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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A (claims 1-27) in the reply filed on 07/30/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 28-36 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 13-14 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 13, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what structure performs the clam limitation recited in claim 13.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is indefinite because it is unclear what structure performs the clam limitation recited in claim 13.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 10-11, 13-14, 16, 18, 20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konofagou (US 2007/0276242), in view of Peterson et al. (US 2013/0131511; hereinafter Peterson).
Regarding claim 1, Konofagou discloses a system and method for localized measurement and imaging of viscosity of tissues. Konofagou shows a system for ultrasound harmonic motion imaging (see par. [0052]), comprising: a transducer configured to generate an amplitude-modulated acoustic radiation force (AM-ARF) by sinusoidally modulating a duration of an excitation pulse of an acoustic radiation force (see par. [0054], [0056], [0058]; fig. 5), and induce a harmonic motion on a target tissue using the AM-ARF (see par. [0052], [0058]), and a transducer simultaneously track the harmonic motion by collecting a tracking pulse (see par. [0016], [[0054], [0056], [0057]; claim 16 and 20).
But, Konofagou fails to explicitly state using a single transducer, discrete excitation pulses, wherein the tracking pulse is interleaved between the excitation pulse, and wherein the transducer is further configured to transmit the tracking pulses between the discrete excitation pulses.
Peterson discloses an ultrasonic shear wave imaging with focused scanline beamforming. Peterson teaches using a single transducer (see 10 in fig. 1), discrete excitation pulses (see fig. 5), and teaches wherein the tracking pulses is interleaved between the excitation pulse (see abstract; par. [0007], [0022], [0024], [0026]; fig. 5), and wherein the transducer is further configured to transmit the tracking pulses between the discrete excitation pulses (see fig. 5 and Fig. 7A-C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a single transducer and wherein the tracking pulses is interleaved between the excitation pulse in the invention of Konofagou, as taught by Peterson, to provide a cost effective ultrasound device by having a single transducer which can simultaneously track the motion with tracking pulse when it occurs at each tracking pulse location.
Regarding claim 2, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Konofgou shows that the system further comprises a processor configured to estimate the mechanical properties of the target tissue based on the tacked harmonic motion (see abstract).
Regarding claim 3, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Konofgou shows wherein the excitation pulse includes a sum of sinusoids with about 100-2000 Hz frequencies (see par. [0056], [0058]).
Regarding claim 4, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Konofgou shows wherein the processor is configured to generate a displacement map corresponding to the frequencies of the excitation pulse (see par. [0033], [0034], [0062], fig. 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 6, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Konofgou shows wherein the target tissue is selected from the group consisting of cancer, tumor, brain tissue, liver tissue, pancreatic tissue, breast tissue, prostate tissue, heart tissue, arterial tissue, renal tissue, and combinations thereof (see par. [0005]), and Peterson also teaches the target tissue can be cancer (see par. [0002]).
Regarding claim 7, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Konofgou shows wherein a cycle of the excitation pulse is at least about 2 cycles (see fig. 8A-D), and Peterson also teaches a cycle of the excitation pulse is at least about two cycles (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 8, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Konofgou shows wherein a cycle of the tracking pulse is about 2 cycles (see fig. 8A-D), and Peterson also teaches a cycle of the tracking pulse is about 2 cycles (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, ,Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Konofgou shows wherein the mechanical properties include stiffness, Young's modulus, elasticity, viscosity, porosity, permeability, a degree of anisotropy, or combinations thereof (see par. [0017]).
Regarding claim 11, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Konofgou shows wherein the transducer is configured to generate AM-ARF-induced displacements at a plurality of frequencies simultaneously (see par. [0046], [0050], [0051], [0053], [0056]).
Regarding claim 13, as best understood of the indefinite claim limitation, the examiner notes that claim limitation “a degree of anisotropy can be calculated based on the P2PD at the orthogonal directions” are directed to the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Therefore, as taught, the combined invention disclosed by Konofagou and Peterson is capable of performing the functions as set forth by applicant. Also, see MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 14, as best understood of the indefinite claims limitations, the examiner notes that claim limitations “a plurality of peak-to-peak displacements (P2PDs) at more than one frequencies can be generated at two orthogonal directions by mechanically rotating a linear array transducer or electronically rotating point spread function using a matrix array or a transducer with more than one element in the elevational direction or a row-column array, wherein a degree of anisotropy as a function of frequency is derived from the P2PDs at the orthogonal directions can be used to derive” are directed to the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Therefore, as taught, the combined invention disclosed by Konofagou and Peterson is capable of performing the functions as set forth by applicant. Also, see MPEP 2114.
Regarding claim 16, Konofagou discloses a system and method for localized measurement and imaging of viscosity of tissues. Konofagou shows method for a transducer harmonic motion imaging (see par. [0052]), comprising: generating an amplitude-modulated acoustic radiation force (AM-ARF) by sinusoidally modulating a duration of an excitation pulse of an acoustic radiation force (see par. [0054], [0056], [0058], fig. 5); inducing a harmonic motion on a target tissue using the AM-ARF (see par. [0054], [0058]); a transducer simultaneously tracking the harmonic motion by collecting a tracking pulse (see par. [0016], [[0054], [0056], [0057]; claim 16 and 20); and estimating the mechanical properties of the target tissue based on the tracked harmonic motion (see abstract).
But, Konofagou fails to explicitly state using a single transducer, discrete excitation pulses, wherein the tracking pulse is interleaved between the excitation pulse, and wherein the transducer is further configured to transmit the tracking pulses between the discrete excitation pulses.
Peterson discloses an ultrasonic shear wave imaging with focused scanline beamforming. Peterson teaches using a single transducer (see 10 in fig. 1), discrete excitation pulses (see fig. 5), and teaches wherein the tracking pulses is interleaved between the excitation pulse (see abstract; par. [0007], [0022], [0024], [0026]; fig. 5), and wherein the transducer is further configured to transmit the tracking pulses between the discrete excitation pulses (see fig. 5 and Fig. 7A-C).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a single transducer and wherein the tracking pulses is interleaved between the excitation pulse in the invention of Konofagou, as taught by Peterson, to provide a cost effective ultrasound device by having a single transducer which can simultaneously track the motion with tracking pulse when it occurs at each tracking pulse location.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a single transducer and wherein the tracking pulses is interleaved between the excitation pulse in the invention of Konofagou, as taught by Peterson, to provide a cost effective ultrasound device by having a single transducer which can simultaneously track the motion with tracking pulse when it occurs at each tracking pulse location.
Regarding claim 18, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Konofgou shows wherein the target tissue is selected from the group consisting of cancer, tumor, brain tissue, liver tissue, pancreatic tissue, breast tissue, prostate tissue, heart tissue, arterial tissue, renal tissue, and combinations thereof (see par. [0005]), and Peterson also teaches the target tissue can be cancer (see par. [0002]).
Regarding claim 20, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Konofgou shows wherein the mechanical properties include stiffness, Young's modulus, elasticity, viscosity, porosity, permeability, a degree of anisotropy, or combinations thereof (see par. [0017]).
Regarding claim 22, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Konofgou shows generating AM-ARF-induced displacements at a plurality of frequencies simultaneously (see par. [0046], [0050], [0051], [0053], [0056]).
Regarding claim 23, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Konofgou shows generating a displacement map corresponding to the frequencies of the excitation pulse (see par. [0033], [0034], [0062], fig. 11 and 12).
Regarding claim 24, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Konofgou shows wherein the excitation pulse includes a sum of sinusoids with about 100-2000 Hz frequencies (see par. [0056], [0058]).
Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konofagou (US 2007/0276242), in view of Peterson et al. (US 2013/0131511; hereinafter Peterson) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Provost et al. (US 2015/0010222; hereinafter Provost).
Regarding claim 5, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state wherein the processor is configured to generate beamformed radiofrequency (RF) data by performing delay-and-sum beamforming, estimate displacements induced by the AM-ARF based on the RF data, perform a two-dimensional interpolation on the estimated displacements, calculate differential displacements between successive time points based on interpolated displacements, filter the differential displacements for target frequencies, and generate peak-to-peak displacement (P2PD) image based on the filtered differential displacements.
Provost discloses a system and method for high frame rate streaming for treatment monitoring. Provost teaches wherein the processor is configured to generate beamformed radiofrequency (RF) data by performing delay-and-sum beamforming (see par. [0038]), estimate displacements induced by the AM-ARF based on the RF data (see par. [0030]), perform a two-dimensional interpolation on the estimated displacements (see par. [0024], [0025]), [0036]), calculate differential displacements between successive time points based on interpolated displacements (see par. [0024], [0025], [0036]), filter the differential displacements for target frequencies (see par. [0011], [0039], [0040]), and generate peak-to-peak displacement (P2PD) image based on the filtered differential displacements (see par. [0024], [0025], [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the processor is configured to generate beamformed radiofrequency (RF) data by performing delay-and-sum beamforming, estimate displacements induced by the AM-ARF based on the RF data, perform a two-dimensional interpolation on the estimated displacements, calculate differential displacements between successive time points based on interpolated displacements, filter the differential displacements for target frequencies, and generate peak-to-peak displacement (P2PD) image based on the filtered differential displacements in the invention of Konofagou and Peterson, as taught by Provost, to be able to determine a displacement map, and provide a fully integrated high frame platform suitable to analyze real time feedback of treatment assessment to a user.
Regarding claim 17, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state generating beamformed radiofrequency (RF) data by performing delay-and-sum beamforming; estimating displacements induced by the AM-ARF based on the RF data; performing a two-dimensional interpolation on the estimated displacements; calculating differential displacements between successive time points based on interpolated displacements; filtering the differential displacements for target frequencies; and generating peak-to-peak displacement (P2PD) image based on the filtered differential displacements.
Provost discloses a system and method for high frame rate streaming for treatment monitoring. Provost teaches generating beamformed radiofrequency (RF) data by performing delay-and-sum beamforming (see par. [0038]), estimating displacements induced by the AM-ARF based on the RF data (see par. [0030]), perform a two-dimensional interpolation on the estimated displacements (see par. [0024], [0025]), [0036]), calculating differential displacements between successive time points based on interpolated displacements (see par. [0024], [0025], [0036]), filtering the differential displacements for target frequencies (see par. [0011], [0039], [0040]), and generating peak-to-peak displacement (P2PD) image based on the filtered differential displacements (see par. [0024], [0025], [0044]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of generating beamformed radiofrequency (RF) data by performing delay-and-sum beamforming; estimating displacements induced by the AM-ARF based on the RF data; performing a two-dimensional interpolation on the estimated displacements; calculating differential displacements between successive time points based on interpolated displacements; filtering the differential displacements for target frequencies; and generating peak-to-peak displacement (P2PD) image based on the filtered differential displacements in the invention of Konofagou and Peterson, as taught by Provost, to be able to determine a displacement map, and provide a fully integrated high frame platform suitable to analyze real time feedback of treatment assessment to a user.
Claims 9 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konofagou (US 2007/0276242), in view of Peterson et al. (US 2013/0131511; hereinafter Peterson) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Konofagou et al. (US 2018/0028841; hereinafter Konofagou 841’).
Regarding claims 9 and 25, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Konofagou teaches PRF of about 5 KHz (see par. [0057), but fails to explicitly state where in the PRF of the tracking pulse is from about 10 kHz to about 20 kHz.
Konofagou 841’ discloses a methods and system for peripheral nerve modulation using focused ultrasound and teaches PRF of about 10 kHz to about 20 kHz (see par. [0010]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of the PRF of the tracking pulse is from about 10 kHz to about 20 kHz in the invention of Konofagou and Peterson, as taught by Konofagou 841’, to be able to measure a specific information at the region with reduced artifact.
Claims 12, 15, 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konofagou (US 2007/0276242), in view of Peterson et al. (US 2013/0131511; hereinafter Peterson) as applied to claims 1 and 16 above, and further in view of Hossain et al. (“Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse-Induced Peak Displacements Reflect Degree of Anisotropy in Transversely Isotropic Elastic Materials”; IEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control, Vol. 64, No. 6, June 2017; hereinafter Hossain).
Regarding claim 12, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state wherein the transducer is configured to generate peak-to-peak displacement (P2PD) at a predetermined frequency at two orthogonal directions by mechanically rotating the transducer or electronically rotating a point spread function using a matrix array or a transducer with more than one element in the elevational direction or a row-column array.
Hossain discloses an ultrasound diagnostic device. Hossain teaches generating peak-to-peak displacement (P2PD) at a predetermined frequency at two orthogonal directions by mechanically rotating the transducer or electronically rotating a point spread function using a matrix array or a transducer with more than one element in the elevational direction or a row-column array (see abstract; see “method” on page 991).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the transducer is configured to generate peak-to-peak displacement (P2PD) at a predetermined frequency at two orthogonal directions by mechanically rotating a linear array transducer or electronically rotating a point spread function using a matrix array or a transducer with more than one element in the elevational direction or a row-column array in the invention of Konofagou and Peterson, as taught by Hossain, to be able to study longitudinal or cross-sectional of anisotropic organs.
Regarding claim 15, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state that the processor is configured to calculate a degree of anisotropy by fitting a peak-to-peak displacement (P2PD) versus frequency relationship derived analytically.
Hossain discloses an ultrasound diagnostic device. Hossain teaches the processor is configured to calculate a degree of anisotropy by fitting a peak-to-peak displacement (P2PD) versus frequency relationship derived analytically (see abstract and page 991; fig. 1, 2, 4, 6).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of generating peak-to-peak displacement (P2PD) at a predetermined frequency at two orthogonal directions by mechanically rotating a linear array transducer or electronically rotating a point spread function using a matrix array or a transducer with more than one element in the elevational direction or a row-column array, wherein the point spread function defines a shape of an ultrasound beam in the invention of Konofagou and Peterson, as taught by Hossain, to be able to study longitudinal or cross-sectional of anisotropic organs.
Regarding claim 26, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state generating a peak-to-peak displacement (P2PD) at a predetermined frequency at two orthogonal directions by mechanically rotating a linear array transducer or electronically rotating a point spread function using a matrix array or a transducer with more than one element in the elevational direction or a row-column array.
Hossain discloses an ultrasound diagnostic device. Hossain teaches generating a peak-to-peak displacement (P2PD) at a predetermined frequency at two orthogonal directions by mechanically rotating a linear array transducer or electronically rotating a point spread function using a matrix array or a transducer with more than one element in the elevational direction or a row-column array (see abstract; see “method” on page 991).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of generating a peak-to-peak displacement (P2PD) at a predetermined frequency at two orthogonal directions by mechanically rotating a linear array transducer or electronically rotating a point spread function using a matrix array or a transducer with more than one element in the elevational direction or a row-column array in the invention of Konofagou and Peterson, as taught by Hossain, to be able to study longitudinal or cross-sectional of anisotropic organs.
Regarding claim 27, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state calculating a degree of anisotropy based on the P2PD at the orthogonal directions.
Hossain discloses an ultrasound diagnostic device. Hossain teaches calculating a degree of anisotropy based on the P2PD at the orthogonal directions (see abstract and page 991; fig. 1, 2, 4, 6).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of calculating a degree of anisotropy based on the P2PD at the orthogonal directions in the invention of Konofagou and Peterson, as taught by Hossain, to be able to study longitudinal or cross-sectional of anisotropic organs.
Claims 19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Konofagou (US 2007/0276242), in view of Peterson et al. (US 2013/0131511; hereinafter Peterson) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Mittelstein et al. (US 20180256922; hereinafter Mittelstein)
Regarding claim 19, Konofagou and Peterson disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state determining a metastatic location and a metastatic level based on the estimated mechanical properties; and administering a treatment to the metastatic location based on the metastatic level.
Mittelstein discloses selective disruption of neoplastic cells via resonant harmonic excitation. Mittelstein teaches determining a metastatic location and a metastatic level based on the estimated mechanical properties (see par. [0043]); and administering a treatment to the metastatic location based on the metastatic level (see par. [0014]; [0049]; fig. 1B, 2B; fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed inventio, to have utilized the teaching of determining a metastatic location and a metastatic level based on the estimated mechanical properties; and administering a treatment to the metastatic location based on the metastatic level in the invention of Konofagou and Peterson, as taught by Mittelstein, to be able to locate and target specific cell type such as cancer cell and treat the cancer cell leaving non-targeted healthy cell intact.
Regarding claim 21, Konofagou, Peterson and Mittelstein disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Mittelstein teaches wherein the treatment includes anti-tumor treatment, anti-cancer treatment, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation, surgery, or combinations thereof (see par. [0014]; [0049]; fig. 1B, 2B; fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed inventio, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the treatment includes anti-tumor treatment, anti-cancer treatment, chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation, surgery, or combinations thereof in the invention of Konofagou and Peterson, as taught by Mittelstein, to be able to target cancer cell and treat the cancer cell leaving non-targeted healthy cell intact.
Response to Arguments
The previous objection to claim 14 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 14.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 (b) to claims 2-5, 7-10, and 12-27 are withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to claim 2-5, 7-10, 12-16, 23-24, and 26.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 (b) of claims 13-14 is maintained because the Applicant did not amend or made any remark regarding the rejection. The examiner notes claim 13 is indefinite because it is unclear what structure performs the clam limitation recited in claim 13, and claim 14 is indefinite because it is unclear what structure performs the clam limitation recited in claim 13.
Applicant's arguments filed 04/01/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to Applicant’s argument on pages 8-9, with respect to prior art rejection of the independent claims, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner maintains that combined invention of Konofagou and Peterson does disclose all the claim limitation set forth in claims 1 and 16, particularly the claim limitation of plurality of discrete excitation pulses and transmitting the tracking pulses between the discrete excitation pulses. The Applicant argues that Peterson does not disclose multiple discrete excitation pulses arranged in sequence, however, the claim 1 and 16 do not limit that the excitation pulses are arranged in any sequency. Claims 1 and 16 merely limits plurality of discrete excitation pulses and transmit the tracking pulses between the discrete excitation pulses. The examiner maintains that Peterson does teach using discrete excitation pulses (see fig. 5), and wherein the transducer is further configured to transmit the tracking pulses between the discrete excitation pulses (fig. 3, 5 and Fig. 7A-C show the plurality of discrete excitation pluses and tracking pulses between the discrete excitation pulses).
Applicant's remarks on page 10 related to depending claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as they are not directed to the content of those claims or the citations from the additional references, but merely rely on the alleged deficiency with the primary combination of Konofagou and Peterson.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Crocco et al. (US 2021/0022710) discloses method and system for ultrasound system for tissue characterization and disclose plurality of discrete excitation pulses (see fig. 4).
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 SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights