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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the response filed on 08/07/2025. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-20 for examination.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-20 are rejected; 2) no claims are objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant’s arguments, remarks, and amendments.
Regarding the amendments, Examiner agrees that Kim does not explicitly disclose the amended language.
Regarding Applicant’s comment that Watanabe does not cure the deficiencies of Kim, Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues that Watanabe fails to disclose, teach, or suggest the newly amended language:
… wherein the optical probe is calibrated based on measurement data collected by the detector to determine a slope of a linear response of the optical probe.
However, Watanabe describes in [0044]:
The optical attenuation properties s(p, θ) is calculated by using the slope of the A-lines. By plugging d(p, θ) and s(p, θ) to the predetermined calibration function g(x, y), a fluorescence calibration factor is determined.
Additionally in [0045]:
[A] predetermined calibration factor table for variable distance and attenuation coefficient can be used instead of the predetermined calibration function. The distance d(p, θ) and the optical attenuation property s(p, θ) are calculated from the OCT image and the calibration factor for the closest d(p, θ) and s(p, θ) values are looked up from the calibration factor table. By multiplying the selected calibration factor to the fluorescence signal, fluorescence calibration can be performed.
Additionally in [0048]:
FIG. 4C shows averaged A-line profile of the phantoms (dotted lines) and the corresponding linear least square fit result (solid lines). The dotted rectangles in FIGS. 4A and 4B indicate the ROI for analysis. ROI is determined and the A-lines in the ROI are obtained. The boundary of the surface of the fluorescence object for each A-line is identified and averaged A-lines in the ROI are obtained. The linear least square fit is performed to the log-compressed averaged A-line and the slope value is used as the attenuation coefficient value.
Based on review of Watanabe, Examiner understands Watanabe determines the slope of a linear fit for the data, which is able to be used to adjust the calibration function. Therefore, Examiner disagrees and asserts Watanabe discloses the amended language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 4-5, 9, 14-15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious in view of Kim (US 20200155004 A1) and in further view of Watanabe (US20190298174A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Kim discloses:
An optical coherence tomography apparatus (Kim, FIG. 1, [0044], “portable fiberoptic probe”), comprising:
an optical probe (Kim, FIG. 1, [0044], probe barrel 1) having a first light to illuminate a sample (Kim, FIG. 1, [0052], “the probe sequentially sends fluorescence excitation light and broadband light”);
a detector for detecting a fluorescence of reflection of the first light for illuminating the sample (Kim, FIGS. 1 & 4, [0047], “One source-collector pair is used to measure the tissue fluorescence spectrum (for example, in the example probe tip of FIG. 4, this may be fiber 2′ as the fluorescence excitation source and fiber 3′ as the detector)”); and
a phantom removably attached to the optical probe (Kim, FIG. 1, [0064], “a phantom (e.g., a solid, sterilizable phantom) may be used as a pre-surgical calibration tool for an example of the disclosed probe”);
wherein the phantom has a first fluorescence on at least a portion of the phantom surface for detection by the detector (Kim, [0064], “The optical properties of the phantom may be measured using the probe (e.g., using simple light contact with the surface of the phantom)”), …
Kim discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the optical probe is calibrated based on measurement data collected by the detector to determine a slope of a linear response of the optical probe.
However, Watanabe, in a similar field of endeavor (integration of optical coherence tomography (OCT) and fluorescence spectroscopy), discloses:
… wherein the optical probe is calibrated based on measurement data collected by the detector to determine a slope of a linear response of the optical probe (Watanabe, [0044], “The optical attenuation properties s(p, θ) is calculated by using the slope of the A-lines. By plugging d(p, θ) and s(p, θ) to the predetermined calibration function g(x, y), a fluorescence calibration factor is determined”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the calibration methods of Watanabe. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of calibration methods as disclosed by Watanabe and how to use them to modify Kim. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known calibration fits for modeling information and calibrating the probes.
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 1 and Kim further discloses:
… wherein the first fluorescence is of a known fluorescence value or range of value (Kim, FIG. 1, [0063], “The fluorescence measurements were calibrated according to a Intralipid (Fresenius Kabi: Uppsala, Sweden) and added absorber liquid phantom with known μ.sub.a,x, μ.sub.s,x′ and fluorophore concentration”).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 2 and Kim further discloses:
… wherein the first fluorescence is used to calibrate a NIRAF linear response (Kim, FIG. 8, [0082], “The broad-band excitation is generally a white light with potentially some content in the near infrared to infrared spectral region,” and FIG. 8, [0084], “The absorption spectrum can be modeled as a linear combination of the separate chromophore contributions”).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 1, and Watanabe further discloses:
… wherein the phantom is cylindrical in shape and configured to allow the optical probe to travel longitudinally through the phantom to perform a pullback (Watanabe, FIGS. 11a-11d, [0052], “In FIG. 11A, a catheter 1101 is positioned in a cylindrical-shape phantom 1104a. The catheter 1101, can be the catheter 318 as illustrated in FIG. 1, is pulled back in a direction 1102 and may rotates in a direction 1103 during the entire pullback period”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the cylindrical phantom of Watanabe. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cylindrical phantoms as disclosed by Watanabe and how to use them to modify Kim. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a cylindrical phantom in calibrating a probe.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 1 and Kim further discloses:
… wherein the phantom is attached to a distal end of the optical probe (Kim, FIG. 1, [0044], probe barrel 1) …
Watanabe further discloses:
… and the phantom contains a cap (Watanabe, FIGS. 11a-11d & 12a-12D, “The width the ring defined by the material 1205 may be smaller along the l axis but the width and shape can be different as long as the material 1205 surrounds the material 1204a. The material 1204a and material 1205 are fixed with each other, so as to form one cylindrical phantom.” Examiner notes that PHOSITA would inherently understand that smaller and smaller opening in the cylindrical phantom would lead to a complete capping and prevent outside light completely).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the cylindrical phantom of Watanabe. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cylindrical phantoms as disclosed by Watanabe and how to use them to modify Kim. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a cylindrical phantom in calibrating a probe.
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 1 and Kim further discloses:
… wherein a calibration of the apparatus is completed using the phantom (Kim, FIG. 1, [0064], “Determination of the quantitative relationship between probe signals measured from the solid phantom and the liquid phantom may allow the fluorescence and/or reflectance measurements of the probe to be calibrated ahead of a surgical procedure”).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 1 and Kim further discloses:
… wherein the phantom further comprises a second fluorescence different than the first fluorescence (Kim, [0058-0050], “1. White light reflectance spectrum @r=260 μm [0059] 2. White light reflectance spectrum @r=520 μm”).
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 1 and Watanabe further discloses:
… wherein the phantom has two differing inside diameters for distance variability calibration (Watanabe, FIGS. 11a-11d & 12a-12D, “The width the ring defined by the material 1205 may be smaller along the l axis but the width and shape can be different as long as the material 1205 surrounds the material 1204a. The material 1204a and material 1205 are fixed with each other, so as to form one cylindrical phantom”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the cylindrical phantom of Watanabe. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cylindrical phantoms as disclosed by Watanabe and how to use them to modify Kim. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a cylindrical phantom in calibrating a probe.
Regarding Claim 11, Kim discloses:
A method for optical coherence tomography, comprising:
providing an optical coherence tomography apparatus (Kim, FIG. 1, [0044], “portable fiberoptic probe”), comprising:
an optical probe (Kim, FIG. 1, [0044], probe barrel 1) having a first light to illuminate a sample (Kim, FIG. 1, [0052], “the probe sequentially sends fluorescence excitation light and broadband light”);
a detector for detecting a fluorescence of reflection of the first light for illuminating the sample (Kim, FIGS. 1 & 4, [0047], “One source-collector pair is used to measure the tissue fluorescence spectrum (for example, in the example probe tip of FIG. 4, this may be fiber 2′ as the fluorescence excitation source and fiber 3′ as the detector)”); and
a phantom removably attached to the optical probe (Kim, FIG. 1, [0064], “a phantom (e.g., a solid, sterilizable phantom) may be used as a pre-surgical calibration tool for an example of the disclosed probe”);
illuminating the phantom (Kim, [0064], “The optical properties of the phantom may be measured using the probe (e.g., using simple light contact with the surface of the phantom)”);
detecting the fluorescence of reflection from the phantom (Kim, [0064], “The optical properties of the phantom may be measured using the probe (e.g., using simple light contact with the surface of the phantom)”);
calibrating the optical coherence tomography apparatus based on the fluorescence of reflection from the phantom (Kim, [0064], “The optical properties of the phantom may be measured using the probe (e.g., using simple light contact with the surface of the phantom)”); and
removing the phantom (Kim, [0064], “The optical properties of the phantom may be measured using the probe (e.g., using simple light contact with the surface of the phantom).” Examiner notes that for the probe to detect after using the phantom, the phantom inherently be removed),
wherein the phantom has a first fluorescence on at least a portion of the phantom surface for detection by the detector (Kim, [0064], “The optical properties of the phantom may be measured using the probe (e.g., using simple light contact with the surface of the phantom)”), …
Kim discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the optical probe is calibrated based on measurement data collected by the detector to determine a slope of a linear response of the optical probe.
However, Watanabe, in a similar field of endeavor (integration of optical coherence tomography (OCT) and fluorescence spectroscopy), discloses:
… wherein the optical probe is calibrated based on measurement data collected by the detector to determine a slope of a linear response of the optical probe (Watanabe, [0044], “The optical attenuation properties s(p, θ) is calculated by using the slope of the A-lines. By plugging d(p, θ) and s(p, θ) to the predetermined calibration function g(x, y), a fluorescence calibration factor is determined”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the calibration methods of Watanabe. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of calibration methods as disclosed by Watanabe and how to use them to modify Kim. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known calibration fits for modeling information and calibrating the probes.
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 11 and Kim further discloses:
… wherein the first fluorescence is of a known fluorescence value or range of value (Kim, FIG. 1, [0063], “The fluorescence measurements were calibrated according to a Intralipid (Fresenius Kabi: Uppsala, Sweden) and added absorber liquid phantom with known μ.sub.a,x, μ.sub.s,x′ and fluorophore concentration”).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 12 and Kim further discloses:
… wherein calibrating the optical coherence tomography apparatus based on the fluorescence of reflection from the phantom is used to calibrate a NIRAF linear response (Kim, FIG. 8, [0082], “The broad-band excitation is generally a white light with potentially some content in the near infrared to infrared spectral region,” and FIG. 8, [0084], “The absorption spectrum can be modeled as a linear combination of the separate chromophore contributions”).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 11 and Watanabe further discloses:
… further comprising performing a pullback of the optical coherence tomography apparatus through at least a portion of the phantom, wherein the phantom is cylindrical in shape and configured to allow the optical probe to travel longitudinally through the phantom (Watanabe, FIGS. 11a-11d, [0052], “In FIG. 11A, a catheter 1101 is positioned in a cylindrical-shape phantom 1104a. The catheter 1101, can be the catheter 318 as illustrated in FIG. 1, is pulled back in a direction 1102 and may rotates in a direction 1103 during the entire pullback period”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the cylindrical phantom of Watanabe. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cylindrical phantoms as disclosed by Watanabe and how to use them to modify Kim. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a cylindrical phantom in calibrating a probe.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 11 and further discloses:
… wherein the phantom is attached to a distal end of the optical probe (Kim, FIG. 1, [0044], probe barrel 1) …
Watanabe further discloses:
… and the phantom contains a cap (Watanabe, FIGS. 11a-11d & 12a-12D, “The width the ring defined by the material 1205 may be smaller along the l axis but the width and shape can be different as long as the material 1205 surrounds the material 1204a. The material 1204a and material 1205 are fixed with each other, so as to form one cylindrical phantom.” Examiner notes that PHOSITA would inherently understand that smaller and smaller opening in the cylindrical phantom would lead to a complete capping and prevent outside light completely).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the cylindrical phantom of Watanabe. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cylindrical phantoms as disclosed by Watanabe and how to use them to modify Kim. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a cylindrical phantom in calibrating a probe.
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 11 and Kim further discloses:
… wherein a calibration of the apparatus is completed using the phantom (Kim, FIG. 1, [0064], “Determination of the quantitative relationship between probe signals measured from the solid phantom and the liquid phantom may allow the fluorescence and/or reflectance measurements of the probe to be calibrated ahead of a surgical procedure”).
Regarding Claim 18, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 11 and Kim further discloses:
… wherein the phantom further comprises a second fluorescence different than the first fluorescence (Kim, [0058-0050], “1. White light reflectance spectrum @r=260 μm [0059] 2. White light reflectance spectrum @r=520 μm”).
Regarding Claim 19, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 11 and Watanabe further discloses:
… wherein the phantom has two differing inside diameters for distance variability calibration (Watanabe, FIGS. 11a-11d & 12a-12D, “The width the ring defined by the material 1205 may be smaller along the l axis but the width and shape can be different as long as the material 1205 surrounds the material 1204a. The material 1204a and material 1205 are fixed with each other, so as to form one cylindrical phantom”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Kim with the cylindrical phantom of Watanabe. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cylindrical phantoms as disclosed by Watanabe and how to use them to modify Kim. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a cylindrical phantom in calibrating a probe.
Claims 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious in view of Kim (US 20200155004 A1), in view of Watanabe (US20190298174A1), and in further view of Min (US20220392065A1).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the phantom is attached to a proximal end of the optical probe.
However, Min, in a similar field of endeavor (medical image analysis, diagnosis, risk stratification, decision making and/or disease tracking), discloses:
… wherein the phantom is attached to a proximal end of the optical probe (Min, Embodiment 271, [0793], where the proximal end has various compartments, the third subset of which contains phantom materials).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Watanabe with the proximal phantom of Min. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of proximal phantoms as disclosed by Min and how to use them to modify the combination of Kim and Watanabe. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a proximal phantoms in calibrating a probe.
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 11 but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the phantom is attached to a proximal end of the optical probe.
However, Min, in a similar field of endeavor (medical image analysis, diagnosis, risk stratification, decision making and/or disease tracking), discloses:
… wherein the phantom is attached to a proximal end of the optical probe (Min, Embodiment 271, [0793], where the proximal end has various compartments, the third subset of which contains phantom materials).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Watanabe with the proximal phantom of Min. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of proximal phantoms as disclosed by Min and how to use them to modify the combination of Kim and Watanabe. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of a proximal phantoms in calibrating a probe.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious in view of Kim (US 20200155004 A1), in view of Watanabe (US20190298174A1), in view of Bozkurt (US20170127975A1), and and in further view of Yang (US20150216398A1).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the phantom comprises: 202 crystal clear urethane (Yang; a 1% concentration of TiO2.
However, Bozkurt, in a similar field of endeavor (biophotonic sensors), discloses:
… wherein the phantom comprises: 202 crystal clear urethane (Yang; a 1% concentration of TiO2 (Bozkut, [0100], “The core material of these phantoms is vulcanized silicone, to which rutile titanium dioxide powder (to obtain the scattering) and India ink (to tune the absorption) was added”); …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Watanabe with the phantom composition of Bozkurt. PHOSITA would have known about the compositions of phantoms as disclosed by Bozkurt and how to use them to modify the combination of Kim and Watanabe. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known phantoms composition methods and properties.
Additionally, Yang, in a similar field of endeavor (wide field fluorescence and reflectance imaging), discloses:
… and Qdot 705 ITK Organic Quantum Dots at a concentration of 10 nM and 20 nM (Yang, [0121], “phantoms with quantitative quantum dot-based molecular imaging”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Watanabe with the phantom composition of Yang. PHOSITA would have known about the compositions of phantoms as disclosed by Yang and how to use them to modify the combination of Kim and Watanabe. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known phantoms composition methods and properties.
Bozkurt and Yang disclose various known means to compose phantom materials. The composition of the phantom material is a result-effective variable. In that, if the composition of the phantom material was not proper, it would fail to reflect as needed by the claimed apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before Applicant’s filing date to use known methods in composing the phantom material, since determining the optimum material to provide sufficient optics is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
Regarding Claim 20, the combination of Kim and Watanabe discloses Claim 11 but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the phantom comprises: 202 crystal clear urethane (Yang; a 1% concentration of TiO2.
However, Bozkurt, in a similar field of endeavor (biophotonic sensors), discloses:
… wherein the phantom comprises: 202 crystal clear urethane (Yang; a 1% concentration of TiO2 (Bozkut, [0100], “The core material of these phantoms is vulcanized silicone, to which rutile titanium dioxide powder (to obtain the scattering) and India ink (to tune the absorption) was added”); …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Watanabe with the phantom composition of Bozkurt. PHOSITA would have known about the compositions of phantoms as disclosed by Bozkurt and how to use them to modify the combination of Kim and Watanabe. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known phantoms composition methods and properties.
Additionally, Yang, in a similar field of endeavor (wide field fluorescence and reflectance imaging), discloses:
… and Qdot 705 ITK Organic Quantum Dots at a concentration of 10 nM and 20 nM (Yang, [0121], “phantoms with quantitative quantum dot-based molecular imaging”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Kim and Watanabe with the phantom composition of Yang. PHOSITA would have known about the compositions of phantoms as disclosed by Yang and how to use them to modify the combination of Kim and Watanabe. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of known phantoms composition methods and properties.
Bozkurt and Yang disclose various known means to compose phantom materials. The composition of the phantom material is a result-effective variable. In that, if the composition of the phantom material was not proper, it would fail to reflect as needed by the claimed apparatus.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to PHOSITA before Applicant’s filing date to use known methods in composing the phantom material, since determining the optimum material to provide sufficient optics is based on a result effective variable and would require routine skill in the art. Furthermore, it has been held that that determining the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.05 (II (A) and (B)).
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 Examiner should be directed to CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571) 270-0079. Examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST (8-4 CST).
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 Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, Examiner’s Supervisor, Uzma Alam can be reached on (571) 272-3995. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877