DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112a rejection, related to “simultaneously analyze”, applicant’s deletion of this limitation has overcome this rejection and it is hereby withdrawn. However, applicant’s amendments have created new 112a written description issues; see below.
Regarding the 103 rejection, applicant’s amendments and related arguments have been considered, but are not fully persuasive. The examiner agrees that the combination of Bukesov and Weir fail to explicitly teach the use of a narrow bandpass optical filter, which the examiner has found a new prior art reference to teach (5,350,375 to Deckelbaum); see new 103 rejection below. However, the rest of applicant’s arguments are not considered persuasive.
Applicant’s first argument is that Bukesov fails to teach a broad spectrum illumination light source utilized by at least two photodetectors in combination with respective narrow bandpass optical filters. As pointed out in relation to dependent claim 34, Bukesov explicitly teaches a broad spectrum illumination light source (1030; Fig. 10B) that is used by at least two photodetectors (feedback analyzer 1012, which is equivalent to feedback analyzer 140 which includes multiple spectrometers 142 and multiple image sensors 144; Par 0078. Also, see explanation in previous NF of the “at least two photodetectors”). Pars 0111 and Table 2 (as pointed out in the NF) explicitly teach a lamp or LED, e.g. a Tungsten Halogen Lamp that emits over a broad spectrum of light (360-2500nm). It’s unclear how this cannot be considered a broad spectrum illumination light source, as applicant’s arguments do not apprise the examiner of any error. In fact, applicant doesn’t argue anything about the examiner’s previous rejection/interpretation, as it relates to claim 34. Therefore, the examiner maintains the position that Bukesov explicitly teaches a broad spectrum illumination light source used for detection or target/tissue diagnosis purposes, specifically using at least photodetectors, as claimed. Bukesov is silent to an optical filter, however Weir explicitly teaches a filter (wavelength separator 35) positioned upstream of the plurality of detectors (37) to pass only the selected wavelength band to the respective photodetector (Pars 0028). As mentioned above, it’s not clear what kind/type of optical filter this is and therefore Deckelbaum is brought in to teach the claimed narrow bandpass filter. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Applicant further argues “even if Weir is combined with Bukesov, the asserted combination would yield multiple lasers being implemented into the feedback analyzer of Bukesov and not the broad spectrum illumination light source used in combination with a photodiode+filter as in the subject claims”. This is not considered persuasive, as discussed above, Bukesov explicitly teaches a broad spectrum illumination light source used for detection purposes.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that “there is also no motivation to modify the laser feedback control system of Bukesov, which includes the spectrometer, to replace the spectrometer with multiple laser light source feedback as disclosed in Weir”, applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Again, it is reiterated that the broad spectrum illumination light source of Bukesov is NOT being replaced by the multiple laser sources taught by Wier. Additionally, the examiner would like to emphasize that the proposed combination is not necessarily substituting or replacing the spectrometer. In fact, the office action particularly points out that the photodetectors in Bukesov can be the imaging/camera sensors (144) and do not necessarily have to be the spectrometers (142). Furthermore, even if the proposed combination was to substitute the spectrometers for the plurality of photodetectors + filters taught by Weir, there is no evidence that Bukesov teaches away or is made inoperable/unsatisfactory by this modification. Just because Bukesov points out an advantage to the use of a spectrometer, in no way criticizes the multiple photodetectors + filters taught by Wier, as they provide the exact same function/effect, i.e. to analyze the reflected/return light at various, desired wavelengths, i.e. different selected wavelengths bands, over a broader/total spectrum of wavelengths. Stated differently, each detector of Weir is responsible for detecting/analyzing a specific small/narrow band of wavelengths, as desired, and the total combination of all photodetectors collectively analyze a broad spectrum of light, hence the need for the wavelength separator (35; see Par 0028). Applicant’s arguments are mere general allegation or conclusory statement, as they have provided no evidence that a spectrometer would have a significantly different effect or result (as compared to the photodetectors + filters). In fact, applicant themselves recognize the suitability of either type of photodetector, i.e. spectrometer or photodiode/CCD/CMOS.
