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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“biological information output circuitry” in claim 1, 8 and 10;
“display” in claims 1-4, 6,7, and 12;
“imager” in claims 3 and 5;
“absorbance output circuitry” in claim 6,
“light intensity-convergence output circuitry” in claim 7,
“absorbance-convergence output circuitry” in claim 7,
“pressure-convergence output circuitry” in claim 7; and
“determining circuitry” in claims 9 and 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
An “imaging circuitry” is being interpreted as a camera as taught in paragraph 0243 of the provided specification.
A “display” is being interpreted as any type of display as taught in paragraph 0174 of the provided specification.
The “biological information output circuitry”, “absorbance output circuitry”, “light intensity-convergence output circuitry”, “absorbance-convergence output circuitry”, “pressure-convergence output circuitry”, and “determining circuitry” are being interpreted as programs executed by a processor as described in paragraphs 0174. 0027 and 0207 of the provided specification.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 13-14 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair (US 20050171413 A1 – previously cited), in view of Wood (EP 0982584 – previously cited).
In regards to claim 1, Blair teaches a biological information measuring device comprising:
a light source to emit probe light ([0064], Fig.6 IR source 160);
a total reflector configured to totally reflect the probe light with the total reflector brought into contact with a subject to be measured ([0064], Fig.6 ATR crystal 104);
a pressure detector to detect a pressure of the subject with respect to the total reflector (Blair Fig.7 pressure sensor 210, [0070])
a light intensity detector configured to detect light intensity of the probe light reflected from the total reflector ([0065], Fig.6 light sensors 176 and 178);
biological information output circuitry configured to output biological information, the biological information being acquired based on the light intensity ([0071-0072]);
and a display to display the light intensity or an absorbance of the probe light, the absorbance being acquired based on the light intensity (Fig.6 display 206, [0051] and [0071]).
Blair fails to teach a device wherein the display further displays an output of the pressure detector
Wood teaches an ATR measurement device wherein a display further displays an output of a pressure detector in order to allow the operator to accurately set the pressure (Wood [0014]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of Blair to display the output of the pressure sensor like the display of Wood. Doing so would allow the user to accurately set the pressure by increasing or decreasing pressure according to the displayed value.
In regards to claim 13 modified Blair teaches the biological information measuring device according to claim 1, wherein the biological information is blood glucose level information ([0051]).
In regards to claim 14 modified Blair teaches the biological information measuring device according to claim 1, wherein a wavenumber of the probe light includes 1050cm-1 ([0024] a 1050cm-1 is in the 9.5-10 micrometer wavelength range).
In regards to claim 16 modified Blair teaches the biological information measuring device according to claim 1, wherein: the output of the pressure detector, displayed by the display, comprises contact-pressure data detected between the subject and the total reflector (Blair [0069-0070]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair (US 20050171413 A1 – previously cited) in view of Wood (EP 0982584 – previously cited) as applied to claim 1, in view of Yoshida (JP 2009183636 A - previously cited)
In regards to claim 3 modified Blair teaches the biological information measuring device according to claim 1, further comprising: an imager to capture an image of a contact region between a total reflection surface of the total reflection member and a subject to be measured (Blair [0081] fingerprint is a contact region). Modified Blair fails to teach a device wherein a display unit further displays information relating to a contact region. Yoshida teaches a biological measuring device comprising an imaging unit configured to capture an image of a vicinity of a contact region between a total reflection surface of the total reflection member and the subject to be measured (Yoshida [0018] and [0023] imaging device 24 captures a visible image of a region measured by ATR spectroscopy), wherein the display unit further displays information relating to the contact region (Yoshida [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify modified Blair to display the image of the contact region on the display as taught by Yoshida. Doing so would be merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of displaying the contact region to the user. MPEP 2141.I
Claims 4-6, 15, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair (US 20050171413 A1 – previously cited), in view of Wood (EP 0982584 – previously cited), further in view of Yoshida (JP 2009183636A ENGLISH TRANSLATION– previously cited).
In regards to claim 4, Blair teaches a biological information measuring device comprising:
a light source configured to emit probe light ([0064], Fig.6 IR source 160);
a total reflector to totally reflect the probe light with the total reflector brought into contact with a subject to be measured ([0064], Fig.6 ATR crystal 104);
a light intensity detector configured to detect light intensity of the probe light reflected from the total reflector (Blair [0065], Fig.6 light sensors 176 and 178);
biological information output circuitry configured to output biological information, the biological information being acquired based on the light intensity ([0071-0072]).
a pressure detector (Blair Fig.7 pressure sensor 210) configured to detect a pressure of the subject with respect to the total reflector (Blair [0070] “It is envisioned that normally a pressure sensor such as 210 would provide an output signal which would provide a "no-go/go" type of signal to the user”);
an imaging circuitry configured to capture an image of a contact region between a total reflection surface of the total reflector and the subject to be measured (Blair [0081] fingerprint is a contact region);
and a display (Blair Fig.6 display 206).
Blair fails to teach a display configured to display a pressure of the subject with respect to the total reflector, and a contact region between a total reflection surface of the total reflector and the subject.
Wood teaches an ATR measurement device wherein a display further displays an output of a pressure detector in order to allow the operator to accurately set the pressure (Wood [0014]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of Blair to display the output of the pressure sensor like the display of Wood. Doing so would allow the user to accurately set the pressure by increasing or decreasing pressure according to the displayed value.
Blair in view of Wood fails to teach a device wherein a display further displays a contact region between a total reflection surface of the total reflector and the subject. Yoshida teaches a biological measuring device comprising an imaging circuitry configured to capture an image of a vicinity of a contact region between a total reflection surface of the total reflector and the subject to be measured (Yoshida [0018] and [0023] imaging device 24 captures a visible image of a region measured by ATR spectroscopy), wherein the display further displays a contact region between a total reflection surface of the total reflector and the subject (Yoshida [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Blair in view of Wood to display the image of the contact region on the display as taught by Yoshida. Doing so would be merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of displaying the contact region to the user. MPEP 2141.I
In regards to claim 5 Modified Blair teaches the device of claim 4 further comprising: a pressure detector configured to detect the pressure (Blair Fig.7 pressure sensor 210); and an imaging circuitry configured to capture the contact image (Blair [0081] fingerprint is a contact region).
In regards to claim 6 Modified Blair teaches the device of claim 4 further comprising: an absorbance output circuitry configured to output an absorbance of the probe light, the absorbance being acquired based on the light intensity, wherein the display further displays information relating to the light intensity and the absorbance (Blair Fig.2, [0051 and 0071] “Respective signals may be compared using analog or digital computer devices”).
In regards to claim 15, Blair teaches a method for measuring biological information, the method comprising:
emitting probe light ([0064], Fig.6 IR source 160);
totally reflecting the probe light by a total reflector with the total reflector brought into contact with a subject to be measured ([0064], Fig.6 ATR crystal 104);
detecting light intensity of the probe light reflected from the total reflector ([0065], Fig.6 light sensors 176 and 178);
outputting biological information acquired based on the light intensity ([0071-0072]);
determining a pressure of the subject with respect to the total reflector ( [0070] Blair Fig.7 pressure sensor 210);
and generating a contact region based on a contact image between the total reflector and the subject (Blair [0081] fingerprint is a contact region)
Blair fails to teach displaying the pressure. Wood teaches an ATR measurement device wherein a display further displays an output of a pressure detector in order to allow the operator to accurately set the pressure (Wood [0014]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Blair to display the output of the pressure sensor like the display of Wood. Doing so would allow the user to accurately set the pressure by increasing or decreasing pressure according to the displayed value.
Blair in view of Wood fails to teach displaying a contact region between a total reflection surface of the total reflector and the subject. Yoshida teaches a biological measuring device comprising an imaging circuitry configured to capture an image of a vicinity of a contact region between a total reflection surface of a total reflector and a subject (Yoshida [0018] and [0023] imaging device 24 captures a visible image of a region measured by ATR spectroscopy), wherein the display further displays information relating to the contact region (Yoshida [0038]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Blair to display the image of the contact region on the display as taught by Yoshida. Doing so would be merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of displaying the contact region to the user. MPEP 2141.I
In regards to claim 20 Blair teaches the biological information measuring device according to claim 4, wherein the biological information is blood glucose level information ([0051]).
In regards to claim 21 Blair teaches the biological information measuring device according to claim 20, wherein a wavenumber of the probe light includes 1050cm-1 ([0024] a 1050cm-1 is in the 9.5-10 micrometer wavelength range).
Claim 7 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair (US 20050171413 A1 – previously cited), in view of Wood (EP 0982584– previously cited), in view of Yoshida (JP 2009183636 A ENGLISH TRANSLATION– previously cited) as applied to claims 4 and 16, further in view of Jang (US 20190204220 A1– previously cited)
In regards to claim 7 Modified Blair teaches the device of claim 4. Modified Blair fails to teach at least one of a light intensity-convergence output circuitry configured to output light intensity- convergence, the light intensity-convergence being acquired based on the light intensity; an absorbance-convergence output circuitry configured to output absorbance- convergence, the absorbance-convergence being acquired based on the light intensity; or a pressure-convergence output circuitry configured to output pressure- convergence, the pressure-convergence being acquired based on the pressure, wherein the display further displays at least one of the light intensity-convergence, the absorbance-convergence, or the pressure-convergence. Jang teaches an apparatus that determines a light intensity-convergence and compares that to a threshold (Jang [0110] coefficient of variation of the light quantity) in order to ensure the light sources are stable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Modified Blair to determine a coefficient of variation of the light quantity compare it to a threshold in order to ensure the light sources are stable like the device of Jang. It would also be obvious to display this coefficient of variation of the light quantity on the display of Modified Blair to communicate if the light source is stable to the user.
In regards to claim 19 Modified Blair teaches the device of claim 1. Modified Blair fails to teach at least one of a light intensity-convergence output circuitry configured to output light intensity- convergence, the light intensity-convergence being acquired based on the light intensity; an absorbance-convergence output circuitry configured to output absorbance- convergence, the absorbance-convergence being acquired based on the light intensity; or a pressure-convergence output circuitry configured to output pressure- convergence, the pressure-convergence being acquired based on the pressure, wherein the display further displays at least one of the light intensity-convergence, the absorbance-convergence, or the pressure-convergence. Jang teaches an apparatus that determines a light intensity-convergence and compares that to a threshold (Jang [0110] coefficient of variation of the light quantity) in order to ensure the light sources are stable. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Modified Blair to determine a coefficient of variation of the light quantity compare it to a threshold in order to ensure the light sources are stable like the device of Jang. It would also be obvious to display this coefficient of variation of the light quantity on the display of Modified Blair to communicate if the light source is stable to the user.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair (US 20050171413 A1 – previously cited), in view of Wood (EP 0982584 – previously cited), in view of Yoshida (JP 2009183636 A ENGLISH TRANSLATION– previously cited) as applied to claim 4, further in view of Park (US 20160367195 A1– previously cited).
In regards to claim 8 Modified Blair teaches the device of claim 4, wherein the biological information output circuitry (Fig.6 processor 180) outputs the biological information acquired based on the light intensity detected in response to the pressure being within a predetermined pressure range (Blair [0083]), Modified Blair fails to teach outputting biological information acquired based on the light intensity detected in response to the contact region being within a predetermined contact region. Park ‘195 teaches outputting biological information acquired based on the light intensity detected in response to a contact region being within a predetermined contact region (Park ’195 [0031]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Modified Blair to determine if the contact region is within a predetermined contact region in order to know when to start acquiring data like the device of Park ‘195 and to output that data. Doing so would merely be a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2141.I
In regards to claim 9 Modified Blair teaches the device of claim 4. Modified Blair fails to teach a determining circuitry configured to make a determination as to whether to start acquiring the biological information, the determination being made based on the pressure and the contact region. Park ‘195 teaches a processor that makes a determination as to whether to start acquiring the biological information, the determination being made based on the pressure and the contact region (Park ’195 [0031] and [0337]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Modified Blair to determine if the contact region is within a predetermined contact region in order to know when to start acquiring data like the device of Park ‘195. Doing so would merely be a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2141.I
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair (US 20050171413 A1 – previously cited), in view of Wood (EP 0982584 – previously cited), in view of Yoshida (JP 2009183636 A ENGLISH TRANSLATION– previously cited), in view of Jang (US 20190204220 A1– previously cited), as applied to claim 7, further in view of Park (US 20160367195 A1– previously cited).
In regards to claim 10 modified Blair teaches the biological information measuring device according to claim 7, wherein the biological information output circuitry outputs the biological information acquired in response to the pressure being within a predetermined pressure range (Blair [0059] and [0068]) and the light intensity acquired in response to the light intensity-convergence being less than or equal to a predetermined light intensity threshold (Jang [0110]). Modified Blair fails to teach the biological information being acquired based on the contact region being within a predetermined contact region. Park ‘195 teaches outputting biological information acquired based on the light intensity detected in response to a contact region being within a predetermined contact region (Park ’195 [0031]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Modified Blair to determine if the contact region is within a predetermined contact region in order to know when to start acquiring data like the device of Park ‘195 and to output that data. Doing so would merely be a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2141.I
In regards to claim 11 modified Blair teaches the biological information measuring device according to claim 7 further comprising: a determining circuitry (processor of Blair) configured to make a determination as to whether to start acquiring the biological information (Jang [0110-0111]), the determination being made based on the light intensity-convergence and based on the detected pressure being above a minimum pressure threshold(Blair [0059] and [0068]). Modified Blair fails to teach a determining circuitry configured to make a determination as to whether to start acquiring the biological information based on the contact region. Park ‘195 teaches biological information acquired based on the light intensity detected in response to a contact region being within a predetermined contact region threshold (Park ’195 [0031] [0333-0334] [0336]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor of Modified Blair to determine if the contact region is within a predetermined contact region in order to know when to start acquiring data like the device of Park ‘195 and to output that data. Doing so would merely be a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. MPEP 2141.I
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair (US 20050171413 A1 – previously cited), in view of Wood (EP 0982584 – previously cited), in view of Yoshida (JP 2009183636 A ENGLISH TRANSLATION– previously cited) as applied to claim 4, further in view of Park (US 20190239758 A1– previously cited).
In regards to claim 12 Modified Blair teaches the device of claim 4 further comprising: a processor that compares an image of a detected fingerprint with a stored fingerprint (Blair [0081]). Modified Blair fails to teach a differential region output circuitry configured to output a differential region between the contact region and a predetermined target contact region, wherein the display further displays the differential region. Park ‘758 teaches a processor configured to output a differential region between the contact region and a predetermined target contact region, wherein the display further displays the differential region in order to provide a guide for the user to adjust their finger into the target contact region (Park’758 [0078] [0082]). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processor and display of Modified Blair to output a differential contact and display it as taught by Park ‘758 in order to provide a guide for the user to adjust their finger into the target contact region.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair (US 20050171413 A1 – previously cited), in view of Wood (EP 0982584 – previously cited) as applied to claim 16, further in view of Martini (US 20170191107 A1).
In regards to claim 17 Modified Blair the device of claim 16. Modified Blair fails to teach the display updating. Martini teaches a display that continuously updates in order to allow the user to be quickly notified ([0081]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pressure display of modified Blair to update the display continuously like the system of Martini to show real time pressure data so that the user can know what the contact pressure is in real time.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blair (US 20050171413 A1 – previously cited), in view of Wood (EP 0982584 – previously cited applicant) as applied to claim 16, further in view of Eda (US 20050171435 A1).
In regards to claim 18 modified Blair teaches the device of claim 16. Modified Blair fails to teach a device wherein the display presents at least one of light-intensity data, absorbance data, and contact-pressure data as a time-series graph. Eda teaches displaying an absorbance time graph ([0063]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the display of modified Blair to output the calculated absorbance as a time series graph like the system of Eda. Doing so would merely be combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of displaying absorbance changes over time.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed 06/24/2025, with respect to rejections under U.S.C 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The U.S.C 112(a) rejections of claims 1-3, 6, and 13-14 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 11-13, filed 06/24/2025, with respect to rejections under U.S.C 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The U.S.C 112(b) rejections of claims 3, 7, and 10-11 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 13, filed 06/24/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under Blair have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Blair in view of Wood.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2025 in regards to the 103 rejections of Blair in view of Wood have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 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). Furthermore, Blair teaches measuring a pressure of the subject with respect to the total reflector. Blair merely fails to teach displaying the pressure, which Wood does teach.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 16, filed 06/24/2025, with respect to the double patenting rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The double patenting rejections of claims 1, 7, and 10-11 have been withdrawn
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 LUCY EPPERT whose telephone number is (571)270-0818. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/LUCY EPPERT/ Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/ETSUB D BERHANU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791