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
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant remarks, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 6 and 20 under 35 USC 112(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claims 6 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see applicant remarks, filed 11/11/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 6 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(a) rejection of claims 6 and 20 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the prior art rejections, filed 11/11/2025, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the prior art does not teach that the conductive adhesive prevents the flow of ions. However, the applicant admits that the “third approach” to meet the requirement of impeding the flow of ions is that “the dry adhesive impedes the flow of ions.” Therefore, the previously cited prior art reference of Lee teaches on this limitation as it teaches a dry adhesive. The applicant further argues that there is no motivation to combine Palti and Van Der Beek with Lee as there is no benefit to the system of Palti. However, Palti does teach that “an increase in [Ca++] is harmful to most cells and if sufficiently high will lead to the destruction of the cells. Similar considerations apply to other ions. In view of the above observations, long term current application to living organisms or tissues can result in significant damage. Another major problem that is associated with such electric fields, is due to the electrolysis process that takes place at the electrode surfaces. Here charges are transferred between the metal (electrons) and the electrolytic solution (ions) such that charged active radicals are formed. These can cause significant damage to organic molecules, especially macromolecules and thus damage the living cells and tissues” ([0014]). Therefore, Palti has a clear motivation to reduce the flow of ions since ions such as [Ca++] result in significant damage.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1,2,5-7,8,10,12,15,19, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palti et al (US20050209642A1); hereinafter Palti in view of Van Der Beek et al (US 20130066412 A1); hereinafter Van Der Beek (both cited previously), and Lee et al (US 20210162262 A1); hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Palti teaches a method of applying an alternating electric field to a target region in a subject's body ([0067] alternating electrical potential is applied across electrodes 28 and 32) , the method comprising applying an alternating voltage between the first conductive electrode element and the second conductive electrode element ([0027] alternating voltage waveform), wherein the applying is performed after positioning the first electrode assembly and the second electrode assembly ([0127] positioning and securing the insulated electrode). Palti fails to teach the specific steps of positioning the electrode assembly and the structures of the electrode assembly. Van Der Beek teaches positioning a first electrode assembly (fig 12) at a first position on the subject's body, wherein the first electrode assembly includes a first conductive electrode element having a first front face (conductive layer 74) and a first conductive adhesive disposed on the first front face, in direct contact with the first front face (34 conductive gel that may include adhesive layer), and wherein the first electrode assembly is positioned so that a front face of the first conductive adhesive contacts the subject's body (skin layer 34 is disposed on a skin facing side of the layer of anisotropic material 36). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Palti with Van Der Beek because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Van Der Beek teaches that the usual configuration of electrodes may create “hot spots” of high current density, or high-current concentrations at a specific location, that can lead to an irritating and/or uncomfortable burning sensation on the skin ([0003]). The structure of Van Der Beek that reads on the current invention addresses the cited motivation. Palti further teaches positioning a second electrode assembly at a second position on the subject's body, wherein the second electrode assembly includes a second conductive electrode element having a second front face and a second conductive adhesive disposed on the second front face, in direct contact with the second front face, and wherein the second electrode assembly is positioned so that a front face of the second conductive adhesive contacts the subject's body (fig. 11 clearly shows two electrodes, duplicating the electrodes of the combination of Van Der Beek and Palti would have been obvious).
The combination of Palti and Van Der Beek fails to teach that the first and second conductive adhesives impede the flow of ions. Lee teaches the first and second conductive adhesive impedes the flow of ions ([0036] the electrical stimulation pad may be made of a conductive dry adhesive electrode pad using a carbon nano material - as per the applicant's own argument, using a dry electrode meets the requirement of impeding the flow of ions). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Palti and Van Der Beek with Lee because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Palti teaches “an increase in [Ca++] is harmful to most cells and if sufficiently high will lead to the destruction of the cells. Similar considerations apply to other ions. In view of the above observations, long term current application to living organisms or tissues can result in significant damage. Another major problem that is associated with such electric fields, is due to the electrolysis process that takes place at the electrode surfaces. Here charges are transferred between the metal (electrons) and the electrolytic solution (ions) such that charged active radicals are formed. These can cause significant damage to organic molecules, especially macromolecules and thus damage the living cells and tissues” ([0014]). Therefore, there is an established and clear motivation from Palti to stop the flow of ions and furthermore Lee teaches “the electrical stimulation pad may be manufactured using a dry high-adhesive material to transmit a user's biological signal or an electrical stimulation signal of a nerve dominant muscle” ([0036]). Both Lee and Palti stimulate the muscle so if Lee addresses the gap introduced by Palti, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Palti with Lee.
Regarding claim 12, Palti teaches an apparatus for applying an alternating electric field to a target region in a subject's body, the apparatus ([0067] alternating electrical potential is applied across electrodes 28 and 32) comprising:
a signal generator configured to apply an alternating voltage between the first conductive electrode element and the second conductive electrode element ([0027] alternating voltage waveform), wherein the alternating voltage has a frequency of 50 kHz - 1 MHz ([0005] the alternating voltage that is applied between the first set of electrode elements and the second set of electrode elements has a frequency between 100 kHz and 300 kHz).
Palti fails to teach the specific steps of positioning the electrode assembly and the structures of the electrode assembly. Van Der Beek teaches a first electrode assembly (fig 12) that includes a first conductive electrode element having a first front face (conductive layer 74) and a first conductive adhesive disposed on the first front face, in direct contact with the first front face (34 conductive gel that may include adhesive layer), wherein the first electrode assembly is configured so that a front face of the first conductive adhesive can be positioned in contact with the subject's body (skin layer 34 is disposed on a skin facing side of the layer of anisotropic material 36). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Palti with Van Der Beek because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Van Der Beek teaches the traditional electrode configuration may create “hot spots” of high current density, or high-current concentrations at a specific location, that can lead to an irritating and/or uncomfortable burning sensation on the skin ([0003]). The structure of Van Der Beek that reads on the current invention addresses the cited motivation.
Palti further teaches positioning a second electrode assembly at a second position on the subject's body, wherein the second electrode assembly includes a second conductive electrode element having a second front face and a second conductive adhesive disposed on the second front face, in direct contact with the second front face, and wherein the second electrode assembly is positioned so that a front face of the second conductive adhesive contacts the subject's body (fig. 11 clearly shows two electrodes, duplicating the electrodes of the combination of Van Der Beek and Palti would have been obvious).
The combination of Palti and Van Der Beek fails to teach that the first and second conductive adhesives impede the flow of ions. Lee teaches the first and second conductive adhesive impedes the flow of ions ([0036] the electrical stimulation pad may be made of a conductive dry adhesive electrode pad using a carbon nano material - as per the applicant's own argument, using a dry electrode meets the requirement of impeding the flow of ions). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Palti and Van Der Beek with Lee because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Palti teaches “an increase in [Ca++] is harmful to most cells and if sufficiently high will lead to the destruction of the cells. Similar considerations apply to other ions. In view of the above observations, long term current application to living organisms or tissues can result in significant damage. Another major problem that is associated with such electric fields, is due to the electrolysis process that takes place at the electrode surfaces. Here charges are transferred between the metal (electrons) and the electrolytic solution (ions) such that charged active radicals are formed. These can cause significant damage to organic molecules, especially macromolecules and thus damage the living cells and tissues” ([0014]). Therefore, there is an established and clear motivation from Palti to stop the flow of ions and furthermore Lee teaches “the electrical stimulation pad may be manufactured using a dry high-adhesive material to transmit a user's biological signal or an electrical stimulation signal of a nerve dominant muscle” ([0036]). Both Lee and Palti stimulate the muscle so if Lee addresses the gap introduced by Palti, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Palti with Lee.
Regarding claims 2 and 15, the combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, and Lee teaches the method of claims 1 and 12. Van der Beek further teaches the first conductive adhesive comprises a non- hydrogel biocompatible conductive adhesive ([0030] gel layer 34 may be conductive…may include an adhesive material to facilitate connection between the electrode 14 and the subject's skin). Palti further teaches the second conductive adhesive comprises a non-hydrogel biocompatible conductive adhesive (duplication of parts, the second electrode is necessary for the combination from the base claim to work).
Regarding claim 5 and 19, the combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, and Lee teaches the methods of claim 1 and 12. Van Der Beek further teaches the first conductive adhesive comprises at least one of an acrylic polymer and a silicone polymer because it would constitute simple substitution to replace the generic conductive adhesive of Van Der Beek with the specific embodiment which would not make a patentable difference in the operation of the device envisioned by the base reference. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to duplicate the first conductive adhesive of Van Der Beek to a second conductive adhesive as taught by Palti because this constitutes mere duplication of parts that results in no patentable difference.
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, and Lee teaches the method of claim 1. Palti further teaches the alternating voltage has a frequency of 50 kHz - 1 MHz ( [0005] the alternating voltage that is applied between the first set of electrode elements and the second set of electrode elements has a frequency between 100 kHz and 300 kHz).
Regarding claims 6 and 20, the combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, and Lee teaches the method of claim 1. The combination fails to teach a dry adhesive. Lee teaches the first conductive adhesive comprises a dry adhesive ([0036] the electrical stimulation pad may be made of a conductive dry adhesive electrode pad using a carbon nano material), and
wherein the second conductive adhesive comprises a dry adhesive (duplication of parts).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Palti and Van Der Beek with Lee because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Palti teaches “an increase in [Ca++] is harmful to most cells and if sufficiently high will lead to the destruction of the cells. Similar considerations apply to other ions. In view of the above observations, long term current application to living organisms or tissues can result in significant damage. Another major problem that is associated with such electric fields, is due to the electrolysis process that takes place at the electrode surfaces. Here charges are transferred between the metal (electrons) and the electrolytic solution (ions) such that charged active radicals are formed. These can cause significant damage to organic molecules, especially macromolecules and thus damage the living cells and tissues” ([0014]). Therefore, there is an established and clear motivation from Palti to stop the flow of ions and furthermore Lee teaches “the electrical stimulation pad may be manufactured using a dry high-adhesive material to transmit a user's biological signal or an electrical stimulation signal of a nerve dominant muscle” ([0036]). Both Lee and Palti stimulate the muscle so if Lee addresses the gap introduced by Palti, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Palti with Lee.
Regarding claim 8, Palti teaches a method of applying an alternating electric field to a target region in a subject's body, the method ([0067] alternating electrical potential is applied across electrodes 28 and 32) comprising:
applying an alternating voltage between the first conductive electrode element and the second conductive electrode element, wherein the applying is performed after positioning the first electrode assembly and the second electrode assembly ([0127] positioning and securing the insulated electrode, duplication of parts).
Palti fails to teach the specific steps of positioning the electrode assembly and the structures of the electrode assembly. Van Der Beek teaches positioning a first electrode assembly (fig 12) at a first position on the subject's body, wherein the first electrode assembly includes a first conductive electrode element having a first front face (conductive layer 74) and a first biocompatible conductive adhesive disposed on the first front face (34 conductive gel that may include adhesive layer), in direct contact with the first front face, and wherein the first electrode assembly is positioned so that a front face of the first conductive adhesive contacts the subject's body (skin layer 34 is disposed on a skin facing side of the layer of anisotropic material 36). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify Palti with Van Der Beek because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Van Der Beek teaches the traditional electrode configuration may create “hot spots” of high current density, or high-current concentrations at a specific location, that can lead to an irritating and/or uncomfortable burning sensation on the skin ([0003]). The structure of Van Der Beek that reads on the current invention addresses the cited motivation. Palti further teaches positioning a second electrode assembly at a second position on the subject's body, wherein the second electrode assembly includes a second conductive electrode element having a second front face and a second conductive adhesive disposed on the second front face, in direct contact with the second front face, and wherein the second electrode assembly is positioned so that a front face of the second conductive adhesive contacts the subject's body (fig. 11 clearly shows two electrodes, duplicating the electrodes of the combination of Van Der Beek and Palti would have been obvious).
However, the combination Van Der Beek and Palti fails to teach a dry adhesive. Lee teaches a first biocompatible dry conductive adhesive disposed on the first front face ([0036] the electrical stimulation pad may be made of a conductive dry adhesive electrode pad using a carbon nano material). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Van Der Beek and Palti with Lee because there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so. Lee teaches the electrical stimulation pad may be manufactured using a dry high-adhesive material to transmit a user's biological signal or an electrical stimulation signal of a nerve dominant muscle ([0036]).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, and Lee teaches the method of claim 8. Palti further teaches the alternating voltage has a frequency of 50 kHz - 1 MHz ([0005] the alternating voltage that is applied between the first set of electrode elements and the second set of electrode elements has a frequency between 100 kHz and 300 kHz).
Claims 3 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palti, Van Der Beek, and Lee further in view of Burnham et al (US994743B2); hereinafter Burnham.
Regarding claims 3 and 16, the combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, and Lee teaches the method of claim 1 and the apparatus of claim 12. The combination fails to teach the non-hydrogel biocompatible conductive adhesive composite specifically. Burnham teaches the first conductive adhesive comprises a non- hydrogel biocompatible conductive adhesive composite (electrically conductive composite) comprising a first dielectric material (first dielectric material) and first conductive particles dispersed within the first dielectric material (second conductive material that is substantially dispersed within the first dielectric material - abstract), and wherein the second conductive adhesive comprises a non-hydrogel biocompatible conductive adhesive composite comprising a second dielectric material and second conductive particles dispersed within the second dielectric material (duplication of parts). It would have been obvious to modify the combination of Van Der Beek with Burnham because it constitutes simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. The generic conductive adhesive of Van Der Beek achieves the same result of having an adhesive, biocompatible material that is electrically conductive that the more specific non-hydrogel embodiment of Burnham teaches.
Claims 4 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palti, Van Der Beek, Lee, and Burnham further in view of El-Kady et al (US10982119 B2); hereinafter El-Kady. The combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, Lee, and Burnham fails to teach what the conductive particles specifically are. El-Kady teaches the first conductive particles comprise graphite powder, carbon flakes, carbon granules, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanowires, or carbon black powder (column 16 lines 12-18), or combination thereof, and
wherein the second conductive particles comprise graphite powder, carbon flakes, carbon granules, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, carbon nanowires, or carbon black powder, or combination thereof (duplication of parts).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, and Burnham with El-Kady because it constitutes simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results (MPEP 2143 Rationale B). El-Kady substitutes the generic conductive particles of Burnham with a specific embodiment including graphite powder, carbon fibers, carbon nanotubes, or carbon black powder that fulfills the same purpose of conducting electricity through a dielectric adhesive material.
Claims 9,11,13, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palti, Van Der Beek, and Lee further in view of Deslauriers et al (US 20210138233 A1); hereinafter Deslauriers.
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, and Lee teach the method of claim 8. The combination fails to teach the flow rate of ions through the non-hydrogel conductive adhesive in context of the hydrogel conductive adhesive. Deslauriers teaches the first conductive adhesive impedes the flow of ions to a level that is less than 20% of a flow rate that would be expected if a hydrogel was used instead of the first conductive adhesive ([0058] free salt in hydrogels enhances ionic flow within a conductive gel), and
wherein the second conductive adhesive impedes the flow of ions to a level that is less than 20% of a flow rate that would be expected if a hydrogel was used instead of the second conductive adhesive (duplication of parts).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, and Lee with Deslauriers because Deslauriers is simply stating a characteristic of hydrogels that due to their very nature, they will allow greater free flow of ions than an alternative conductive adhesive. The selection of a specific value of a 20% reduction in flow rate is firstly not practical to measure or particularly useful in measuring the functioning of the device and secondly the determination of this value falls within routine optimization as there is no indication that this particular reduction in flow rate is critical or constitutes a significant improvement over the typically seen pattern that flow rate decreases if the material is a non-hydrogel compared to a hydrogel (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, and Lee teaches the method of claim 8. Palti further teaches the alternating voltage has a frequency of 100 kHz - 500 Hz ( [0005] the alternating voltage that is applied between the first set of electrode elements and the second set of electrode elements has a frequency between 100 kHz and 300 kHz). The combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, and Lee fails to teach the flow rate of ions through the non-hydrogel conductive adhesive in context of the hydrogel conductive adhesive. Deslauriers teaches the first conductive adhesive impedes the flow of ions to a level that is less than 10% of a flow rate that would be expected if a hydrogel was used instead of the first conductive adhesive ([0058] free salt in hydrogels enhances ionic flow within a conductive gel), and
wherein the second conductive adhesive impedes the flow of ions to a level that is less than 10% of a flow rate that would be expected if a hydrogel was used instead of the second conductive adhesive (duplication of parts).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, and Lee with Deslauriers because Deslauriers is simply stating a characteristic of hydrogels that due to their very nature, they will allow greater free flow of ions than an alternative conductive adhesive. The selection of a specific value of a 10% reduction in flow rate is firstly not practical to measure or particularly useful in measuring the functioning of the device and secondly the determination of this value falls within routine optimization as there is no indication that this particular reduction in flow rate is critical or constitutes a significant improvement over the typically seen pattern that flow rate decreases if the material is a non-hydrogel compared to a hydrogel (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, and Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 12. The combination fails to teach the flow rate of ions through the non-hydrogel conductive adhesive in context of the hydrogel conductive adhesive. Deslauriers teaches the first conductive adhesive is configured to impede the flow of ions to a level that is less than 20% of a flow rate that would be expected if a hydrogel was used instead of the first conductive adhesive ([0058] free salt in hydrogels enhances ionic flow within a conductive gel), and
wherein the second conductive adhesive is configured to impede the flow of ions to a level that is less than 20% of a flow rate that would be expected if a hydrogel was used instead of the second conductive adhesive (duplication of parts).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Van Der Beek and Palti with Deslauriers because Deslauriers is simply stating a characteristic of hydrogels that due to their very nature, they will allow greater free flow of ions than an alternative conductive adhesive. The selection of a specific value of a 20% reduction in flow rate is firstly not practical to measure or particularly useful in measuring the functioning of the device and secondly the determination of this value falls within routine optimization as there is no indication that this particular reduction in flow rate is critical or constitutes a significant improvement over the typically seen pattern that flow rate decreases if the material is a non-hydrogel compared to a hydrogel (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, and Lee teaches the apparatus of claim 12. Palti further teaches the alternating voltage has a frequency of 100 kHz- 500 Hz ([0005] the alternating voltage that is applied between the first set of electrode elements and the second set of electrode elements has a frequency between 100 kHz and 300 kHz). The combination fails to teach the flow rate of ions through the non-hydrogel conductive adhesive in context of the hydrogel conductive adhesive. Deslauriers teaches the first conductive adhesive is configured to impede the flow of ions to a level that is less than 10% of a flow rate that would be expected if a hydrogel was used instead of the first conductive adhesive ([0058] free salt in hydrogels enhances ionic flow within a conductive gel), and
wherein the second conductive adhesive is configured to impede the flow of ions to a level that is less than 10% of a flow rate that would be expected if a hydrogel was used instead of the second conductive adhesive (duplication of parts).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention to modify the combination of Van Der Beek and Palti with Deslauriers because Deslauriers is simply stating a characteristic of hydrogels that due to their very nature, they will allow greater free flow of ions than an alternative conductive adhesive. The selection of a specific value of a 10% reduction in flow rate is firstly not practical to measure or particularly useful in measuring the functioning of the device and secondly the determination of this value falls within routine optimization as there is no indication that this particular reduction in flow rate is critical or constitutes a significant improvement over the typically seen pattern that flow rate decreases if the material is a non-hydrogel compared to a hydrogel (MPEP 2144.05(II)(A)).
Claim 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palti, Van Der Beek, Lee, and Burnham further in view of Kim et al (US 20200190372 A1); hereinafter Kim.
The combination of Van Der Beek, Palti, Lee, and Burnham teaches the apparatus of claim 16. The combination fails to teach a dielectric material being a polymeric adhesive. Kim teaches the first dielectric material is a polymeric adhesive (polymer matrix – abstract), and wherein the second dielectric material is a polymeric adhesive (duplication of parts). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this invention that the most reasonable choice for the dielectric material would be a polymeric adhesive because it would have been obvious to try (Rationale E MPEP 2143(I)) as it is choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. There are very limited dielectric materials that are capable of having conductive particles dispersed within it that are biocompatible for use on the skin and also have the appropriate form factor for a skin electrode. Using a polymer based adhesive also has a reasonable expectation of success because most skin electrodes already use hydrogels and the like with polymer matrices.
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 Dhrasti SNEHAL Dalal whose telephone number is (571)272-0780. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8:30 am - 6:00 pm, Alternate Friday off, 8:30 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Carl Layno can be reached at (571) 272-4949. 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.
/D.S.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/CARL H LAYNO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3796