It is emphasized that applicant has no criticality or unexpected result for the claimed configuration. Specifically, applicant argues against the use of a spectrometer as being more expensive than the claimed photodiode + filter arrangement claimed. However, applicant’s own disclosed invention encompasses such a spectrometer (at least Pars 0124-130. The term “spectrometer” appears 22 times in applicant’s specification). Similarly, applicant’s own disclosed invention can include a narrowband spectrum illumination light source (Par 0142). For clarity, the examiner would like to point out that applicant’s arguments attempt to distinguish between the use of a photodiode + filter combination and a spectrometer. It is emphasized that the claims do not require a photodiode, but instead more broadly recite a photodetector. It is emphasized that a spectrometer is a type of photodetector (the light detector is a spectrometer; Par 0026 of applicant’s own specification), as supported by applicant’s own specification. So if it is applicant’s intention that the current claim language precludes a spectrometer(s), the examiner would disagree. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope with the claim language.
As discussed above, a new reference is brought in to explicitly teach a narrow bandpass filter, but the examiner is substantially maintaining the previous 103 rejection with updated claim mapping; see new 103 below.
Regarding claim 47, the examiner has found a new prior art reference to teach the narrowed claim language, therefore applicant’s arguments are moot; see new 103 below.
Priority
It is noted that the provisional application 63/062118 does not provide sufficient support for the claimed “at least two photodetectors… each photodetector configured to receive the portion of light in a different selected wavelength band” and/or “a computing device configured to simultaneously analyze the optical data from each photodetector relative to characteristic criteria, and based on a comparison of the optical data to the characteristic criteria, determine whether the treatment target is a target material or a non- target material”. Therefore, the effective filing date for the current application is 5/6/2021.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “narrow bandpass optical filter positioned upstream to each photodetector, the optical filter configured to pass only the selected wavelength band to the respective photodetector” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). While an optical filter (390) is shown in Figs. 5-7, as far as the examiner understands, this is not the claimed filter. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: PD 2a, PD 2b, PD 3a, PD 3b, A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, Si, Ge, In (Figs. 5, 7 and 8).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39 and 41-47 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.
The limitation “a narrow bandpass optical filter positioned upstream to each photodetector, the optical filter configured to pass only the selected wavelength band to the respective photodetector” fails the written description requirement. Specifically, based on the breadth/scope of this claim language encompassing a single narrow bandpass filter (as discussed below with regards to the 112b rejection), it is the examiner’s position that such a breadth is not supported. Specifically, the current BRI of the claims includes an interpretation where only a single narrow bandpass filter is used, and while Figs. 5-7 show a single filter (390), the examiner contends that this cannot be the claimed narrow bandpass filter as it doesn’t/can’t function in the claimed manner, as a “narrow” filter at this location would filter out ALL of the desired wavelengths needed by the plurality of photodetectors, except for a single, very narrow spectrum of wavelengths used for ONE of the photodetectors. Instead, while not shown in the drawings, it seems like applicant has support for multiple filters, i.e. one for each photodetector.
Par 0209 of applicant’s PGPub: “Back reflection signals from the probe or laser beam can be selected using narrow bandpass filters upstream from a photodetector sensor”. Par 0137 of applicant’s PgPub: “Fluorescence spectrum analysis can be performed by the spectrometer 448, or by measuring the signal in a predetermined spectral bandpass that is defined by spectral filters”. Par 0123 of applicant’s PgPub: “in some non-limiting examples every light detector can be configured with a spectral filter to select a desired wavelength or wavelengths”. Therefore, it’s clear from applicant’s specification and the knowledge within the art, as a whole, then when a plurality of photodetectors and narrow bandpass optical filters are used to pass only the “selected wavelength band” to the respective photodetector, it’s clear that each photodetector would require its own filter. The current scope encompasses an interpretation where only a single filter is required, which is not supported.
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.
Claims 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39 and 41-47 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.
