DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 8/26/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-11 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5/29/2025.
Applicant amended claim 1 to include “the optical element is a lens member.” While element is a generic placeholder, the lens member is sufficient structure to perform the recited function. Therefore, “the optical element” does not invoke a 112(f) interpretation and the 112(f) interpretation previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5/29/2025 is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5, filed 8/26/2025, with respect to the 112(f) interpretations of claims 1 and 7, have been fully considered and are not persuasive in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The applicant argues that “insertion section” and “bendable section” do not invoke an interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f). Examiner respectfully disagrees. “Section” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and is not preceded by a structural modifier. Examiner suggests the use of structural language such as “an insertion lumen” or the deletion of the functional language in order to avoid the invocation of an interpretation under 35 USC § 112(f) for claims 1 and 7.
Accordingly, the interpretation invoked under 35 USC § 112(f) of “insertion section” and “bendable section” as set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 5/29/2025 stands. Please see section Claim Interpretation below for further explanation.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed 8/26/2025, with respect to the rejections under 35 USC § 103 of Claim 1, have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of Applicant’s amendments. Applicant amended the independent claim with newly added limitations. Such newly added limitations change the scope of the claims, render the previous 103 rejections identified in the non-final dated 5/29/2025 moot, and require a new ground of rejection.
The applicant argues that neither Yajima nor Ito disclose or suggest the connector with a light guide rod as amended. Examiner agrees that the embodiments of Yajima and Ito cited in the non-final action dated 5/29/2025 do not disclose the light guide rod as claimed.
Therefore, the 103 rejections previously identified in the non-final action dated 5/29/2025 have been withdrawn.
However, upon further search and consideration, a new ground of rejection is made. A secondary embodiment of Yajima discloses the connector with a light guide rod as claimed. Please see section 35 USC § 103 below for further explanation.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 8/26/2025, with respect to the nonstatutory double patenting rejections of Claims 1, 8, and 10-11, have been fully considered and are not persuasive in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The applicant argues that the office action does not provide an analysis of the factors under Graham. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In paragraphs 14-15 of the non-final action dated 5/29/2025, the analysis of the factors under Graham are detailed. For instance, the office action details the elements disclosed in copending application No. 17/936,693 which read on the claimed invention, the differences between the details disclosed in the copending application and the claimed invention, how Kawamata is analogous to the claimed invention, and a rationale for making the disclosed combination between the copending application No. 17/936,693 and Kawamata.
However, Applicant amended the independent claim with newly added limitations. Such newly added limitations change the scope of the claims and copending application No. 17/936,693 does not disclose the light guide rod as claimed.
Therefore, the nonstatutory double patenting rejections previously identified in the non-final action dated 5/29/2025 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, lines 2-3, “wherein lens member” should read “wherein the lens member.” This suggested modification would eliminate potential scope clarity issues regarding antecedent basis.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an insertion section to be inserted into an object to be examined” in claim 1 and “a bendable section that changes an orientation of the distal end portion” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
The specification discloses in paragraph 0019 and figure 1 that the “insertion section” is an elongated rigid tube. The language in claim 1 will be interpreted as requiring the disclosed structure in paragraph 0019 and figure 1, or equivalents.
The specification discloses in figure 16 that the “bendable section” is a flexible elongated tube. The language in claim 7 will be interpreted as requiring the disclosed structure in figure 16, or equivalents.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, and 7-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the optical member" in line 23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the optical member” is being interpreted as “the optical element.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the emission end of one light guide" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the emission end of one light guide” is being interpreted as “an emission end of one light guide.”
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the incident end of another light guide" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purposes of examination, “the incident end of another light guide” is being interpreted as “an incident end of another light guide.”
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the optical element is provided in the operation part” in line 4. However, in claim 1, the optical element is established as “disposed in the light guide rod” of the connector which is inserted into the light source device. Applicant’s specification discloses a third embodiment with an optical element in the operation part in Fig. 16. In paragraph 0087 of the Applicant’s specification, the third embodiment is detailed to include a connector which does not hold the second light guide and the lens member. Therefore, the number of optical elements in the endoscope system and the structure of the endoscope system is unknown.
Claims 3, 5, 7, and 9-11 are rejected as being dependent upon claims previously rejected under 35 USC § 112(b).
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In regards to claim 5, the claim reads “wherein the endoscope includes a connector to be connected to the light source device, and the optical element is disposed in the connector.”
Claim 1 recites “wherein the endoscope includes a connector to be connected to the light source device” and “the optical element and the plurality of the light guides are disposed in the light guide rod” which is disposed in the connector.
As such, claim 5 is improperly dependent as it fails to limit claim 1 from which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 3-5, 8-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2017/0035275 A1 to Yajima et al. (“Yajima”) in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2008/0089089 A1 to Hama et al. (“Hama”).
Regarding claim 1, Yajima discloses an endoscope system (endoscope apparatus 100; Fig. 9, paragraph 0072) comprising:
an endoscope that includes an insertion section to be inserted into an object to be examined (endoscope apparatuses for use in biological observation are configured to insert the scope 111 partially into a body cavity; Fig. 9, paragraph 0005), an illumination light-emission end provided at a distal end portion of the insertion section (these apparatuses use a single mode optical fiber to transmit illumination light from the laser light source to the scope leading end, the single mode optical fiber 124b passes through inside the scope 111 and extends to the vicinity of the tip thereof; Fig. 9-10, tip of #111 and #124b, paragraph 0004 and paragraph 0071), and a light guide unit which guides illumination light (The LDs 122R, 122G, 122B of the endoscope body 110 each emit laser light as illumination light, which is input to the multiplexer 123 through mutually different single mode fibers 127 and multiplexed, before being output to a single mode optical fiber 124a. The single mode optical fiber 124b passes through inside the scope 111 and extends to the vicinity of the tip thereof; Fig. 10, paragraph 0071); and
a light source device that is connected to the endoscope, includes a plurality of light sources emitting color lights different from each other, and emits illumination light in which a plurality of color lights are mixed by the plurality of light sources (the endoscope body 110 is configured by including … semiconductor lasers (laser diodes (LDs)) 122R, 122G, 122B as semiconductor light sources of red, green, blue; Fig. 10, paragraph 0070),
wherein the light guide unit includes a light guide that guides the illumination light emitted from the plurality of light sources to the illumination light-emission end in a case where the endoscope is connected to the light source device (The LDs 122R, 122G, 122B of the endoscope body 110 each emit laser light as illumination light, which is input to the multiplexer 123 through mutually different single mode fibers 127 and multiplexed, before being output to a single mode optical fiber 124a. The single mode optical fiber 124b passes through inside the scope 111 and extends to the vicinity of the tip thereof; Fig. 10, #124a-124b, paragraph 0071), and
an optical element (GRIN lens 29a; Fig. 8, paragraph 0050) is provided in the endoscope at a portion that is closer to a proximal end side of the insertion section of the endoscope than to the illumination light- emission end and that has stiffness (the optical connection point 151 is implemented as the adapter and the connectors described in embodiments 1 to 3; Fig. 10, paragraph 0071),
wherein the light guide unit includes a plurality of the light guides (single mode optical fibers 22a, 22b; Fig. 8, #22a-b, paragraph 0067) and the optical element is a lens member disposed between the plurality of the light guides (A lens 29a is accommodated in a tip end of the ferrule 23a; Fig. 8, paragraph 0050),
wherein the endoscope includes a connector to be connected to the light source device (the optical connection point 151 is implemented as the adapter and the connectors described in embodiments 1 to 3; Fig. 10, #151, paragraph 0071),
the connector includes a light guide rod (the inner cylindrical part 14 of the adapter housing 11; Fig. 8, paragraph 0066) that is to be inserted into the light source device in a case where the connector is connected to the light source device (the adapter housing 11 is inserted into the endoscope body 110 as indicated in Fig. 8; Fig. 8), and
the optical member and the plurality of the light guides are disposed in the light guide rod (a lens 29a and optical fibers 22a and 22b are disposed in the inner cylindrical part 14; Fig. 8).
However, Yajima does not explicitly teach an optical member that suppresses a variation in a relative intensity of each color light of the illumination light with respect to a light distribution angle.
Hama teaches an optical member that suppresses a variation in a relative intensity of each color light of the illumination light with respect to a light distribution angle (the lens function causes the wavelength-converted excitation light to be converged more reliably at the emission portion, so color variance can be eliminated; Fig. 2, #13, paragraph 0188). Hama teaches that reducing color variation can be useful for providing light close to natural light which is necessary for accurate reproduction of color information when observing and diagnosing an affected area of an organ or within a cavity (paragraph 0004).
Hama is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of light sources for endoscopes. It would have been prima facie obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the lens of Yajima to incorporate the teachings of Hama by changing the shape of the lens from a GRIN lens to a plano-convex lens. Doing so would suppress color variation which is useful for providing light close to natural light thereby allowing accurate reproduction of color information when observing and diagnosing an affected area of an organ or within a cavity, as recognized by Hama.
Regarding claim 3, Yajima, as previously modified by Hama, teaches the endoscope system according to claim 1. Yajima further teaches wherein the light guide located on a proximal end of the lens and the lens member are disposed at a position where an emission point of the illumination light guided by the lightguide located on the proximal end of the lens is closer to the lens member than to a focal point of the lens member on an incident side (the lens 29a and the single mode optical fiber 22a are brough into contact with each other; Fig. 8, paragraph 0050). As shown in Fig. 10 of the applicant’s disclosure, the focal point of a plano-convex lens has a focal length greater than zero. Therefore, the plano-convex lens of Yajima, as modified by Hama, is suspected to have a focal length greater than zero.
