DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/26/2025 has been entered.
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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
In the amendment dated 6/17/2026, the following has occurred: Claims 21 and 31 have been amended.
Claims 1 – 20 were previously canceled.
Claims 21 – 40 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 21 and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities: The claims include, “using one or more identifies” which should be “one or more identifiers.” As stated in paragraph 87, “Therefore, the message may include the identifier "13BSF68X" instead of the name of the medication, in order to reduce the size of the message.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21 – 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) subject matter within a statutory category as a process (claims 21 – 30), machine (claims 31 – 40), which recite steps of
storing, in a drug library database, worksheet data representing a drug library, wherein the worksheet data comprises:
a first reference to infusion pump data in the drug library database representing a first infusion pump type of a plurality of infusion pump types; and
a second reference to clinical care area data in the drug library database representing a first clinical care area of a plurality of clinical care areas;
generating customized drug library data using the worksheet data, wherein the customized drug library data is formatted according to a pump-specific format associated with the first infusion pump type, wherein the customized drug library data represents a subset of medications in the drug library database and a subset of administration rules in the drug library database, and wherein individual administration rules are associated with individual medications;
generating generalized drug library data using the worksheet data, wherein the generalized drug library data represents the subset of medications and the subset of administration rules, and wherein the generalized drug library data is different from the customized drug library data;
entering the customized drug library data into to an infusion pump associated with the first infusion pump type and operating the infusion pump; and
output the generalized drug library data.
These steps of claims 21 – 40, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes performance of the limitation in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting steps as performed by the generic computer components, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the computing language, generating in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. Similarly, the limitation of providing, as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, but for the computer language, store in the context of this claim encompasses a mental process of the user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
These steps of claims 21 – 40, as drafted, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, includes methods of organizing human activity. As stated in the Specification (emphasis added):
[0035] The DLM 402 may provide a set of features and functions involved in the creation and management of drug libraries for use with infusion pumps, as described in greater detail below. The drug libraries may provide user-defined settings for pump configuration and drug infusion error reduction. For example, the drug libraries may be used as part of a dose error reduction system (DERS).[0033] The report manager 404 may provide various reporting capabilities for clinically relevant infusion data which users can choose to use for further analysis, such as tracking and trending of clinical practices.
[0036] The device manager 406 may oversee and manage the maintenance of infusion pumps, providing users the capability to view and manage asset and operational data. For example, the device manager 406 may schedule drug library and software updates for infusion pumps.
[0048] Administration rules 508 are data entities that represent the parameters by which a medication may be administered. For example, an administration rule 508 for a particular medication may include data representing various medication administration parameters such as a dosing unit, a clinical use, and/or other information. In some embodiments, an administration rule 508 for a particular medication 506 may include medication administration parameter data regarding an absolute or "hard" minimum and/or maximum limit to the administration of the medication (e.g., minimum or maximum amount that may be administered overall or in a period of time, minimum or maximum rate at which the medication may be administered, etc.). Such hard limits typically cannot be overridden. In some embodiments, the administration rule 508 may also or alternatively include data regarding a recommended or "soft" minimum and/or maximum limit to administration of the medication. Such soft limits may be overridden (e.g., by users with the proper level of authority, after generation of an alert such as an audible and/or visual notification, etc.). There may be any number of administration rules 508 for a single medication 506. For example, different administration rules 508 may be separately maintained for different clinical uses of the same medication 506, different infusion pumps 204 through which the medication is to be administered, and/or different CCAs 504 in which the medication is to be administered. In some embodiments, a medication 506 may be associated with zero or more administration rules 508. In some embodiments, an administration rule may only be associated with a single medication 506.
[0051] Returning to FIG. 5, a user may use the DLM editor 500 to organize medications, administration rules, and CCAs into drug libraries that are distributed to infusion pumps and other system components. In some embodiments, the organizational mechanism may be referred to as a worksheet 502. A worksheet 502 is a dataset that includes references to the individual medications and administration rules to be made available to infusion pumps. In addition, the worksheet 502 can be directed to a particular infusion pump 204 or group of infusion pumps 204 that share the same customized drug library data format. Rather than providing data to the infusion pump 204 regarding every medication 506 and administration rule 508 available in the DLDB 414, a worksheet 502 may be used to specify a subset of medications 506 and administration rules 508. For example, a CCA 504 may be added to a worksheet 502, and all of the medications 506 and administration rules 508 associated with the CCA 504 and the target infusion pump 204 are automatically added. In some embodiments, individual medications may optionally be added to a worksheet separately from any CCA that may be added.