The limitation “a narrow bandpass optical filter positioned upstream to each photodetector, the optical filter configured to pass only the selected wavelength band to the respective photodetector” is indefinite, as the scope of is unclear. Specifically, it appears that applicant is claiming a singular/one filter, i.e. a filter, but the claim goes on to recite that this filter is positioned upstream to each photodetector, and since there are at least two photodetectors, that would seemingly require at least two filters. Therefore, it’s unclear if the scope of this limitation includes a single filter or at least two filters for each photodetector. Every mention of a narrow bandpass filter in the specification makes it clear that there are multiple, i.e. one for each photodetector, so the examiner will interpret this limitation consistent with the specification.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, 39 and 41-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2021/0044079 to Bukesov in view of US 2008/0226029 to Weir and further in view of US 5,350,375 to Deckelbaum.
*As described above, the effective filing date of the current application is 5/6/2021, which would make Bukesov a 102(a)(2) reference, i.e. filed before.
[Claim 29] Bukesov discloses a surgical laser system (best seen in Figs. 1, 5 and 9-11, with particular emphasis on Fig. 10B) comprising
a surgical fiber (150, Fig. 5; equivalent to laser fiber 912, Fig. 10A-B) configured to:
receive light reflected by a treatment target and surrounding area in a treatment area (feedback signals 130; at least Pars 0003 and 0076-80. Equivalent to reflected spectroscopic signal 1070 and/or imaging signal 1050, Figs. 10A-B; Par 0109-110), and
deliver laser radiation from a treatment laser source (1020) to the treatment target (“A reflected spectroscopic signal 1070 (which is an example of the feedback signals 130 of FIGS. 1 and 2) may travel back to the feedback-controlled laser treatment system 1010 through the same optical pathway, such as the laser fiber 912, that is used for transmitting the electromagnetic radiation from the light source 1030 to the target structure” Par 0109. Fig. 10B clearly shows a single fiber (not labelled in Fig. 10B, but clearly refers to element 912, as shown in Fig. 10A) that delivers the laser light from treatment light source 1020, and receives light reflected from the target 1070; see arrows going into and coming out of laser fiber);
a broad spectrum illumination light source (1030; Pars 0111 and Table 2, e.g. 360-2500 nm Tungsten Halogen lamp) that provides light to illuminate the treatment target and surrounding area;
at least two photodetectors (feedback analyzer 1012 in Fig. 10B, which is equivalent to feedback analyzer 140, Fig. 5 which includes spectrometers 142 and/or image sensor 144), each photodetector configured to receive a portion of the light reflected from the treatment area in a selected wavelength band of the broad spectrum illumination light source, and to generate optical data corresponding to the portion of the reflected light detected by the photodetector, each photodetector configured to receive the portion of light in a different selected wavelength band, the optical data comprising reflected light intensity at each different wavelength band (at least Pars 0077-79, 0110-111 and 0120-122; Figs. 12-16. Specifically, Par 0078 states “The feedback analyzer 140 may include optionally, an imaging sensor 144 (e.g., CCD or CMOS camera sensitive in ultraviolet (UV), visible (VIS) or infrared (IR) wavelengths) in an example. In some examples, the spectroscopic sensor 142 may include more than a single type of spectrometer or imaging camera listed herein to enhance sensing and detection of various features (e.g., carbonized and non-carbonized tissue, vasculature, and the like)”. Additionally or alternatively, each photodetector (142 and/or 144) is inherently capable of functioning in the claimed manner, as these are the exact same photodetectors disclosed by applicant; MPEP 2114. If applicant disagrees; see alternative 103 rejection in view of Weir below); and
a computing device (laser controller 160) configured to analyze the optical data from each photodetector relative to characteristic criteria, and based on a comparison of the optical data to the characteristic criteria, determine whether the treatment target is a target material or a non-target material a surgical fiber, at least two photodetectors and a computing device configured to simultaneously analyze the optical data from each photodetector relative to characteristic criteria, and based on a comparison of the optical data to the characteristic criteria, determine whether the treatment target is a target material or a non-target material (At least Pars 0058 and 0082-84. In particular, Par 0083 states “The laser controller 160 may determine one or more properties of the target tissue 122 based on the feedback signal(s), as will be described further herein. For instance, the laser controller 160 may compare the amplitude of the feedback signals to present minimum and maximum amplitudes, and determine a property (e.g., carbonized, coagulated, etc.) of the tissue” and Par 0058 states “For example, in laser lithotripsy that applies laser to break apart or dust calculi, automatic and in vivo recognition of calculi of a particular type (e.g., chemical composition of a kidney or pancreobiliary or gallbladder stone) and distinguishing it from surrounding tissue would allow a physician to adjust a laser setting (e.g., power, exposure time, or firing angle) to more effectively ablate the target stone, while at the same time avoiding irradiating non-treatment tissue neighboring the target stone.”), wherein the target material of the treatment target is a stone and the non-target material is soft tissue or a surgical component (Pars 0110, 0112, 0131, 0151-152 discuss identification and classification of a target structure as a stone/calculi or anatomical/soft tissue; “target structure 122 is identified as an intended treatment structure type (e.g., a specified soft tissue type or a specified calculus type” Par 0112)
Regarding the limitation “each photodetector configured to receive the portion of light in a different selected wavelength band”, as discussed above the examiner takes the position that Bukesov explicitly teaches these claimed photodetectors, but if applicant disagrees, such photodetectors are obvious. Specifically, in the same field of endeavor, Weir discloses the concept of using separate photodetectors for each detected wavelength (37, Fig. 4; at least Par 0022-28, in particular Par 0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the multiple photodetectors taught by Bukesov to be specifically configured to analyze/detect a separate/different wavelength, as taught by Weir, as this is a known configuration of a similar laser endoscopic treatment device in order to detect multiple wavelengths reflected from tissue.
Bukesov fails to the claimed optical filter, however in the same field of endeavor, Weir discloses the use of an optical filter (wavelength separator 35, Fig. 4) located upstream of the at least two detectors (37), the filters configured to pass only the selected wavelength band to the respective photodetector (“wavelength separator 35 separates the incoming radiation 29 into pathways 36. Such separation may be performed by filters, gratings, or other devices… Each separated wavelength of radiation is then sent to detectors 37 in the detector assembly 5.” Par 0028). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Bukesov to include the configuration of multiple photodetectors + filters, as taught by Weir, as this is a known configuration for detection of “selected wavelength bands” over a broad range of total wavelengths, i.e. each detector is responsible for a small/narrow band of wavelengths, but the total detection of all the detectors together is collectively responsible for a wide/broader band of wavelengths. This is the same desired detection/analysis taught by Bukesov, a wide/broad range of wavelengths being collectively detected, e.g. broad band light from light source 1030, and each specific narrow wavelength band of the broad wavelength spectrum being individually/separately detected for different purposes. The examiner contends that the claimed modification, i.e. to incorporate the photodetector + filter, configuration taught by Weir can either replace, i.e. a substitution, the photodetectors (142 and/or 144) of Bukesov or can be in addition, as Bukesov explicitly teaches that the use of multiple photodetectors can “enhance sensing and detection of various features” (Par 0078).
Bukesov and Weir fail to explicitly disclose a narrow bandpass optical filter, as Weir teaches a generic optical filter. While the examiner contends that such a filter would almost certainly have to be a narrow bandpass filter in order to perform the disclosed wavelength separation so that “each separated wavelength of radiation is then sent to detectors 37”, as disclosed by Weir in Par 0028, but it’s not necessarily clear what type of filter is being used. However, in the same field of endeavor, Deckelbaum discloses a similar laser treatment and detection system that uses narrow bandpass optical filters (52 and 56; Fig. 1) located upstream of individual/separate photodetectors (photomultiplier/PMT 54 and 58) in order to select a “desired wavelength” for detection (Col 4, line 47 to Col 5, line 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the generic optical filter taught by Weir for the specific narrow bandpass filter taught by Deckelbaum, as this is a simple substation of one known optical filter for another to obtain predictable results, i.e. selecting the desired wavelength for detection by a photodetector.
[Claims 32 and 34] As discussed above, the broad spectrum illumination light source (1030) can be any of the lights sources described in Par 0111 and Table 2, including lamps or LEDs, e.g. 360-2500 nm Tungsten Halogen lamp.
[Claims 35 and 37] It’s clear that the “different selected wavelength bands” that are detected by each of the photodetectors relate to the light being sent to the tissue/target by both treatment light source (1020) and broad spectrum illumination light from source (1030), as well as fluorescence based on this light interacting with the target. As made clear in Pars 0106-107, 0111 and Table 2, these light sources emit wavelengths that fall completely within or overlap with applicant’s claimed wavelengths; see MPEP 2131.03 and MPEP 2144.05 which states “in the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Furthermore, Bukesov discloses “multiple narrow emitting” LEDs or laser diodes with a wavelength range in the UV, visible, infrared and fluorescent (Table 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to choose/try/select any wavelength from 410-700 nm as the desired center wavelength. The bandwidth of the disclosed laser sources (Par 0107) fall within applicant’s claimed range. Fig. 13B and Par 0120 explicitly teach detecting light in the range of 400-700 nm.
Additionally, it’s clear from both Weir and Deckelbaum that the “selected wavelength bands” detected by the photodetector are narrow/small band of wavelengths and relate to individual wavelengths or very small wavelength ranges, making the claimed bandwidth either explicitly taught or obvious, as optimization of a result effective variable.
[Claims 39 and 41] Bukesov discloses distinguishing between soft tissue and hard tissue/stone, as well as the specific type of stone/calculus (at least Pars 0058-63, 0077 and 0120-122; Figs. 12-16). Bukesov additionally teaches determining the distance between the distal end of the laser fiber and the target structure (Par 0112)
[Claims 42 and 43] Bukesov discloses using the determination of tissue as feedback to adjust the laser parameters (at least Pars 0060-63 and 0133). Par 0133 states “Based on the spectroscopic system feedback, the signal analyzer detects target material composition, and suggests a laser operating mode (also referred to as a laser setup), such as operating parameters for at least one laser module, to achieve effective tissue treatments for the identified tissue composition. Examples of the operating parameters may include at least one laser wavelength, pulsed or continuous wave (CW) emission mode, peak pulse power, pulse energy, pulse rate, pulse shapes, and the simultaneous or sequenced emission of pulses from at least one laser module.”
[Claim 44] Bukesov discloses a laser source for lithotripsy (at least 0169). Bukesov is silent regarding a filter positioned upstream of the filters.
[Claim 45] Bukesov discloses a pulsed laser source (At least Par 0133), as well a computer device that performs real-time analysis (Pars 0131). The examiner contends that real-time analysis inherently/necessarily includes analysis between the pulses, as real-time would necessarily include before, during and after laser pulses; it is noted that before and after is the same as in between pulses. This is the same configuration disclosed by applicant “computing device controlled laser system can therefore be used to receive and analyze response signals corresponding to the probing source in real time before, during, and after laser pulses for purposes of distinguishing between contact with stone vs. soft tissue” (Par 0206 of applicant’s specification).
[Claim 46] Bukesov discloses that the optical data corresponds to at least an intensity value of the light (at least Pars 0083, 0087, 0104, 0134-135; Figs. 12 and 24-25). Additionally or alternatively, a photodetector by definition/inherently measures the intensity of light.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bukesov, Weir and Deckelbaum as applied to claim 29 above, and further in view of US 2016/0361120 to Brinkmann et al.
Bukesov, Weir and Deckelbaum are discussed above, but fail to explicitly detecting/analyzing a ratio of two different wavelengths. However, in the same field of endeavor, Brinkman discloses “the human stone detection technique includes evaluating multiple wavelength ranges. For instance, a ratio of a received intensity in a first wavelength range and a second wavelength range can be used for human stone detection.” (Par 0184). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of Bukesov, Weir and Deckelbaum to analyze/evaluate the ratio of two different wavelengths, as taught by Brinkmann, as a known technique for stone/calculi detection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Lynsey C Eiseman whose telephone number is (571)270-7035. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday and alternating Fridays 7 to 4 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Hamaoui can be reached at 571-270-5625. 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.
/LYNSEY C Eiseman/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights