DETAILED ACTION
Receipt of Applicant’s amendment filed 04/13/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 12, 13, 15, and 20 have been amended.
Claims 21-24 have been added.
Claims 9, 10, 14 and 18 have been canceled.
Claims 1-8, 11-13, 15-17 and 19-24 are pending.
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 .
Examiner Notes
Examiner cites particular columns, paragraphs, figures and line numbers in the
references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although
the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to
the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply
as well. Examiner may also include cited interpretations encompassed within parenthesis, e.g. (Examiner’s interpretation), for clarity. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the applicant fully consider the references in their entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The entire reference is considered to provide disclosure relating to the claimed invention. The claims & only the claims form the metes & bounds of the invention. Office personnel are to give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure. Unclaimed limitations appearing in the specification are not read into the claim. Prior art was referenced using terminology familiar to one of ordinary skill in the art. Such an approach is broad in concept and can be either explicit or implicit in meaning. Examiner's Notes are provided with the cited references to assist the applicant to better understand how the examiner interprets the applied prior art. Such comments are entirely consistent with the intent & spirit of compact prosecution.
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 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.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 1, 12, 13, 15 and 20. Applicants arguments have been fully considered and are persuasive. Rejections to claims are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102/103:
Acknowledgement is made of amended claims 1, 12, 13, 15, 20 and the addition of claims 21-24. Applicants arguments have been fully considered, but not persuasive. Rejections to claims are maintained.
Applicant argues that Lampotang (nor Glasgow or Marcel) doesn’t teach nor suggest a “random generator”. The examiner respectfully disagrees. As can be seen in Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. §102 section below, Lampotang [Col.7 Ln.25] discloses “the sound simulating apparatus has a means for determining whether an abnormal condition is effecting the physiological state of the patient simulator and means for altering the audible sound of breathing corresponding to the appropriate physiological sound based upon the abnormal physiological condition effecting the physiological state.” The simulating apparatus with the means for altering audible sound dependent upon an abnormal condition is interpreted as a random generator configured to randomly incorporate the one or more respiratory situations into the mathematical simulation. Also see claim’s 23 and 24 rejections below for further Lampotang random generator disclosure. Thus, Applicant’s argument not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01.
Amended claim 20 is directed towards a method to operate the system of
claim 1, but doesn’t articulate the method thereof. What is the particular method of operation?
For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets claim 20 as any method which utilizes the system of claim 1.
Claim 20 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Amended claim 20 is directed towards a method to operate the system of claim 1, but doesn’t articulate the method thereof. What is the particular method of operation? How does the method further limit the system of claim 1?
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 24, the term “about a mean value” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. i.e. What constitutes “about” a mean value? One standard deviation from the mean? Two standard deviations from the mean? Etc.
For purposes of compact prosecution, the examiner interprets “about a mean value” to mean a preset value/range.
The dependent claim 21, included in the statement of rejection but not specifically addressed in the body of the rejection have inherited the deficiencies of its parent claim (i.e. Claim 20) and have not resolved the deficiencies. Therefore, they are rejected based on the same rationale as applied to their parent claims above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 11, 13, 15-17 and 20-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) / (a)(2) as being anticipated by Lampotang et al. US Patent No. 5584701 (hereinafter referred to as “Lampotang”).
Regarding claim 1, Lampotang discloses A system for simulating the breathing of a living being (“The present invention discloses a self-regulated lung in a manikin for use in real time in an integrated patient simulator during simulated medical procedures” Lampotang [Col.5 Ln.25-27]), wherein the system comprises at least a gas module and a control module, the control module being configured and designed, in a first simulation part, to mathematically simulate a breathing of a living being , and, in a second simulation part, to control the gas module on the basis of the mathematical simulation from the first simulation part. (“the patient simulator disclosed herein contains a hybrid (mechanical and mathematical) lung model which regulates itself regardless of what type of gas (air, anesthetics, hypoxic, etc.) is inhaled. In addition, even the blunting of physiological control mechanisms (e.g., ventilatory response to carbon dioxide) is self-regulated“ Lampotang [Col.13 Ln.15-21], “Module 34 is responsible for portions of the lung simulator: the gas exchange and mass flow controllers 122 [...] module 44 drives other portions of the lung simulator: the lung mechanics 26 and the two EPRs 108 (See FIG. 2)” Lampotang [Col.14 Ln.21-32])
and wherein the system is configured such that one or more respiratory situations can be preprogrammed (“The preselected event (i.e. preprogrammed situations) may be that a certain amount of time has passed, or that the trainee has finished administering an injection” Lampotang [Col.23 Ln.63]) and it can be set which of the one or more respiratory situations are to be simulated (“time and event based scripts are run based on the computer 16 intervention or instructor intervention with the system. The events may be scripted or non-scripted as appropriate for the desired simulated application. A combination of time- and event-based scripts is possible where needed. For instance, an instructor may determine that a difficult airway situation should arise by using an event-based script.” Lampotang [Col.15 Ln.30]),
and wherein the mathematical simulation comprises a random generator which is configured to randomly incorporate the one or more respiratory situations into the mathematical simulation (“the sound simulating apparatus has a means for determining whether an abnormal condition is effecting the physiological state of the patient simulator and means for altering the audible sound of breathing corresponding to the appropriate physiological sound based upon the abnormal physiological condition effecting the physiological state.” Lampotang [Col.7 Ln.25]).
Regarding claim 2, Lampotang discloses wherein the control module comprises a simulation unit, which is configured and designed to mathematically simulate the breathing of a living being. (“The lung model portion of the patient simulator is capable of simulating spontaneous breathing” Lampotang [Col.12 Ln.8], “the patient simulator disclosed herein contains a hybrid (mechanical and mathematical) lung model which regulates itself regardless of what type of gas (air, anesthetics, hypoxic, etc.) is inhaled.” Lampotang [Col.13 Ln.15-18])
Regarding claim 3, Lampotang discloses wherein the control module is configured and designed to control the gas module such that in the second simulation part the mathematical simulation of the first simulation part is converted into a physical simulation of the breathing of a living being. (“The present invention discloses a self-regulated lung [...] comprising at least one bellows capable of receiving and expelling a gas, a means for actuating the bellows between expanded and contracted states depending upon a time- and event-based script, a computer model or a combination of a time- and event-based script and a computer model based on the physiological state of the patient simulator (i.e. mathematical simulation), at least one mass flow controller capable of directing the gas into the bellows when the bellows expands in volume” Lampotang [Col.5 Ln.27-35])
Regarding claim 4, Lampotang discloses wherein the gas module comprises at least one expiration unit and at least one inspiration unit, the expiration unit being configured to simulate an expiration of a living being, and the inspiration unit being configured to simulate an inspiration of a living being. (“Spontaneous movement of the bellows is driven by an analog muscle pressure signal to simulate inspiration, active expiration, coughing, and different spontaneous breathing patterns (I/E [inhalation/exhalation] ratio” Lampotang [Col.12 Ln.10-14])
Regarding claim 5, the system of claim 2, Lampotang discloses wherein the simulation unit is designed to calculate and/or simulate a pressure which is generated by the simulated living being in lungs. (“The lung model portion of the patient simulator is capable of simulating spontaneous breathing with computer control of tidal volume (VT) and respiratory rate (RR). Spontaneous movement of the bellows is driven by an analog muscle pressure signal to simulate inspiration, active expiration, coughing, and different spontaneous breathing patterns (I/E [inhalation/exhalation] ratio” Lampotang [Col.12 Ln.8-14])
Regarding claim 6, Lampotang discloses wherein the gas module is designed and configured to physically simulate the pressure which is generated by the simulated living being in lungs. (“The muscle pressure signal is generated by the physiologic control model based on arterial blood O2 and CO2 content. The signal is converted by a digital to analog converter into a physical signal directed to the electronic pressure regulators (EPRs).” Lampotang [Col.12 Ln.19-23])
