FINAL 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 .
This is the second office action on the merits. This office action is in response to the amendment filed on 07/15/2026. Applicant has amended claims 1-5, 8-12, 17, 19-20, and 23 and canceled claims 7 and 16. Claims 4 and 14 remain withdrawn from further consideration. Claims 1-3, 5-6, 8-13, 15, and 17-23 are pending and examined.
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:
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-6, 9-13, 15, 18-20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman (US 5,904,668: IDS reference), in view of Despa (US 2016/0213843 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hyman teaches (Figs. 1, 7, and 8a-8c) an infusion pump (10 – Fig. 1), comprising:
a housing (housing of 10) comprising a pump (10) and a receptacle (Fig. 1: beneath door 30);
an infusion cassette (12 – Fig. 1) that includes tubing (40, 52, and 54 – Fig. 1) for passage of an infusate (col. 3, l. 46), the infusion cassette (12) fitting into the receptacle whereby the tubing (40, 52, and 54) is adjacent the pump (10) when fully inserted, the infusion cassette (12) further comprising at least one hole or marking (notches as described in col. 10, ll. 6-7) on a detection surface thereof that identifies at least a type of the infusion cassette (col. 10, ll. 6-7: “Each cassette could be uniquely identified by the presence (or absence) of two notches”); and
an infusion cassette detection system (320 – Figs. 7 and 8a-8c) that detects the type of the infusion cassette (12) when the infusion cassette (12) is fully inserted in the receptacle of the housing (10), the infusion cassette detection system (320) comprising at least one emitter/detector pair including an emitter (transmitter) that emits light to the detection surface of the infusion cassette and a corresponding detector (associated receiver) that receives reflected light (col. 10, ll. 4-6: “each light detector having a transmitter which transmits a light beam to an associated receiver”), and a controller (200 – Fig. 7) that determines a presence or absence of the at least one hole or marking on the detection surface from the reflected light and that determines the type of the infusion cassette (12) in accordance with the determination of the presence or absence of the at least one hole or marking (via cassette sensor 320 and I/O interface 204 – see col. 7, ll. 24-28),
wherein the controller (200) determines the type of the infusion cassette (12) by determining a code represented by a presence or absence of the at least one hole or marking on the detection surface of the infusion cassette (col. 10, ll. 6-7: “Each cassette could be uniquely identified by the presence (or absence) of two notches”. In this case, the “code” would be the presence or absence of the two notches).
However, Hyman does not teach that the controller uses the code to further limit operation of the pump to specific drugs in a drug library.
Despa teaches (Figs. 1A-3) a similar infusion pump (100 – Figs. 1A-2) comprising a controller (160 – Fig. 3) that determines a presence or absence of the at least one hole or marking on the detection surface from the reflected light and that determines the type of an infusion cassette (tubing that contains the liquid to be pumped – see ¶ [0038], ll. 5-7) in accordance with the determination of the presence or absence of the at least one hole or marking (¶ [0065], ll. 4-5: “The identification sensors 185 can detect the identity of the RF tag or bar code on the infusate”), and a drug library (¶ [0005], l. 8: “Existing devices can store and retrieve drug libraries”); and further teaches:
wherein the controller (160) determines the type of the infusion cassette by determining a code represented by a presence or absence of the at least one hole or marking on the detection surface of the infusion cassette (as discussed in ¶ [0065], ll. 4-5) and uses the code to further limit operation of the pump to specific drugs in the drug library (¶ [0065], ll. 6-11: “The computing module 160 can be configured to compare the identification information from the identification sensors 185 to information programmed into the infusion device 100. If the identity of the infusate is not confirmed, the computing module 160 can be configured to prevent infusion from occurring”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyman such that the controller uses the code to further limit operation of the pump to specific drugs in a drug library, in order to provide safeguards capable of preventing gross programming errors if ineffective or life-threatening infusion parameters are attempted for a particular drug, as taught by Despa (¶ [0005], ll. 8-11).
Regarding claim 2, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Hyman further teaches (Fig. 7) the controller (200) controls operation of the pump (10 – Fig. 1) in accordance with the determined type of the infusion cassette (col. 8, ll. 57-60: “The infusion pump 10 has the capability to alter its operation based upon the type of cassette 12 which is inserted into the pump 10, as determined by the cassette sensor 320”).
Regarding claim 3, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Hyman further teaches (Fig. 7) the controller (200) uses the code as a search criterion into at least one of a drug library database or a library of available infusion cassettes (col. 10, ll. 13-16: “Thus, the use of two light detectors and two associated notch locations would allow detection of four different types of cassettes, thus allowing four pre-programmed modes of pump operation”).
Regarding claim 5, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Hyman further teaches (Fig. 1) the code represents at least one pumping parameter of the pump (10) – (col. 10, ll. 13-16: “Thus, the use of two light detectors and two associated notch locations would allow detection of four different types of cassettes, thus allowing four pre-programmed modes of pump operation”).
Regarding claim 6, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 5, and Hyman further teaches (Fig. 7) the controller (200) controls operation of the pump (10 – Fig. 1) in accordance with the at least one pumping parameter (col. 7, ll. 43-45: “The operation of the infusion pump 10 is controlled by a computer program stored in the EPROM 204 and executed by the controller 200”).
Regarding claim 9, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Hyman further teaches (Fig. 8a-8c) the infusion cassette detection system (320) further comprises at least one mechanical, electrical, or electro-mechanical sensor (as shown in Figs. 8a-8c, cassette sensor 320 is an electrical sensor that comprises an electrical circuit) adapted to detect at least one of a shape of the infusion cassette, an indentation in the infusion cassette, a textured surface of the infusion cassette, a presence or absence of at least one notch in the infusion cassette (in this case, sensor 320 is adapted to detect the presence or absence of notches as described in col. 10, ll. 6-7), or a presence or absence of at least one of a quick response (QR) code, a radiofrequency identification (RFID) tag, or a product name.
Regarding claim 10, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Hyman further teaches (Fig. 7) two sensors (col. 10, ll. 3-4: “two light detectors could be disposed side by side in the top portion of the pump”) that are adapted to calibrate the infusion cassette detection system (320), wherein a measurement by a first sensor corresponds to the at least one hole or marking in the detection surface of the infusion cassette (12 – Fig. 1) when the infusion cassette (12) is fully inserted into the receptacle and a measurement by a second sensor corresponds to an absence of the at least one hole or marking in the detection surface of the infusion cassette (12) when the infusion cassette (12) is fully inserted (col. 10, ll. 8-13: “Each light detector would detect the presence of a notch because the light beam would be uninterrupted when the cassette was inserted into the pump, whereas the absence of a notch would cause the light beam to be interrupted upon insertion of the cassette”).
Regarding claim 11, Hyman teaches (Figs. 1, 7, and 8a-8c) a method of operating an infusion pump (10 – Fig. 1), comprising:
inserting an infusion cassette (12 – Fig. 1) into a receptacle (Fig. 1: beneath door 30) of a housing (housing of 10) of the infusion pump (10) whereby tubing (40, 52, and 54 – Fig. 1) of the infusion pump (10) adapted for passage of an infusate (col. 3, l. 46) is adjacent a pump (10) of the housing when fully inserted in the receptacle (col. 3, ll. 32-33: “When the cassette 12…is inserted into the pump 10”);
detecting (using cassette sensor 320) at least one hole or marking (notches as described in col. 10, ll. 6-7) on a detection surface of the infusion cassette (12) that identifies at least a type of the infusion cassette (12) by using at least one emitter/detector pair (transmitter/receiver) to emit light to the detection surface of the infusion cassette (12) and to receive reflected light indicative of a presence or absence of the at least one hole or marking on the detection surface (col. 10, ll. 4-6: “each light detector having a transmitter which transmits a light beam to an associated receiver”); and
determining a code represented by a presence or absence of the at least one hole or marking on the detection surface from the reflected light, the code representing the type of the infusion cassette (col. 10, ll. 6-7: “Each cassette could be uniquely identified by the presence (or absence) of two notches”. In this case, the “code” would be the presence or absence of the two notches).
However, Hyman does not teach using the code to further limit operation of the pump to specific drugs in a drug library.
Despa teaches (Figs. 1A-3) a similar infusion pump (100 – Figs. 1A-2) comprising a controller (160 – Fig. 3) that determines a presence or absence of the at least one hole or marking on the detection surface from the reflected light and that determines the type of an infusion cassette (tubing that contains the liquid to be pumped – see ¶ [0038], ll. 5-7) in accordance with the determination of the presence or absence of the at least one hole or marking (¶ [0065], ll. 4-5: “The identification sensors 185 can detect the identity of the RF tag or bar code on the infusate”), and a drug library (¶ [0005], l. 8: “Existing devices can store and retrieve drug libraries”); and further teaches:
determining (via controller 160) a code represented by a presence or absence of the at least one hole or marking on the detection surface from the reflected light, the code representing the type of the infusion cassette (as discussed in ¶ [0065], ll. 4-5); and
using (via controller 160) the code to further limit operation of the pump to specific drugs in the drug library (¶ [0065], ll. 6-11: “The computing module 160 can be configured to compare the identification information from the identification sensors 185 to information programmed into the infusion device 100. If the identity of the infusate is not confirmed, the computing module 160 can be configured to prevent infusion from occurring”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyman by using the code to further limit operation of the pump to specific drugs in a drug library, in order to provide safeguards capable of preventing gross programming errors if ineffective or life-threatening infusion parameters are attempted for a particular drug, as taught by Despa (¶ [0005], ll. 8-11).
Regarding claim 12, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 11, and Hyman further teaches (Fig. 7) controlling (using controller 200) operation of the pump (10 – Fig. 1) in accordance with the determined type of the infusion cassette (col. 8, ll. 57-60: “The infusion pump 10 has the capability to alter its operation based upon the type of cassette 12 which is inserted into the pump 10, as determined by the cassette sensor 320”).
Regarding claim 13, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 11, and Hyman further teaches (Fig. 7) using the code as a search criterion into at least one of a drug library database or a library of available infusion cassettes (col. 10, ll. 13-16: “Thus, the use of two light detectors and two associated notch locations would allow detection of four different types of cassettes, thus allowing four pre-programmed modes of pump operation”).
Regarding claim 15, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 11, and Hyman further teaches (Figs. 1 and 7) the code represents at least one pumping parameter of the pump (10 – Fig. 1) – (col. 10, ll. 13-16: “Thus, the use of two light detectors and two associated notch locations would allow detection of four different types of cassettes, thus allowing four pre-programmed modes of pump operation”), further comprising controlling (using controller 200 – Fig. 7) operation of the pump (10) in accordance with the at least one pumping parameter (col. 7, ll. 43-45: “The operation of the infusion pump 10 is controlled by a computer program stored in the EPROM 204 and executed by the controller 200”).
Regarding claim 18, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 11, and Hyman further teaches (Fig. 7 and 8a-8c) detecting (using cassette sensor 320) at least one of a shape of the infusion cassette, an indentation in the infusion cassette, a textured surface of the infusion cassette, a presence or absence of at least one notch in the infusion cassette (in this case, sensor 320 is adapted to detect the presence or absence of notches as described in col. 10, ll. 6-7), or a presence or absence of at least one of a quick response (QR) code, a radiofrequency identification (RFID) tag, or a product name.
Regarding claim 19, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 11, and Hyman further teaches (Fig. 7) calibrating a detection system (320, see also col. 10, ll. 3-4: “two light detectors could be disposed side by side in the top portion of the pump”) using a measurement by a first sensor to correspond to the at least one hole or marking in the detection surface of the infusion cassette (12 – Fig. 1) when the infusion cassette (12) is fully inserted into the receptacle and a measurement by a second sensor to correspond to an absence of the at least one hole or marking in the detection surface of the infusion cassette (12) when the infusion cassette (12) is fully inserted (col. 10, ll. 8-13: “Each light detector would detect the presence of a notch because the light beam would be uninterrupted when the cassette was inserted into the pump, whereas the absence of a notch would cause the light beam to be interrupted upon insertion of the cassette”).
Regarding claim 20, Hyman teaches (Figs. 1, 7, and 8a-8c) a non-transitory controller-readable storage medium (EPROM 204 – Fig. 7) storing controller-executable instructions that, when executed by a controller (200 – Fig. 7) of an infusion pump (10 – Fig. 1), cause the infusion pump (10) to perform operations comprising (col. 7, ll. 43-45: “The operation of the infusion pump 10 is controlled by a computer program stored in the EPROM 204 and executed by the controller 200”):
detecting insertion of an infusion cassette (12 – Fig. 1) into a receptacle (Fig. 1: beneath door 30) of a housing (housing of 10) of the infusion pump (10) whereby tubing (40, 52, and 54 – Fig. 1) of the infusion pump (10) adapted for passage of an infusate (col. 3, l. 46) is adjacent a pump (10) of the housing when fully inserted in the receptacle (col. 3, ll. 32-33: “When the cassette 12…is inserted into the pump 10”);
detecting (using cassette sensor 320) at least one hole or marking (notches as described in col. 10, ll. 6-7) on a detection surface of the infusion cassette (12) that identifies at least a type of the infusion cassette (12) by using at least one emitter/detector pair (transmitter/receiver) to emit light to the detection surface of the infusion cassette (12) and to receive reflected light indicative of a presence or absence of the at least one hole or marking on the detection surface (col. 10, ll. 4-6: “each light detector having a transmitter which transmits a light beam to an associated receiver”); and
determining a code represented by a presence or absence of the at least one hole or marking on the detection surface from the reflected light, the code representing the type of the infusion cassette (col. 10, ll. 6-7: “Each cassette could be uniquely identified by the presence (or absence) of two notches”. In this case, the “code” would be the presence or absence of the two notches).
However, Hyman does not teach using the code to further limit operation of the pump to specific drugs in a drug library.
Despa teaches (Figs. 1A-3) a similar non-transitory controller-readable storage medium (memory 198 – Fig. 3) storing controller-executable instructions that, when executed by a controller (160 – Fig. 3) of an infusion pump (100 – Figs. 1A-2), cause the infusion pump (100) to perform operations comprising:
detecting (using identification sensors 185) at least one hole or marking on a detection surface of the infusion cassette (12) that identifies at least a type of an infusion cassette (tubing that contains the liquid to be pumped – see ¶ [0038], ll. 5-7) by using at least one emitter/detector pair (transmitter/receiver) to emit light to the detection surface of the infusion cassette and to receive reflected light indicative of a presence or absence of the at least one hole or marking on the detection surface (¶ [0065], ll. 4-5: “The identification sensors 185 can detect the identity of the RF tag or bar code on the infusate”), and a drug library (¶ [0005], l. 8: “Existing devices can store and retrieve drug libraries”); and further teaches:
determining a code represented by a presence or absence of the at least one hole or marking on the detection surface from the reflected light, the code representing the type of the infusion cassette (as discussed in ¶ [0065], ll. 4-5); and
using the code to further limit operation of the pump to specific drugs in the drug library (¶ [0065], ll. 6-11: “The computing module 160 can be configured to compare the identification information from the identification sensors 185 to information programmed into the infusion device 100. If the identity of the infusate is not confirmed, the computing module 160 can be configured to prevent infusion from occurring”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyman by using the code to further limit operation of the pump to specific drugs in a drug library, in order to provide safeguards capable of preventing gross programming errors if ineffective or life-threatening infusion parameters are attempted for a particular drug, as taught by Despa (¶ [0005], ll. 8-11).
Regarding claim 22, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 20, and Hyman further teaches (Figs. 1, 7, and 8a-8c) instructions that when executed by the controller (200 – Fig. 7) of the infusion pump (10 – Fig. 1) cause the infusion pump (10) to detect (using cassette sensor 320) at least one of a shape of the infusion cassette, an indentation in the infusion cassette, a textured surface of the infusion cassette, a presence or absence of at least one notch in the infusion cassette (in this case, sensor 320 is adapted to detect the presence or absence of notches as described in col. 10, ll. 6-7), or a presence or absence of at least one of a quick response (QR) code, a radiofrequency identification (RFID) tag, or a product name.
Regarding claim 23, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 20, and Hyman further teaches (Figs. 1 and 7) instructions that when executed by the controller (200 – Fig. 7) of the infusion pump (10 – Fig. 1) cause the infusion pump (10) to calibrate a detection system (320, see also col. 10, ll. 3-4: “two light detectors could be disposed side by side in the top portion of the pump”) using a measurement by a first sensor to correspond to the at least one hole or marking in the detection surface of the infusion cassette (12 – Fig. 1) when the infusion cassette (12) is fully inserted into the receptacle and a measurement by a second sensor to correspond to an absence of the at least one hole or marking in the detection surface of the infusion cassette (12) when the infusion cassette (12) is fully inserted (col. 10, ll. 8-13: “Each light detector would detect the presence of a notch because the light beam would be uninterrupted when the cassette was inserted into the pump, whereas the absence of a notch would cause the light beam to be interrupted upon insertion of the cassette”).
