi) that teaches simultaneous measurements from three instruments that extend for differing lengths of time (“extending” into each other’s measurement time periods). The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues at [Page 13, Paragraphs 1 – 3] that Sakai does not disclose overlapping measurements after the detection of the inflection point and does not notify the user regard a second measurement that will occur subsequent to the first measurement, and that Prana does not give a notification during overlapping measurements of oxygen circulation time. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As described in the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection above, Sakai is combined with an additional reference (Kobayashi) that teaches simultaneous measurements from three instruments that extend for differing lengths of time (“extending” into each other’s measurement time periods). Prana is combined with Sakai as described above to teach notifications of a plurality of breath holds. The argument is not persuasive.
Applicant summarily argues at [Page 13, “Dependent Claims 2- 18” Section] that claim 1 is allowable over the cited art, and dependent claims 2 – 18 should therefore also be allowable. Based on the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection analysis above and the aforementioned discussion, Claim 1 is not allowable over the prior art, and Claims 2 – 18 are similarly also not allowable. The argument is not persuasive.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MELISSA J MONTGOMERY whose telephone number is (571)272-2305. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 - 5:00 ET.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272 - 4233. 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.
/MELISSA JO MONTGOMERY/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/PATRICK FERNANDES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791