Regarding claim 8, the system of claim 4, Lampotang discloses wherein the expiration unit comprises at least one gas source and/or at least one fan. (“The gas 308 is used to simulate the flow of gases coming from the trachea during inhalation. In addition, the bronchial resistance means allows for the gas to travel in the opposite direction, from the lung 26 to the trachea as in expiration.” Lampotang [Col.21 Ln. 46-50])
Regarding claim 11, the system of claim 4, Lampotang discloses wherein the expiration unit comprises a plurality of gas sources, (“Uptake and delivery of the alveolar gases inside the bellows 100 are physically created by gas substitution. The gases presently contemplated are O2, CO2, N2, N2O” Lampotang [Col.17 Ln.14-16])
the expiration unit being configured and designed to make available, on the basis of the mathematical simulation, a gas mixture which corresponds to a gas composition of exhaled air of a living being. (“when a user changes the inspired gas composition, this change causes changes to the physically simulated alveolar concentrations of the various gases. The physiological model will then determine the effects of these changes in gas concentrations in the lung [...] The lung model physically simulates these changes [...] the lung model changes result in a different composition of gas being exhaled” Lampotang [Col.13 Ln.25-34])
Regarding claim 13, Lampotang discloses wherein the system further comprises a sensor arrangement which is configured and designed to detect values of the breathing. (“Another preferred embodiment comprises the use of intrapleural pressure sensors 101 situated inside the bellows 100. These devices determine the pressure of the bellows which data form a part of the physiological state of the patient simulator 1” Lampotang [Col.19 Ln.29-32])
and wherein the control module is configured and designed to incorporate values detected via the sensor arrangement into the mathematical simulation (“ The pressure inside the bellows 100 is under continuous monitoring based on the output from a pressure sensor 101. This pressure output is used as one of the inputs to the physiological model coordinated by the computer 16” Lampotang [Col.18 Ln.15-19]),
the control module comprising an evaluation unit which is configured and designed to evaluate and/or analyze the values detected via the sensor arrangement (“Before expulsion through the vane pump 106, gases transferred to the conduit 104 are analyzed in a gas analyzer 48 which is situated intermediate the vane pump and the bellows” Lampotang [Col.18 Ln.22-25]).
Regarding claim 15, the system of claim 13, Lampotang discloses wherein the evaluation unit is configured and designed to analyze the values detected via the sensor arrangement in order to ascertain whether the mathematical simulation is correctly implemented by the gas module. (“Finally, a gas analyzer 48 may be disposed along the second conduit 104 intermediate the bellows 100 and the vane pump 106, wherein the gas analyzer 48 is capable of assaying the expelled gases. The information on expelled gases is then transmitted via an electric signal (not shown) to the computer 16. In the computer, based upon the current physiological (i.e. mathematical) model and physiological state, a simulated response to the gas analysis is computed. For instance, if no carbon dioxide is being expelled by the modeled lung 26, then an abnormal condition may be deduced in the physiological state.” Lampotang [Col.19 Ln.50-60])
Regarding claim 16, Lampotang discloses wherein the system further comprises an input unit via which data, values and/or information are input, the data, values and/or information serving at least in part as specifications for the mathematical simulation. (“Also included is a unique way of linking the different subsystems to realistically simulate the interactions between the subsystems and the control system in response to the actions of a trainee, student, or other user (including input from both a computer peripheral such as a mouse/keyboard, wired remote keypad, wireless remote control unit, barcode reader and from sensors physically embedded in the full scale lung/patient simulator).” Lampotang [Col.11 Ln.49-56])
Regarding claim 17, the system of claim 16, Lampotang discloses wherein the input unit is configured and designed to input values and/or data and/or information from an evaluation unit into a simulation unit. (“the gas analyzer (i.e. evaluation unit) 48 is capable of assaying the expelled gases. The information on expelled gases is then transmitted via an electric signal (not shown) to the computer 16. In the computer, based upon the current physiological model and physiological state, a simulated response to the gas analysis is computed.” Lampotang [Col.19 Ln.52-57])
Regarding claim 20, Lampotang discloses A method for simulating the breathing of a living being, wherein the method comprises operating the system of claim 1. (“the present invention contemplates a method of simulating a self-regulated lung 26 in real time” Lampotang [Col.18 Ln.9])
Regarding claim 21, the method of claim 20, Lampotang discloses wherein measured respiration values are recorded by sensors and incorporated into the mathematical simulation, and wherein based on the measured respiration values the mathematical simulation is automatically adapted and/or changed (“use of intrapleural pressure sensors 101 situated inside the bellows 100. These devices determine the pressure of the bellows which data form a part of the physiological state of the patient simulator 1. Thus, the computer 16 may take into account the intrapleural pressure so communicated in computing a simulated response of the system, e.g., determining compliance behavior for a particular physiological model based upon the instantaneous lung volume reading.” Lampotang [Col.19 Ln.30]).
Regarding claim 22, the system of claim 1, Lampotang discloses wherein the system is configured such that an extent of the one or more respiratory situations to be simulated can be set (“the patient simulator can change its inspiratory muscle pressure waveform to maintain a preset level (i.e. set extent) of arterial/alveolar pCO2 and pO2 (partial pressures).” Lampotang [Col.13 Ln.8]).
Regarding claim 23, the system of claim 22, Lampotang discloses wherein the random generator is configured such that the extent of the one or more respiratory situations to be simulated can be set (“the patient simulator can change its inspiratory muscle pressure waveform to maintain a preset level of arterial/alveolar pCO2 and pO2 (partial pressures). The double acting piston mechanism (including a shaft encoder) and its self-regulating software model create spontaneous breaths of variable size and shape along with independently variable compliance and independently variable bronchial resistance. Thus, the patient simulator disclosed herein contains a hybrid (mechanical and mathematical) lung model which regulates itself regardless of what type of gas (air, anesthetics, hypoxic, etc.) is inhaled.” Lampotang [Col.13 Ln.8]. The examiner interprets the self-regulating software model to be a random generator due to Applicant’s disclose, “The mathematical simulation can for example also comprise a random generator, which ensures a certain irregularity in the simulated breathing” Spec. [Pg.15 Ln.18]).
Regarding claim 24, the system of claim 1, Lampotang discloses wherein the random generator is configured to allow at least one of pressure, flow, gas composition and tidal volume to randomly fluctuate about a mean value (Note: See examiner’s interpretation of this claim in Claim Rejections – 35 USC 112 above. Lampotang discloses, “the patient simulator can change its inspiratory muscle pressure waveform to maintain a preset level of arterial/alveolar pCO2 and pO2 (partial pressures). The double acting piston mechanism (including a shaft encoder) and its self-regulating software model create spontaneous breaths of variable size and shape along with independently variable compliance and independently variable bronchial resistance.” Lampotang [Col.13 Ln.8])
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.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampotang et al. US Patent No. 5584701 (hereinafter referred to as “Lampotang”), in view of Glasgow et al. US Pub. No. 2024/0304111 A1 (provisional application filed Jun 15, 2021) (hereinafter referred to as “Glasgow”).
Regarding claim 7, Lampotang fails to specifically disclose the limitations of claim 7, however, analogous art of Glasgow discloses wherein the gas module is connectable via a port to a ventilator. (“The flow source (i.e. gas module) 50 is shown as part of the apparatus 10. However, in the case of an external oxygen tank or in-wall source, the flow source 50 may be considered a separate component, in which case the apparatus 10 has a connection port to connect to such flow source (i.e. gas module). The flow source can provide a flow of gases that can be delivered to a patient via a delivery conduit 16” Glasgow [P.0088])
Lampotang and Glasgow area analogous art as both address the simulation of respiratory function for training or educational purposes. Each enables the emulation of patient responses to respiratory therapy, and both can be integrated with auxiliary devices (e.g., pulse oximeters, gas analyzers). Both systems allow for modification of simulation parameters to reflect different patient states or therapy conditions. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lampotang’s self-regulating lung system to include a gas module connecting port should one require “an in-wall supply of oxygen, a tank of oxygen, or a tank of other gas” Glasgow [P.0088].
Regarding claim 19, Lampotang fails to specifically disclose the limitations of claim 19, however Glasgow discloses wherein the control module is configured and designed to at least partially control a ventilator (“the apparatus controller (i.e. control module) can be configured to control the flow generator (i.e. ventilator) and the valve and transmit signals to the apparatus user interface, wherein the respiratory apparatus can be configured to operate based on the received operating parameters and/or operational settings and the one or more signals from the peripheral device.” Glasgow [P.0045]) on the basis of the mathematical simulation (“the peripheral device can include software configured to model a virtual patient receiving therapy and communicate feedback to the respiratory apparatus in the form of the simulated measurement information of the virtual patient” Glasgow [P.0030]. The virtual patient model is interpreted as a mathematical simulation because “Mathematical approximations can be used in the construction of the models where empirical data for certain types of patients are unavailable or insufficient” Glasgow [P.0277]), the ventilator being connected to a real person. (“The flow source can provide a flow of gases that can be delivered to a patient (i.e. real person) via a delivery conduit 16, and patient interface 51.” Glasgow [P.0088].
PNG
media_image1.png
436
741
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lampotang’s self-regulating lung system to include control of a ventilator connected to a real person, as Glasgow discloses, in order to “allow adjustment of, and control over, characteristics of the gases flow [to a person]” Glasgow [P.0002].
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampotang et al. US Patent No. 5584701 (hereinafter referred to as “Lampotang”),
in view of Marcel FR Doc. No. 2704762 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Marcel”).
Regarding claim 12, the system of claim 4, Lampotang fails to specifically disclose the limitations of claim 12, however analogous art of Marcel discloses (see Lampotang claim 1 for gas module), the fan serving both as the expiration unit and as the inspiration unit by a switching of valves and bypass lines arranged in the gas module. (“The vacuum pump (includes a fan) always working in the same direction, a set of normally open and non-salient closed solenoid valves direct the suction flow (i.e. inspiration) to the equipment to be tested [...] and then after excitation, direct the exhalation flow (i.e. expiration) to the equipment under test [...] In the inspiratory phase, it is the suction circuit of the vacuum pump which is directed towards the device to be tested Fig.1. In the exhalation phase, the exhaust circuit of the pump is directed towards the device to be tested and the suction of the vacuum pump is directed to the ambient air Fig.2” Marcel [Pg.2 Ln.45-52]. Examiner interprets the vacuum pump to include a fan. Reference Figures 1 and 2 below for switching valve and bypass line arrangements. Note the vacuum pump is labeled “6”.)
PNG
media_image2.png
499
605
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
513
606
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Lampotang and Marcel are analogous art as both relate to devices for simulating respiratory functions. Lampotang discloses a self-regulating simulated lung using bellows actuated by a piston, controlled by scripts or computer models, and equipped with sensors, pumps, and analyzers for advanced simulation and monitoring. And Marcel discloses an electropneumatic device using a dry vacuum pump to generate respiratory cycles, with features for gas and drug delivery, remote control, and adaptability to various environments. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the Lampotang system to include the inspiration/expiration system, as taught by Marcel, in order “to create reproducible cycles of” various types of breathing patterns, Marcel [Pg.1 Ln.36].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record, listed on form PTO-892, and not relied upon is
considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Mesic, Samir, et al. "Computer-controlled mechanical simulation of the artificially ventilated human respiratory system." IEEE transactions on biomedical engineering 50.6 (2003): 731-743. “A new approach to mechanical simulation of lung behavior is introduced that uses a computer-controlled active mechatronic system.” [Abstract], “The reference input
x
r
e
f
was excited by a pseudorandom binary signal” [Pg.736 Col.1 P.2]
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office Action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Anthony Chavez whose telephone number is (571) 272-1036. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday, 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. 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, Renee Chavez can be reached at (571) 270-1104. 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.
/ANTHONY CHAVEZ/ Examiner, Art Unit 2186
/RENEE D CHAVEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2186
Prosecution Insights