Claims 8, 17, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyman (US 5,904,668: IDS reference), in view of Despa (US 2016/0213843 A1), and in further view of Olsen (US 6,123,686: IDS reference).
Regarding claim 8, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Hyman further teaches (Fig. 1) a user interface (keypad 14 and display 16).
However, Hyman, in view of Despa, does not teach the controller uses the code to identify a mismatch between a selected drug and an installed infusion cassette and notifies a user via the user interface.
Olsen teaches (Fig. 1) a similar infusion pump (20) comprising an infusion cassette detection system (42) that identifies cassettes (26) based on a code (40) printed on the cassette (26), and additionally comprises a controller (24) and a user interface (keypad 36 and display 38); and further teaches:
the controller (24) uses the code (40) to identify a mismatch between a selected drug and an installed infusion cassette (26) and notifies a user via the user interface (col. 3, ll. 1-6: “The pump apparatus may include an audible signal device for generating an appropriate audible signal when the control module has identified either a correct cassette or an incorrect cassette. Visual signals, such as a green and/or red LED, may be provided with the pump to indicate the appropriateness of the cassette sensed”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyman, in view of Despa, such that the controller uses the code to identify a mismatch between a selected drug and an installed infusion cassette and notifies a user via the user interface, in order to decrease the chance for human error and to provide a safer and more effective system, as taught by Olsen (col. 4, ll. 7-10).
Regarding claim 17, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 11, and Hyman further teaches (Fig. 1) a user interface (keypad 14 and display 16).
However, Hyman, in view of Despa, does not teach using the code to identify a mismatch between a selected drug and an installed infusion cassette and notifying a user via the user interface.
Olsen teaches (Fig. 1) a similar infusion pump (20) comprising an infusion cassette detection system (42) that identifies cassettes (26) based on a code (40) printed on the cassette (26), and additionally comprises a controller (24) and a user interface (keypad 36 and display 38); and further teaches:
using the code (40) to identify a mismatch between a selected drug and an installed infusion cassette (26) and notifying a user via the user interface (col. 3, ll. 1-6: “The pump apparatus may include an audible signal device for generating an appropriate audible signal when the control module has identified either a correct cassette or an incorrect cassette. Visual signals, such as a green and/or red LED, may be provided with the pump to indicate the appropriateness of the cassette sensed”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyman, in view of Despa, by including the step of using the code to identify a mismatch between a selected drug and an installed infusion cassette and notifying a user via the user interface, in order to decrease the chance for human error and to provide a safer and more effective system, as taught by Olsen (col. 4, ll. 7-10).
Regarding claim 21, Hyman, in view of Despa, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 20, and Hyman further teaches (Fig. 1) a user interface (keypad 14 and display 16).
However, Hyman, in view of Despa, does not teach instructions that when executed by the controller of the infusion pump cause the infusion pump to use the code to identify a mismatch between a selected drug and an installed infusion cassette and notifies a user via the user interface.
Olsen teaches (Fig. 1) a similar infusion pump (20) comprising an infusion cassette detection system (42) that identifies cassettes (26) based on a code (40) printed on the cassette (26), and additionally comprises a controller (24) and a user interface (keypad 36 and display 38); and further teaches:
the infusion pump uses the code (40) to identify a mismatch between a selected drug and an installed infusion cassette (26) and notifies a user via the user interface (col. 3, ll. 1-6: “The pump apparatus may include an audible signal device for generating an appropriate audible signal when the control module has identified either a correct cassette or an incorrect cassette. Visual signals, such as a green and/or red LED, may be provided with the pump to indicate the appropriateness of the cassette sensed”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Hyman, in view of Despa, by including instructions that when executed by the controller of the infusion pump cause the infusion pump to use the code to identify a mismatch between a selected drug and an installed infusion cassette and to notify a user via the user interface, in order to decrease the chance for human error and to provide a safer and more effective system, as taught by Olsen (col. 4, ll. 7-10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the new limitation(s) in claims 1, 11, and 20 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by Applicant's amendments. To the extent possible, Applicant's arguments have been addressed in the body of the prior-art rejections at the appropriate locations.
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 HENRY NG whose telephone number is (571)272-2318. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30 AM - 6:30 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571-272-7118. 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.
/HENRY NG/ /GERALD L SUNG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights