DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on October 29, 2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1-4 and 11-15 have been amended, claim 8 has been cancelled, and claims 16-20 have been added. Thus, claims 1-7 and 9-20 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Interpretation
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
4. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a physiological sensor unit” in claim 1 line 3 and claim 4 line 2 is interpreted as “an arrangement of one or more sensors configured to measure physiological values” or the like according to page 12 lines 28-30 of the specification.
“a movement sensor unit” in claim 1 line 5 and claim 4 line 3.
“environmental sensor unit” in claim 9 line 1 is interpreted as “an arrangement of one or more sensors suitable for measuring the ambient conditions in the area surrounding the subject” or the like according to page 13 lines 20-22 of the specification.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claims 1-7, 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 14, the term “classify the subject into one of a plurality of activity classifications based on the movement parameter value” in lines 9-10 of claim 1 and lines 5-6 of claim 14 are lacking a sufficient written description. Page 5 lines 3-6 state that “the movement parameter value may be used to classify/identify the activity of the subject,” but it is not clear what value is used during classification or how the values are used to distinguish between multiple activity classifications.
Regarding claim 16, the term “the activity classification comprises an activity level” in lines 1-2 lacks a sufficient written description. Page 4 lines 22-31 state that each movement parameter provided information for determining the activity level, but it is not clear how the activity level is determined.
Regarding claim 17, the term “the activity level is an intensity of physical activity indicated as low, medium, or high” in lines 1-2 lacks a sufficient written description. Page 10 lines 31-35 and page 11 lines 1-5 state that heart rate and respiratory rate or galvanic skin response can be used to determine intensity of physical activity, but it is not clear how the intensity levels are distinguished from each other.
Regarding claim 18, the term “the activity classification comprises an activity type” in lines 1-2 lacks a sufficient written description. Page 4 lines 22-31 state that each movement parameter provided information for determining the activity level, but it is not clear how the activity level is determined.
Regarding claim 19, the term “the activity type is walking, running, cycling, or another form of physical exercise” in lines 1-2 lacks a sufficient written description. Page 4 lines 22-31 state that each movement parameter provided information for determining the circumstances of the subject, but it is not clear how the activity level is determined.
Regarding claim 20, the term “the activity classification comprises an activity level and an activity type” in lines 1-2 lacks a sufficient written description. Page 4 lines 22-31 state that each movement parameter provide information for determining the activity level, but it is not clear how the activity level is determined.
Claim(s) 2-7, 9-13, and 15 is/are rejected due to being dependent on a rejected claim.
8. 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.
9. Claims 11-13 and 19 are 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 11, the term “the control unit is configured to obtain subject-specific historical data” in line 2 is unclear because there is no structure that performs the obtaining from another source. It appears some sort of connection or input device is missing.
Regarding claim 13, the term “track an amount of time that has elapsed after a previous control signal was generated” in lines 2-3 is unclear because there is no structure which performs the function of tracking time. It appears some sort of timer is missing.
Regarding claim 19, the phrase “another form of physical exercise” makes the claim indefinite because it is unclear what types of exercises are encompassed by the claim.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected due to being dependent on a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
10. 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.
11. Claims 1-7 and 9-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: the claim falls under the 4 statutory categories of invention
Claims 1-7, 9-13, and 16-20 recite a control system for high flow nasal therapy. Therefore, the claims are a manufacture or a machine which falls under the 4 statutory categories of invention.
Claim 14 recites method steps. Therefore, the claim is a process which falls under the 4 statutory categories
Claim 15 recites a non-transitory computer readable medium with the steps of claim 14. Therefore, the claim is a manufacture which falls under the 4 statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A, Prong one: a judicial exception is recited
For claim 1, the limitation “received the physiological parameter value and the movement parameter value” could be human activity. The claimed receiving step could be performed with human mind by reading. The recitation of a control unit in this claim does not negate the mental nature of these limitations because the claim uses the control unit to perform the otherwise mental though process. The limitations “receive an operating parameter value of the HFNT device” in claim 3; “obtain subject-specific historical data” in claim 11; and “detecting” steps in claim 14 can be similarly performed with the human mind.
The limitations “classify the subject into one of a plurality of activity classifications based on the movement parameter value” in claim 1; “determine a target HFNT parameter value based on the physiological parameter value and the movement parameter value” in claim 2; “track an amount of time that has elapsed after a previous control signal was generated” in claim 13; and “classifying the subject into one of a plurality of activity classifications based on the movement parameter value” in claim 14; and the classifying step of claim 1 is expanded in claims 16-20 can be done by human activity such as human mind evaluation or calculation.
The limitations “generate a control signal” in claim 1; “generate the control signal” in claim 2; “generate the control signal” in claim 3; the generating step is expanded in claim 5; “generate the control signal” in claim 9; “generate the control signal” in claim 11; “generate the control signal” in claim 13; and “generating a control signal” in claim 14 and 15 can be performed by the human mind as there is no application of the signal.
Therefore, these limitations recite concepts that fall under the mental processes grouping of abstract ideas.
Step 2A, Prong two: not integrated into a practical application
Claims 1, 4, and 9 recite additional elements including: a physiological sensor unit, a movement sensor unit, a control unit, a wearable device with the one of the sensor units, and an environmental sensor unit. However, such additional elements are generically claimed (no details are provided other than they detect various physiological/movement/environmental parameters which are incorporated into the classifying/generating steps). Using a physiological sensor, movement sensor, wearable device, and environmental sensor is no more than providing a particular technological environment or field of use. Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use is not qualified as integration into a practical application of the judicial exception. In addition, the control unit is recited at a high level of generality, i.e., a generic processor performing a generic computer function of processing data including receiving data and performing calculations. This generic processor limitations is nor more than an instruction to apply the exception using a generic computer. Thus, such additional limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitations on practicing the abstract idea. In other words, they are nothing more than an attempt to generally link the use of the judicial exception to the technological environment.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limitation practicing the abstract idea. Thus, these claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Claim does not provide an inventive concept
As discussed in Step 2A Prong two, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In addition, the control unit is claimed in a generic manner. The other elements are well known in the art: physiological sensor unit (see page 12 lines 30-32 of the specification which states various physiological sensors are known in the art), a movement sensor unit (see page 13 lines 10-12 of the specification which states various movement sensors are known in the art), a wearable device (see [0154] of Wang et al. (US 2021/0113801) which states that pulse oximeters are known to be present on wearables and smartwatches similar to what is in claim 4), and an environmental sensor unit (see page 13 lines 22-25 of the specification which states various environmental sensors are known in the art).
Since the additional limitations do not provide improvements to any other technical field, applying the judicial exception with a particular machine, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and they do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B the claims are ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Claim(s) 1-7, 11-16, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by Zapol et al. (US 2018/0243528).
Regarding claim 1, Zapol discloses a control system (fig. 46, NO generation device 662 is a wearable controller) for a high flow nasal therapy (HFNT) device ([0007] states that the system is used with a heated high-flow nasal cannula, see fig. 46, nasal cannula, and [0016] further states the NO generator can be used in conjunction with ventilation devices to improve oxygen uptake) used by a subject, the system comprising:
a physiological sensor unit (fig. 46, body-worn sensor 661) configured to detect a physiological parameter value of the subject ([0241] states that multiple body worn sensors can be used which can measure EKG, body temperature, heart rate, heart sound, respiratory rate, blood oxygen, blood pressure, and others);
a movement sensor unit ([0180] states the NO generation device is used with a smartwatch) configured to detect a movement parameter value of the subject ([0180] states that the user activity can be detected such as heart rate and accelerations) while the subject is awake ([0180] states the smartwatch can detect accelerations indicating ambulation and therefore can function while the user is awake and moving); and
a control unit (fig. 46, wearable controller in 662) configured to:
receive the physiological parameter value and the movement parameter value ([0241] states that the body-worn sensor communicates with the NO generation device 662 which includes the controller);
classify the subject into one of a plurality of activity classifications ([0180] states that movement such as acceleration can be used to indicate ambulation) based on the movement parameter value ([0180] states the smartwatch can detect accelerations indicative of movement), and;
generate a control signal for the HFNT device based on the activity classification of the subject, the physiological parameter value, and the movement parameter value ([0200] states that optimal dose varies with patient activity level, which is detected by the movement parameter value [0180], and respiratory rate, which is a physiological parameter value).
Regarding claim 2, the system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the control unit is configured to:
determine a target HFNT parameter value based on the physiological parameter value and the movement parameter value ([0199] states that a target dose of NO per breath can be found based on concentration of NO, volumetric flow rate, and duration of the pulse, and [0200] states that these variables can be adjusted according to patient activity level and respiratory rate); and
generate the control signal based on the target HFNT parameter value ([0200] states that the resulting dosing scheme will control delivery to the patient depending on the patient’s state which inherently requires a control signal which communicates the dose scheme).
Regarding claim 3, the system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the control unit is configured to receive an operating parameter value of the HFNT device (fig. 46, NO generation device receives inputs from remote device 660, [0228] states that treatment settings and limits can be determined by a physicians and communicated via the remote device) and to generate the control signal further based on the operating parameter value ([0203]-[0204] states that a dose prescription can be provided to the dose generation device to control the amount of generated NO and limit human error).
Regarding claim 4, the system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses a wearable device ([0180] states a smartwatch can be used with the device, fig. 46, also shows the use of a body-worn sensor), and wherein the wearable device comprises at least one of the physiological sensor unit and the movement sensor unit ([0241] states that the body-worn sensor can detect motion, heart rate, respiratory rate, and other parameters, [0180] states that the smartwatch can similarly be used to detect heart rate and accelerations among other parameters).
Regarding claim 5, the system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the control signal comprises information for controlling a flow rate ([0200] states that a volumetric flow rate can be controlled based on dose delivery settings).
Regarding claim 6, the system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the detected physiological parameter includes oxygen saturation, heart rate, respiration rate, and a transcutaneous CO2 value ([0241] states that body-worn sensor 661 can detect SpO2, heart rate, respiration rate, and CO2).
Regarding claim 7, the system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the detected movement parameter includes an acceleration, velocity, displacement, and a change of position ([0241] states a body-worn sensor can detect movement such as displacement, velocity, and acceleration, [0180] states that a paired smartwatch can detect increase in user activity using accelerations).
Regarding claim 11, the system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the control unit is configured to obtain subject-specific historical data describing a previously determined parameter value for the subject ([0211] states that the NO generation can rely on recent historical dose information), and wherein the control unit is configured to generate the control signal further based on the subject-specific historical data ([0211] states that historical dose information can advise which breaths should be dosed).
Regarding claim 12, the system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 11 and further discloses where the subject-specific historical data includes historical HFNT operating parameters associated with the subject ([0211] states that recent historical dose information can be used in dose generation).
Regarding claim 13, the system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the control unit is configured to track an amount of time that has elapsed after a previous control signal was generated ([0187] states that the NO generation device can be in a weaning mode where every 10 minutes a dose is decreased), and to generate the control signal responsive to at least one of:
A predetermined amount of time that has elapsed since generating the previous control signal ([0187] states that a delivered dose can be halved every 10 minutes);
A change in the detected physiological parameter exceeding a first predetermined threshold ([0187] states that fully-automatic weaning can be achieved by decreasing the dose based on physiologic parameters).
Regarding claim 14, see the rejection to claim 1 above regarding a method for using the system disclosed by Zapol.
Regarding claim 15, Zapol discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium (fig. 46, memory within 662) having stored a computer program code ([0091] states that various processes correspond to functions) adapted, when said computer program is run on a computer, to implement the method of claim 14 (see the rejection to claim 1 and 14 above).
Regarding claim 16, the system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the activity classification comprises an activity level ([0200] states that optimal dose controls account for patient activity level).
Regarding claim 18, the system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the activity classification comprises an activity type ([0180] states that accelerations can indicate ambulation which is walking, [0176] states that the system can additionally alert the patient when sedentary time exceeds a limit).
Regarding claim 19, the system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 18 and further discloses the activity type is walking ([0180] states that accelerations can indicate ambulation which is walking).
Regarding claim 20, the system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses the activity classification comprises an activity level ([0200] states that optimal dose controls account for patient activity level) and activity type ([0180] states that accelerations can indicate ambulation which is walking).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
15. 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.
16. Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being unpatentable over Zapol in view of Fox et al. (US 2024/0181185).
Regarding claim 9, the system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 1 and further discloses that ambient pressure can impact NO generation ([0189] states that ambient pressure is accounted for in a look-up table, [0218] further states that NO generation can be based on ambient pressure) and pressure sensors are present in the system for breath detection ([0215]), but does not expressly disclose an environmental sensor for an ambient environment parameter.
However, Fox discloses a respiratory therapy system that includes a pressure sensor ([0094]) that can detect respiration and/or ambient pressure ([0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Zapol with a pressure sensor specifically for measuring ambient pressure as taught by Fox to allow adjustment of the NO generation to account for the ambient pressure (Zapol [0218] states that NO generation can be based on ambient pressure).
Regarding claim 10, the modified system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 9 and further discloses the ambient environment parameter includes an air pressure (Fox [0094] states that the pressure sensor is an air pressure sensor than can measure ambient pressure).
17. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being unpatentable over Zapol in view of Wondka et al. (US 10,252,020).
Regarding claim 17, the system of Zapol discloses the limitations of claim 1, and further discloses the dose scheme depends on a patient’s activity level ([0200]). Zapol is silent on the activity level is an intensity of physical activity indicated as low, medium, or high.
However, Wondka discloses a respiratory support ventilator that can adjust the therapeutic level based on exertion with multiple levels (col. 20, lines 49-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the system of Zapol with the program to account for exertion levels as taught by Wondka for the purpose of further tailor the therapeutic level to the needs of the patient (Wondka col. 10, lines 60-64).
Response to Arguments
18. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7 and 9-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
19. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ruff (US 2013/0340755) discloses a personal airway humidification apparatus that can fully saturate the air with water.
20. 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.
21. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS Z CHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0432. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (Every other Friday) 8:00 am-5:00 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, Justine Yu can be reached at (571)272-4835. 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.
/THOMAS Z CHANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3785
/JUSTINE R YU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3785