In making this rejection, it should be emphasized that there is no claimed direct linkage between the creation of the generated library and the operation of the infusion pump. Rather, the pump is updated to use the generated library guidance but that update is not run. That separation between the guidance output and the pump execution is understood to be performed by a human operator. Restating the argument, the claimed process is to move information from a server to a device. That information is then potentially acted upon by a user.
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claims 21 – 30 and 32 – 40, reciting particular aspects of how storing pump instructions may be performed in the mind but for recitation of generic computer components).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (such as recitation of “programmed … to” amounts to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f))
add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea (such as recitation of store … worksheet data… amounts to mere data gathering, recitation of provide the … amounts to insignificant application, see MPEP 2106.05(g))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 21 – 30 and 32 – 40, additional limitations which amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
It should be emphasized that JavaScript is merely the application of the abstract idea to technology. As stated within paragraph 42, “The API 170 may be implemented as an endpoint accessible via a web service protocol, such as representational state transfer (REST), Simple Object Access Protocol (SOAP), JavaScript Object Notation (JSON), etc.” This is not an element but rather a description of how technology is used.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as claims 21 – 40; receive and provide, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); match, create, and provide, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii))
Additional elements
Computer / computing device including a processor – paragraphs 44, 64, 136
Storage media – paragraph 62 paragraph 43 commercial cloud services
Pump – paragraph 18
Network – paragraph 22 the internet
Database – paragraphs 4, 5 including a drug library paragraph 42 - database in the cloud
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 21 – 30 and 32 – 40, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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 21, 24 – 26, 28, 29, 31, 34 – 36, 38, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Howard et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication Number 2012/ 0066609.
As per claim 21,
Howard teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
storing,
by a drug library manager comprising one or more computing devices (paragraph 42 installed software that can create a drug library on a computer or PC),
worksheet data representing a drug library in a drug library database (paragraph 42 library includes,
wherein the worksheet data comprises (paragraph 42 worksheet):
a first reference to infusion pump data in the drug library database representing a first infusion pump type of a plurality of infusion pump types (figure 2, Plum A+ and paragraphs 39 – 41); and
a second reference to clinical care area data in the drug library database representing a first clinical care area of a plurality of clinical care areas (paragraph 41 care area CCA – paragraph 43 medical vs surgery);
generating, by the drug library manager, customized drug library data using the worksheet data, wherein the customized drug library data is generated as a first file formatted according to a pump-specific format associated with the first infusion pump type, wherein the customized drug library data represents a subset of medications in the drug library database and a subset of administration rules in the drug library database, and wherein individual administration rules are associated with individual medications (paragraphs 43 – 44);
generating, by the drug library manager, generalized drug library data using the worksheet data, wherein the generalized drug library data represents the subset of medications and the subset of administration rules, and wherein the generalized drug library data is different from the customized drug library data (paragraph 5);
infusing (The Specification does not state how an infusion pump executes the desired library. Therefore, it is understood that this is a manual operation. The program is loaded and executed by the user paragraph 2, 3, 6, 91 and by incorporation 60/527,583 delivering or administering medications),
by an infusion pump associated with the first infusion pump type, medication based on the customized drug library data (paragraphs 68 and 69 approved), wherein the infusion pump is configured to use the customized drug library data to generate electronic messages to a computing system in communication with the infusion pump (paragraph 3),
wherein generating an electronic message comprises using one or more identifiers, from the customized drug library data, in place of one or more data items regarding an infusion to reduce a size of the electronic message to be transmitted over a network to the computing system (paragraphs 60 XML abbreviations of identifiers); and
processing, by the computing system, using the generalized drug library data the electronic messages received over the network from the infusion pump (paragraph 65 – 68 and figures 2 – 4).
As per claim 24, Howard teaches the method of claim 21 as described above.
Howard further teaches the method comprising:
receiving, by the drug library manager, from a user device, input associated with a medication and representing selection of at least one of: a lower hard dosing limit, a lower soft dosing limit, an upper soft dosing limit, or an upper hard dosing limit (paragraphs 42 and 65); and
storing, by the drug library manager, in the drug library database, administration rule data representing the selection, wherein the administration rule data references medication data representing the medication (paragraphs 42 and 65).
As per claim 25, Howard teaches the method of claim 21 as described above.
Howard further teaches the method comprising:
storing, by the drug library manager, status data in connection with the worksheet data, wherein the status data indicates a status of the worksheet data (paragraph 68, active, archived); and
receiving, by the drug library manager, from a user device, input indicating a change in status of the worksheet data (paragraph 82 save dimmed), wherein the customized drug library data and the generalized drug library data are generated in response to receiving the input indicating the change in status of the worksheet data (paragraph 82, save active).
The Examiner understands this claim via paragraph 52, “The worksheet 502 dataset may be stored in the DLDB 414. The worksheet 502 dataset may include data representing various properties of the worksheet, such as a name, infusion pump type and/or version targeted by the worksheet, creator of the worksheet, creation and/or edit date, approval status, version, and the like. Paragraph 53 goes on to include, “For example, once a worksheet 502 has been created or edited, the worksheet 502 may be in a "pending" status, awaiting approval.” – It should be noted that the “status” labels are just labels. They have no disclosed functional purpose
As per claim 26, Howard teaches the method of claim 21 as described above.
Howard further teaches the method comprising providing, by the drug library manager, the generalized drug library data to a drug library archive, wherein the drug library archive is configured to store a plurality of versions of generalized drug library data for each of a plurality of different drug libraries (paragraph 46).
As per claim 28, Howard teaches the method of claim 21 as described above.
Howard further teaches the method as described above in claim 24.
As per claim 29, Howard teaches the method of claim 21 as described above.
Howard further teaches the method as described above in claim 25.
As per claim 31,
Howard teaches a system comprising
a drug library manager comprising a computer-readable memory storing executable instructions (figure 1C, paragraph 40); and
one or more processors in communication with the computer-readable memory and programmed by the executable instructions (paragraph 42):
Howard further teaches the system as described above in claim 21.
As per claim 34, Howard teaches the system of claim 31 as described above.
Howard further teaches the system as described above in claim 24.
As per claim 35, Howard teaches the system of claim 31 as described above.
Howard further teaches the system as described above in claim 25.
As per claim 36, Howard teaches the system of claim 31 as described above.
Howard further teaches the system as described above in claim 26.
As per claim 38, Howard teaches the system of claim 31 as described above.
Howard further teaches the system as described above in claim 24.
As per claim 39, Howard teaches the system of claim 31 as described above.
Howard further teaches the system as described above in claim 25.
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 22, 23, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication Number 2012/ 0066609 in view of White et al U.S. Patent Number 8,486,019.
As per claim 22, Howard teaches the method of claim 21 as described above.
Howard further teaches the method comprising:
determining, by the computing system, the medication name using the medication identifier and the generalized drug library data (paragraph 55, using query and ULA/ XML notation and figure 20).
Howard does not explicitly teach the method comprising:
receiving, by the computing system, an infusion message from the infusion pump, wherein the infusion pump is configured to display infusion data comprising a medication name, and transmit the infusion message comprising a medication identifier and not comprising the medication name; and
However, White further teaches the method comprising:
receiving, by the computing system, an infusion message from the infusion pump, wherein the infusion pump is configured to display infusion data comprising a medication name, and transmit the infusion message comprising a medication identifier and not comprising the medication name (column 6, lines 8 – 44 wireless transmission of drug identification, the limitation does not limit the transmission of multiple messages and column 17, lines 32 – 45 operating characteristics); and
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Howard. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have added these features into Howard with the motivation to have a wireless communication system from an IV medication infusion pump to a hospital information management system (White, Abstract).
As per claim 23, Howard in view of White teaches the method of claim 22 as described above.
Howard further teaches the method comprising:
receiving, by the computing system, from a second infusion pump, a second infusion message comprising a second medication identifier (paragraphs 39, 66, multiple pump transmission to computer); and
Howard in view of White do not explicitly teach the method comprising:
determining, by the computing system, a second medication name using the second medication identifier and second generalized drug library data associated with the second infusion pump, wherein the second infusion pump is associated with a second infusion pump type of the plurality of infusion pump types.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date to repeat a step. (MPEP 2144.04).
As per claim 32, Howard teaches the system of claim 31 as described above.
Howard view of White further teaches the system as described above in claim 22.
As per claim 33, Howard view of White teaches the system of claim 32 as described above.
Howard view of White further teaches the system as described above in claim 23.
Claims 27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication Number 2012/ 0066609.
As per claim 27, Howard teaches the method of claim 21 as described above.
Howard further teaches the method comprising:
accessing, by the drug library manager, archived generalized drug library data corresponding to a prior version of the worksheet data (paragraph 46);
comparing, by the drug library manager, the generalized drug library data to the archived generalized drug library data (figure 4A quadruple lines, figure 20A queries); and
Howard does not explicitly show
presenting, by the drug library manager, a user interface displaying a difference between the generalized drug library data and the archived generalized drug library data.
However, Howard shows displaying drug libraries (figure 6). Paragraph 43 describes Figure 6 as a split screen with a master drug formulary on the bottom. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to substitute one set of displayed data for another. The process of substituting data is known and the results are predictable.
As per claim 37, Howard teaches the system of claim 31 as described above.
Howard further teaches the system as described above in claim 27.
Claims 30 and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howard et al., U.S. Pre-Grant Publication Number 2012/ 0066609 in view of Jones U.S. Pre-Grant Publication Number 2015 / 0370973.
As per claim 30, Howard teaches the method of claim 21 as described above.
Howard does not explicitly teach the method, however Jones further teaches the method wherein generating the generalized drug library data comprises formatting the generalized drug library data using JavaScript Object Notation (Paragraph 38).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add these features into Howard. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have added these features into Howard with the motivation to function with medical devices of different manufacturers (Jones, Paragraph 85).
As per claim 40, Howard teaches the system of claim 31 as described above.
Howard in view of Jones further teaches the system as described above in claim 30.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Claims Are Directed to Patent Eligible Subject Matter
The Applicant states, “Applicant respectfully submits that there is no recitation in the currently pending claims regarding "providing user instructions on an infusion pump to on what to infuse," and therefore the Office's arguments in this regard are inapposite. The claims simply do not relate to "certain methods of organizing human activity."” The Specification does not disclose how the infusing occurs. That infusing step is understood to be performed by a human with instructions provided by the pump. For example, paragraph 35 states
[0035] The DLM 402 may provide a set of features and functions involved in the creation and management of drug libraries for use with infusion pumps, as described in greater detail below. The drug libraries may provide user-defined settings for pump configuration and drug infusion error reduction. For example, the drug libraries may be used as part of a dose error reduction system (DERS).[0033] The report manager 404 may provide various reporting capabilities for clinically relevant infusion data which users can choose to use for further analysis, such as tracking and trending of clinical practices.
Here, the drug library is used by the user to operate the pump
[0058] The worksheet structure also allows users to build specific drug libraries for specific purposes from a shared dataset. For example, a first worksheet designed for a cancer center utilizes a first subset of the overall DLDB, while a second worksheet designed for a pediatric center utilizes a second subset of the overall DLDB that is different than the first subset. The individual records for the CCAs, medications, and administration rules may be maintained in the DLDB without being changed for the different worksheets. The worksheet datasets for the different worksheets may be modified in the DLDB, and may reference data for the CCAs, medications, and administration rules.
Here, customized drug libraries are available for different use cases. Therefore, it is the Examiner’s opinion, understanding the claim as a whole in light of the Specification, that the customized drug library is acted upon by a user.
The Applicant states, “Even assuming for the sake of argument that the claims recite an abstract idea that could be properly classified in the "mental processes" or "certain methods of organizing human activities classifications," the claims integrate any such abstract idea into a practical application because the claims improve the functioning of a computer or technical field.” The Applicant’s opinion is noted. The Applicant provides no proof that there is a technical field involved. The Applicant shows how the application of technology may have benefits received after applying that technology to the abstract idea.
The Applicant states, “Here, the Office Action ignores the plainly stated claim recitations which go beyond merely describing a result, but in fact recite specific operations to achieve the above-described technical improvement.” The Examiner determined that the next step as extra solution activity performed by the user. This is consistent with understanding the claims as a whole in light of the Specification.
The Applicant states, “As seen in the claim language quoted above, electronic infusion messages are structured to reduce the size of the messages to be sent over a network.” Please see above regarding the application of technology.
The Applicant states, “The claimed subject matter is directed to a technical solution to a technological problem that did not exist prior to the creation of network-enabled infusion pumps that communicate with servers. In this regard, the claims are comparable to those found eligible in DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P. 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014).” However, the Applicant never points out the technical problem. There is a technical solution that is applied to the abstract idea.
The Applicant states, “Instead, the present claims provide a specific technical solution to a problem that arises from network-enabled infusion pumps that communicate with computing systems.” Here, the Applicant does not state the problem.
Claims 21 Is Not Anticipated
The Applicant states, “However, the cited portion of Howard merely discloses "abbreviating XML identifiers" for attribute names, rather than attribute values.” The claim requires “using one or more identifiers” as shown by Howard. Attributes are not claimed.
The Applicant states, “Moreover, even if Howard or any prior art reference of record discloses abbreviation of attribute values-which Applicant does not concede-neither Howard nor the other applied art disclose "using one or more identifies, from the customized drug library data, in place of one or more data items regarding an infusion," as required by Claim 21.” As shown by the attached “Cambridge English Dictionary,” “in place of” means instead of and Howard shows that option.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Pace et al Pub. No.: US 2019/0096518 A drug infusion device determines whether an infusion program is stored within a memory.
Kamen et al Pub. No.: US 2014/018071 A medical error reduction system may include a medical error reduction software for use in creating and revising at least one drug library.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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 Neal R Sereboff whose telephone number is (571)270-1373. The examiner can normally be reached M - T, M - F 8AM - 6PM.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on (571)272-6773. 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.
/NEAL SEREBOFF/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3626