Regarding claim 4, Yajima, as previously modified by Hama, teaches the endoscope system according to claim 1. Yajima further teaches wherein lens member is spaced apart at an interval from the emission end of one light guide and the incident end of another light guide guides (the lens 29a and the single mode optical fiber 22a are … in a fixed state with a certain gap therebetween; Fig. 8, paragraph 0050).
Examiner’s Note: Regarding the rejection of claims 3 and 4, Yajima teaches each claim with mutually exclusive characteristics. Yajima does not explicitly teach a light guide unit in which the light guide simultaneously is disposed closer to the lens than the focal point and is spaced apart at an interval from the lens.
Regarding claim 5, Yajima, as previously modified by Hama, teaches the endoscope system according to claim 1. Yajima further teaches wherein the endoscope includes a connector to be connected to the light source device (the optical connection point 151 is implemented as the adapter and the connectors described in embodiments 1 to 3; Fig. 10, paragraph 0071), and the optical element is disposed in the connector (the lens 29a is disposed inside the adapter housing 11; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Yajima, as previously modified by Hama, teaches the endoscope system according to claim 1. Yajima further teaches wherein the endoscope includes an operation part connected to the insertion section (a scope 111 detachably connected to an endoscope body 110; Fig. 9, paragraph 0069), and
the optical element is provided in the operation part (the lens 29a is disposed inside the adapter housing 11; Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 9, Yajima, as previously modified by Hama, teaches the endoscope system according to claim 1. Yajima does not explicitly teach wherein a dimension from an incident end to an emission end of a light guide, which is positioned on an incident side of the optical element, among the plurality of light guides in a direction of an optical axis is 5 mm or more. While the reference does not explicitly disclose the specific length of the light guide, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to change the length of the light guide, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size (or dimension) of a component. A change in size (dimension) is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955). Where the only difference between the prior art and the claims is a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and the device having the claimed dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the prior art device, Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). It is well known in the art that the light guide must have a length long enough to connect the light source to the optical member and that many design parameters are taken into consideration when determining the length of the light guide.
Regarding claim 11, Yajima, as previously modified by Hama, teaches the endoscope system according to claim 1. Hama further teaches wherein in a case where a relative intensity of one color light among the plurality of color lights emitted from the light sources is used as a reference, the lens member makes a relative intensity of the other color light have a difference of ±5% or less from the relative intensity of one color light used as the reference (the lens function causes the wavelength-converted excitation light to be converged more reliably at the emission portion, so color variance can be eliminated; paragraph 0188). Hama teaches that the plano-convex lens can be used to suppress color variation to nearly 0%. Examiner notes that the claim language is conditional and thus the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require one color light used as a reference.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima in view of Hama as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2018/0317758 A1 to Okada et al. (“Okada”).
Regarding claim 7, Yajima, as previously modified by Hama, discloses the endoscope system according to claims 1-2. Yajima discloses the optical element is provided in the endoscope at a portion other than the scope (the lens 29a is disposed inside the adapter housing 11 inserted into the endoscope body 110; Fig. 8). However, Yajima, as modified by Hama, wherein the insertion section includes a bendable section that changes an orientation of the distal end portion.
Okada teaches wherein the insertion section includes a bendable section that changes an orientation of the distal end portion (the insertion section 301 includes … a bendable bending section 305 including a plurality of bending pieces; Fig. 7, paragraph 0093).
Okada is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endoscopes with a light source. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated a bendable section in the endoscope of Yajima, as modified by Hama, as taught by Okada, to increase the functionality of the endoscope of Yajima, as modified by Hama, by providing steering means for navigating through patient’s anatomy and for directing the distal end of the endoscope at the target area.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yajima in view of Hama as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of JP Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2001281409 A to Kawamata et al. (“Kawamata”).
Regarding claim 10, Yajima, as previously modified by Hama, teaches the endoscope system according to claims 1-2. However, Yajima, as modified by Hama, does not explicitly teach wherein an antireflection film is formed on a lens surface of the lens member.
Kawamata teaches wherein an antireflection film is formed on a lens surface of the lens member (a lens with an antireflection film; paragraph 0010). Kawamata teaches that the use of an antireflection film can prevent reflection so as to be 1% or less in the visible wavelength region of 420 to 650nm, and the infrared wavelength region of 920 to 1100nm (paragraph 0012).
Kawamata is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of lenses in optical systems for endoscopes. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the lens of Yajima, as modified by Hama, to incorporate the teachings of Kawamata by adding an antireflection film to the lens surface. Doing so would help prevent reflection, as recognized by Kawamata.
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 OLIVIA G STARKEY whose telephone number is (571)272-3375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00 ET.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at 5712707235. 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.
/OLIVIA GRACE STARKEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/MICHAEL J CAREY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights