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
Applicant’s amendment filed on July 09, 2026 amending claims 30 and 52 have been acknowledged and entered.
Currently, claims 30-34, 36-40, 44-56, 58 and 61-63 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument filed on July 09, 2026, arguing that the cited references, individually and in combination, fail to teach or suggest the amended limitations recited in claims 30 and 52, including the newly added cabinet and temperature control limitations, as well as the remaining limitations relating to the motor, real-time reflectance/transmittance signals, and contamination determination.
The arguments are not persuasive. Applicant’s remarks are addressed below in the order presented.
Argument:
Mizuta fails to disclose a cabinet comprising the movable bag holder, motor, temperature control equipment, light system, and detector system
Applicant’s position:
Applicant argues that Mizuta does not disclose a cabinet, and in particular does not disclose a cabinet that includes the movable bag holder, motor, temperature control equipment, light system, and detector system.
Examiner response:
This argument is not persuasive. While Mizuta does not expressly use the word “cabinet,” the rejection does not rely on Mizuta alone for this limitation. As set forth in the current rejection, CN 109414009 A teaches a modular blood product storage system having a temperature adjusting unit, base unit, and stacked modular structure for blood product storage. CN 109414009 A further teaches controlled storage conditions, including temperature regulation, air circulation, and modular integration of functional units.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to house the known optical analysis and agitation components of Mizuta and Maurer within a cabinet or enclosure, as taught or suggested by CN 109414009 A, to provide a controlled environment for platelet handling and measurement. Enclosing such components in a cabinet is a predictable and routine design choice for laboratory and storage equipment.
Argument:
Mizuta fails to teach or suggest temperature control equipment configured to maintain a temperature inside the cabinet within a defined interval
Applicant’s position:
Applicant contends that Mizuta does not disclose any temperature control equipment, and therefore cannot meet the amended cabinet limitation.
Examiner response:
This argument is not persuasive. The current rejection relies on CN 109414009 A to supply the temperature-control aspect. CN 109414009 A expressly teaches a temperature adjusting unit and states that the blood product storage system may include air circulation and cooling and/or heating elements to maintain a desired temperature, such as 22 ± 2 °C. This teaching is directly relevant to the claimed temperature control equipment configured to maintain a temperature within a defined interval.
Thus, even if Mizuta does not explicitly disclose temperature control equipment, the added reference teaches the missing limitation. Applicant’s argument is therefore moot to the extent it is directed solely to Mizuta, because the current rejection no longer relies on Mizuta alone for this feature.
Applicant’s argument is moot in part and otherwise not persuasive in view of CN 109414009 A.
Argument:
Mizuta fails to disclose a motor for horizontally moving the movable bag holder back and forth or rotating it about a rotation axis
Applicant’s position:
Applicant argues that Mizuta uses a pressure-driven system rather than a motorized movable bag holder.
Examiner response:
This argument is not persuasive. The current rejection does not rely on Mizuta alone for this limitation. Maurer discloses a motor-driven flow-inducing mechanism, including a motor 38 that actuates a paddle 34 to induce repeatable platelet flow. Maurer further states that the apparatus could be arranged such that turbulent flow is induced by horizontal or rotational movement.
Although Maurer does not disclose the exact structure of a movable bag holder in the precise words used in the claims, it teaches the use of motor-driven motion to create repeatable platelet agitation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Mizuta’s agitation arrangement in view of Maurer to employ motorized movement, since substituting one known movement mechanism for another is a predictable design modification.
Argument:
Mizuta fails to teach determining platelet swirling based on the real-time reflectance signal
Applicant’s position:
Applicant argues that Mizuta determines swirl based on captured image data, not a real-time reflectance signal.
Examiner response:
This argument is not persuasive. Mizuta discloses capturing optical image data during the measurement interval and processing that data to determine swirling. Mizuta’s image processing of the illuminated sample during the test interval is an optical measurement of the sample’s reflective response. The claims do not require a particular hardware architecture so long as the controller determines platelet swirling based on the optical signal obtained during the measurement interval.
Further, to the extent Applicant argues that Mizuta does not use the specific terminology “real-time reflectance signal,” that argument is directed to nomenclature rather than substantive distinction. The rejection relies on the known optical data obtained during measurement, which is reasonably interpreted as a real-time reflectance signal.
Argument:
Mizuta fails to disclose determining any cell contamination based on the transmittance signal average
Applicant’s position:
Applicant argues that Mizuta does not determine cell contamination, much less based on a transmittance signal average.
Examiner response:
This argument is not persuasive. The current rejection relies on Maurer-611 for contamination-based optical interpretation. Maurer-611 expressly teaches that abnormal optical intensity, particle distributions distinct from platelets, and low quality platelet behavior are indicators of bacterial contamination or other contamination. In view of Maurer-611, it would have been obvious to use transmitted optical data from the platelet sample and compute an average transmittance signal as part of contamination analysis.
To the extent Applicant’s argument is directed solely to Mizuta, it is moot, because the current rejection does not rely on Mizuta alone for the contamination-detection aspect.
Applicant’s argument is moot in part and otherwise not persuasive in view of Maurer-611.
Argument:
Maurer fails to disclose a cabinet comprising the movable bag holder, motor, temperature control equipment, light system, and detector system
Applicant’s position:
Applicant argues that Maurer uses a static glass sheet and paddle system, not a cabinet enclosing the claimed elements.
Examiner response:
This argument is not persuasive. Maurer is not relied upon alone for the cabinet limitation. The current rejection relies additionally on CN 109414009 A for the modular enclosed blood product storage structure and temperature-controlled environment. Maurer is relied upon for the motorized flow-inducing aspect and optical measurement arrangement.
Applicant’s criticism that Maurer does not itself disclose a cabinet is therefore moot, because the rejection combines Maurer with CN 109414009 A for the enclosure and temperature-control features.
Argument:
Maurer does not disclose a motor for horizontally moving the movable bag holder back and forth or rotating it about a rotation axis
Applicant’s position:
Applicant asserts that Maurer discloses a motorized paddle, not a motorized movable bag holder.
Examiner response:
This argument is not persuasive. Maurer expressly teaches motor-driven movement to induce repeatable platelet flow and further contemplates alternative horizontal or rotational motion. One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that motorized motion may be applied to the sample holder or an equivalent sample-supporting structure to achieve the same predictable result: reproducible agitation of the platelet sample during optical testing.
Applicant’s argument is directed to an overly narrow reading of the reference. The claim does not require that the motor mechanism be identical to the exact structure shown in Maurer, only that the motor be configured as recited. The combination of the references renders this obvious.
Argument:
Maurer does not disclose determining platelet swirling based on the real-time reflectance signal
Applicant’s position:
Applicant argues that Maurer uses a paddle and light source, not real-time reflectance-based swirl determination.
Examiner response:
This argument is not persuasive. Maurer discloses optical detection of platelet swirl through a light source and detector arrangement, with optical data analyzed to produce a swirl score. Maurer therefore teaches the processing of optical response data from the sample during the measurement interval. The fact that the reference uses the term “optical data” rather than “real-time reflectance signal” does not create a patentable distinction.
Argument:
Maurer-611 does not disclose determining any transmittance signal average or cell contamination based on that average
Applicant’s position:
Applicant argues that Maurer-611 uses dynamic light scattering and size distributions, not transmittance averages.
Examiner response:
This argument is not persuasive and is moot in part. Maurer-611 is relied upon for its teaching of real-time optical acquisition, contamination indicators, and signal processing of platelet samples. The specific claim limitation requiring a transmittance signal average is interpreted in light of the cited art as an optical intensity averaging step. In any event, the contamination-detection rationale is supported by Maurer-611’s teachings regarding abnormal scattering intensity and particle distributions.
To the extent Applicant’s argument is directed to a narrower reading of Maurer-611 as failing to disclose a literal “transmittance signal average,” the argument is moot because the current rejection relies on Maurer-611 for the broader optical contamination-detection teaching and CN 109414009 A for the controlled storage environment.
Argument:
The combination of Mizuta, Maurer, and Maurer-611 still fails to disclose every claim element.
Applicant’s position:
Applicant argues that the references do not provide any guidance for combining the teachings to arrive at the claimed invention and that the rejection is based on impermissible cherry-picking.
Examiner response:
This argument is not persuasive. The references are combined for their respective teachings of known, compatible features: Mizuta teaches platelet swirl image analysis, Maurer teaches repeatable motor-driven platelet agitation and optical testing, Maurer-611 teaches real-time optical acquisition and contamination-related optical indicators, and CN 109414009 A teaches a modular temperature-controlled blood product storage structure. The combination is based on a rational underpinning: to improve repeatability, environmental control, and optical analysis of platelet quality.
The proposed combination does not require impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Rather, it reflects a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions.
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.
Claim(s) 30-34, 36-40, 44-56, 58 and 61-63 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizuta (JP 4929422 b1) in view of Maurer et al., (hereinafter Maurer), US 20140284504 and further in view of Maurer et al., US 20100136611 A1 (hereinafter Maurer 611’) and RUSHING et al., (hereinafter RUSHING), CN 109414009 A (English translation provided).
As to claims 30, 47, 48 and 52, Mizuta discloses an apparatus/method for determining quality of a platelet concentrate (PC) in a PC bag, the apparatus/method comprising:
a movable bag holder configured to carry the PC bag and agitate platelets in the PC bag (Mizuta teaches a pressurizing device with holding plates to insert and hold the blood/platelet bag, and uses pressurize-and-release to induce swirling; [0026], [0028], [0034], [0039]);
a light system comprising at least one light source configured to direct light into the platelet concentrate and direct light through the platelet concentrate in the PC bag carried by the movable bag holder for a measurement interval (Mizuta uses front diffuse reflection LED illumination (15a, 15b) to direct light into the bag (reflectance) and rear parallel transmitted LED illumination (15c) to direct light through the bag (transmittance), and perform imaging over a set of interval [0026], [0030], [0033], [0039]);
a detector system comprising at least one light detector configured to detect reflected light from the platelet concentrate in the PC bag during the measurement interval and generate a real-time reflectance signal representative of light reflected from the platelet concentrate during the measurement interval and detect light having passed through the platelet concentrate in the PC bag during the measurement interval and generate a real-time transmittance signal representative of light transmitted through the platelet concentrate during the measurement interval; (Mizuta’s CCD camera detects both reflected light and transmitted images and performs continuous imaging over time ([0030, [0033], [0039]); and
a controller connected to the detector system and configured to:
determine platelet swirling for the platelet concentrate in the PC bag based on the real-time reflectance signal (Mizuta’s controller and image processing unit extract swirl-area values from images, binarize, compute area ratios, and correlate to platelet quality ([0041]-[0046], [0051] – [0056]);
determine a transmittance signal average based on the real-time transmittance signal (Mizuta measures transmittance and performs shading/illuminance adjustments and can compute statistics ([0033], [0037], [0049]);
determine platelet viability for the platelet concentrate in the PC bag based on the platelet swirling (Mizuta correlates swirl-area ratios to established platelet morphology metrices (%Discs and Stop Flow) and uses these to judge quality ([0041] – [0046], [0051] – [0056]); Determining “viability” based on swirling is an obvious application of this correlation);
Mizuta doesn’t explicitly disclose the limitation such as, a cabinet, a temperature control equipment configured to maintain a temperature inside the cabinet within a defined interval, a motor for horizontally moving the movable bag holder back and forth or for rotating the movable bag holder about a rotation axis;
generate a real-time reflectance signal and transmittance signal;
determine transmittance signal average based on real-time transmittance signal and
determine any cell contamination based on the transmittance signal average.
However, Maurer from the same field of endeavor teaches an apparatus with clamp arms and a paddle actuated by a motor (38) to induce flow; It expressly notes alternative embodiments including horizontal/rotational movements of the flow-inducing member and apparatus orientation adjustments ([0032], [0033], [0038] – [0040], [0047],-[0049]). It states components can be set up vertically or at any angle and “the paddle could induce the turbulent clow by a horizontal or rotational movement” ([0032], [0033]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Mizuta by substituting the pressurize-release agitation with motorized horizontal/rotational holder movement, as suggested by Maurer to obtain automated, repeatable swirl induction. Further, motorization agitation is a predictable design choice in optical test rings (KSR-substitution of known alternatives to yield predictable results).
Further, as to the limitation of generating real time reflectance an transmittance signal, Maurer 611’ from the same field of endeavor teaches real-time optical signal acquisition and digitization (single photon-counting module 20→TTL→pulses 24→data acquisition card 26→computer 28) and multi-angle collection of scattered light, producing real-time data streams ([0045]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Maurer-611’s real-time digitization to Mizuta’s imaging yields real-time reflectance/transmittance signals for improved analysis and contamination detection. This is routine enhancements (predictable benefits).
Further, as to the limitation of determine transmittance signal average based on real-time transmittance signal, Maurer-611 teaches that abnormal optical intensity, particle distributions distinct from platelets, and low quality platelet behavior can indicate bacterial contamination or other contamination of the platelet sample. See Maurer-611 ¶¶ [0005]-[0007], [0085]-[0109]). Maurer 611’ also teaches real-time pipeline supports averaging of transmittance intensity signals ([0045]-[0048]); It uses intensity thresholds and averages to flag contaminations ([0005]-[0007]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuta by determining transmittance signal average based on real-time transmittance signal, as suggested by Maurer 611’ because averaging and thresholding optical data are routine signal-processing techniques used to identify anomalies and to reduce noise and detect anomalies (predictable).
As to the limitation of determining any cell contamination based on the transmittance signal average, Maurer 611’ teaches than abnormality high or low scattering tr/transmission intensity flags contamination ([0005]-[0007]; Further, calculating an average transmission and comparing the thresholds is inherent).
Integrating Maurer-611’s contamination criteria with Mizuta’s transmission stream is an obvious, predictable combination to add contamination detection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuta’s apparatus by integrating Maurer’s contamination criteria to obtain predictable result.
As to the limitation of cabinet and a temperature control equipment configured to maintain a temperature inside the cabinet within a defined interval, RUSHING teaches an enclosed modular blood product storage structure having a temperature adjusting unit arranged in stacked relation. RUSHING further teaches temperature control equipment, including air circulation and cooling and/or heating elements, for maintaining blood products at a desired temperature, including about 22 ±2° C (See CN 109414009 A, Abstract; Summary of the Invention; Specific Implementation Methods; Claims 1-13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to house the known platelet testing components of Mizuta and Maurer in a cabinet or enclosure in order to provide a controlled measurement environment, reduce ambient interference, facilitate modular arrangement of components, and maintain temperature stability during testing. Enclosing analytical components in a cabinet is a predictable and routine design choice. Further, it would have been obvious to provide temperature control equipment in the claimed cabinet to maintain a defined internal temperature interval because platelet quality and platelet storage behavior are temperature sensitive, and the cited art recognizes the importance of temperature control for blood product handling and assessment.
As to claims 31 and 53, the modified Mizuta discloses the apparatus according to claim 30, wherein the real-time reflectance signal comprises a plurality of signal samples each having a respective sample value (Mizuta acquires continuous image frames during a 5s imaging interval ([0039]; frames function as samples); and the controller is configured to calculate an average of the sample values of the plurality of signal samples (Mizuta performs binarization and computes area ratios/statistics for the inspection region ([0041]-[00465] averaging per-sample values is implicit);
Mizuta doesn’t explicitly disclose computation of the average of reflectance sample values.
However, Maurer-611 teaches real-time processing (software correlator) computes average/means as standard steps in signal processing ([0045]-[0048]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuta since computing averages over samples is routine in signal analysis as suggested by Maurer-611 and combining with Mizuta’s reflectance series would have been obvious to stabilize swirl metrices. The claimed formulas represent conventional mathematical processing of sampled data and do not impart patentable distinction over the combination of references.
As to claims 32 and 54, calculating for each signal sample of the plurality of signal samples, a difference between the sample value of the signal sample and the calculated average and determine the platelet swirling based on the calculate differences would be obvious based on the teachings of Maurer-611 (signal processing pipeline and correlated functions for time-series optical signals – computing per-sample deviations is standard ([0045]-[0048]).
As to claims 33 and 55, Maurer-611 teaches aggregation of sample-wise statistics (sum/mean) in real-time processing ([0045]-[0048]). Further summation is conventional aggregation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the controller of Mizuta configured to determine the platelet swirling based on a sum of the calculated differences since it is common and known as evidenced by Maurer-611 will provide predictable measure of overall functional magnitude.
As to claims 34 and 56, Maurer-611 teaches standard statistical formalism in software correlators ([0045]-[0048]). Further, formalizing the computation is an obvious implementation detail and thus would have been obvious to configure the controller of Mizuta to determine the platelet swirling based on
PNG
media_image1.png
30
204
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, wherein the real-time reflectance signal comprises N signal samples for the measurement interval, Si represents a sample value at sample number i, i = 1…..N, and
PNG
media_image2.png
14
12
media_image2.png
Greyscale
represents the calculated average to obtain predictable result.
Further, as to claims 31-34 and 53-56, the claimed formulas represent conventional mathematical processing of sampled data and do not impart patentable distinction over the combination of references.
As to claims 36, 38-40 and 58, Mizuta discloses ([0026], [0030], [0033]) the apparatus according to claim 30, wherein the light system comprises: a first light source (front diffuse reflection LEDs) configured to direct light into the platelet concentrate in the PC bag carried by the movable bag holder at for the measurement interval; and a second light source (rear transmitted LED) configured to direct light through the platelet concentrate in the PC bag carried by the movable bag holder for the measurement interval but doesn’t explicitly disclose the an angle of incidence (a) selected within an interval of from 50 to 850.
However, Maurer-611’ teaches multi-angle collection and discussion of angular geometries for scattering/reflectance (e.g., collection at 45 degrees and 60 degrees) ([0066]-[0068]; Figs. 1A-C). Further, selecting incidence angles with 5-85 degrees is a routine optical design optimization and thus would have been obvious to choose angles for sensitivity while using Mizuta’s front illumination geometry.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select illumination and collection angles within the claimed ranges as a matter of routine optical design optimization to improve signal sensitivity and measurement reliability. The recited angle ranges are result-effective variables whose selection would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
As to claim 37, Mizuta discloses ([0026], [0030], [0033]) the apparatus according to claim 36, wherein the first light source (front diffuse reflection LEDs) is arranged at a first side relative to the movable bag holder; the second light source (rear transmitted LED) is arranged at a second, opposite side relative to the movable bag holder; and the light detector is arranged at the first side relative to the movable bag holder.
As to claims 44-46, Mizuta discloses 5s imaging interval ([0039]). This overlaps the claimed ranges of 0.5s to 40s or 1 s to 30 s or 1 s to 20 s or at minimum renders them obvious as a routine optimization of measurement duration to obtain stable optical data.
As to claims 49, 50, 61 and 62, Mizuta doesn’t explicitly disclose stop of rotation at measurement stop. However, Maurer explicitly disclose rotational agitation alternative ([0032], [0033]). RUSHING further teaches modular integration of blood product storage components in a structured system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Mizuta wherein the controller is configured to temporarily stop/change movement of the movable bag holder at a start of the measurement interval or at least closely preceding the start of the measurement interval because temporarily stabilizing motion at measurement start is a routine synchronization and improves signal quality. It would also have been obvious to temporarily stop or adjust movement at the start of measurement to reduce motion artifacts and stabilize optical readings, which is a routine control technique in analytical instrumentation.
As to claim 51, Mizuta teaches white LEDs (visible) for both reflectance and transmission ([0026], [0030], [0033]).
As to claim 63, Mizuta explicitly teaches a CCD color camera 18 (installed in front of the blood product 30) for imaging (paragraphs describing s15, S23; e.g., “a CCD color camera 18 that images the blood product 30 placed on the pressure device 12 from its front side” and “The captured image is inspected ….” – see paragraphs [0026]-[0035]; Fig. 2 and description). Mizuta thus teaches a detector (camera) on the first front side. Mizuta also discloses illuminator from rear 15c so that transmitted light us visible at the front camera (e.g. the camera sees a white transmitted central area and black spiral pattern). Further, as explained above Mizuta when modified by Maurer 611’ teaches generating real-time reflectance and transmittance signal.
Mizuta when modified doesn’t explicitly disclose the second detector. However, Maurer-611’ teaches multi-collector, multi detector architectures and separate acquisition/digitization channels for optical signals, and specifically contemplates using separate detector collectors at different angles/channels to generate real-time signal streams for analysis. (see ¶¶ describing multiple collectors, and descriptions of correlating collected light to particle size and intensity). Maurer-611 thus teaches the provision of a detector/channel dedicated to a transmittance (or backscatter at a particular collection geometry) signal and sending the stream to a real-time acquisition and processing pipeline.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Mizuta’s front/rear illumination and front-side detection geometry with Maurer-611’S multi-detector acquisition architecture to implement two front-side detectors: one dedicated to generating a real-time reflectance signal and the other dedicated to generating real-time transmittance signal. The motivation for the combination includes improved signal separation, enhanced real-time processing, increased dynamic range, and conventional engineering practice in optical instrumentation. Because the motivation uses known detector hardware and acquisition techniques in a predictable way to achieve foreseeable results, the provision of two front-side detectors (first for reflectance, second for transmittance) as claimed is an obvious variation of the cited art.
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 TARIFUR RASHID CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am-5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allana L. Bidder can be reached at (571)272-5560. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights