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
Claims 1-20, 31, and 61-68 are currently pending. Claims 1, 3, 5, 15, 18-20, and 31 have been amended. Claims 61-68 have been added. Claims 1, 3, 5, and 31 have been amended to render the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation moot.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-20, 31, and 61-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) as a whole, considering all claim elements both individually and in combination, do not amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. A streamlined analysis of claim 1 follows.
STEP 1
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites a series of structural elements, including recording device. Thus, the claim is directed to a machine, which is one of the statutory categories of invention.
STEP 2A, PRONG ONE
The claim is then analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exception. The steps of wherein the computing device comprises one or more processes programmed to:
construct a neurofeedback graphical user interface (GUI) comprising a plurality of graphic portions including at least a first graphic portion representing a first intention of the subject calibrated to certain previously recorded brain activity of the subject and a second graphic portion representing a second intention of the subject calibrated to certain other previously recorded brain activity of the subject, wherein the first intention comprises motor imagery or attempted movement intent, and
construct a graphic element movable between the first graphic portion and the second graphic portion, wherein the graphic element is moveable between the first graphic portion and the second graphic portion responsive to a current brain activity of the subject associated with the first intention
set forth a judicial exception. These steps describe a concept performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion). Thus, the claim is drawn to a Mental Process, which is an Abstract Idea.
STEP 2A, PRONG TWO
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The claim fails to recite an additional element or a combination of additional elements to apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limitation on the judicial exception. Claim 1 recites a display, communicatively coupled to the computing device, configured to display the neurofeedback GUI and the graphic element to the subject to aid the subject in producing brain activity that aligns with the first intention of the subject, which is merely adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The display of the neurofeedback GUI and the graphic element does not provide an improvement to the technological field, the method does not effect a particular treatment or effect a particular change based on the displayed neurofeedback GUI and graphic element, nor does the method use a particular machine to perform the Abstract Idea.
STEP 2B
Next, the claim as a whole is analyzed to determine whether any element, or combination of elements, is sufficient to ensure that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception. Besides the Abstract Idea, the claim recites additional step of a neural interface device configured to record a brain activity of a subject. Obtaining data (recording brain activity) is well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) activity for those in the field of medical diagnostics. Further, the recording step is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts to insignificant presolution activity, e.g., mere data gathering step necessary to perform the Abstract Idea. When recited at this high level of generality, there is no meaningful limitation, such as a particular or unconventional step that distinguishes it from well-understood, routine, and conventional data gathering activity engaged in by medical professionals prior to Applicant's invention. Furthermore, it is well established that the mere physical or tangible nature of additional elements such as the obtaining and comparing steps do not automatically confer eligibility on a claim directed to an abstract idea (see, e.g., Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S.Ct. 2347, 2358-59 (2014)).
Consideration of the additional elements as a combination also adds no other meaningful limitations to the exception not already present when the elements are considered separately. Unlike the eligible claim in Diehr in which the elements limiting the exception are individually conventional, but taken together act in concert to improve a technical field, the claim here does not provide an improvement to the technical field. Even when viewed as a combination, the additional elements fail to transform the exception into a patent-eligible application of that exception. Thus, the claim as a whole does not amount to significantly more than the exception itself. The claim is therefore drawn to non-statutory subject matter.
The same rationale applies to claim 31.
Regarding claim 1, the device recited in the claim is a generic device comprising generic components configured to perform the abstract idea. The recited neutral interface device is a generic sensor configured to perform pre-solutional data gathering activity, the display is a generic device configured to perform WURC displaying and does not effect a change or provide a technological improvement, and the computer device and the one or more processors are configured to perform the Abstract Idea. According to section 2106.05(f) of the MPEP, merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea does not integrate the Abstract Idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims also fail to add something more to the abstract independent claims. Claims 2, 4, 6, 9, 16, 17, 62, and 66 recite additional elements that are not significantly more. Claims 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 61, 63, 65, and 67 recite steps that add to the abstract idea as the claims recite mental processes. Claims 5, 14, and 15 recite steps of pre-solution activity of data gathering. Claims 13, 18-20, 64, and 68 recite additional elements that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The comparing and calculating steps recited in the independent claims maintain a high level of generality even when considered in combination with the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 12, 14, 15, 31, and 61-68 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hasegawa et al. ‘883 (US Pub No. 2013/0158883 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches a brain-computer interface system (Title, Abstract), comprising:
a neural interface device configured to record a brain activity of a subject (Fig. 1 brain wave measuring electrode 3 and [0040]);
a computing device communicatively coupled to the neural interface device (Fig. 1 computer 6 and [0040]), wherein the computing device comprises one or more processors programmed to:
construct a neurofeedback graphical user interface (GUI) (Fig. 1 in-brain intention identification 7 and [0040]) comprising a plurality of graphic portions (Fig. 1 intention decision in the brain “Yes” 8, intention decision to the brain “No” 9 and [0077]-[0078]) including at least a first graphic portion representing a first intention of the subject calibrated to certain previously recorded brain activity of the subject (Fig. 1 intention decision in the brain “Yes” 8 and [0077]) and a second graphic portion representing a second intention of the subject calibrated to certain other previously recorded brain activity of the subject (Fig. 1 intention decision to the brain “No” 9 and [0078]; [0045]-[0046] teach a training session and parameter determination that may be performed to increase the accuracy of decoding the intention transmitted by the user prior to actual use. This is interpreted as “calibrating.”), wherein the first intention comprises motor imagery or attempted movement intent (Fig. 1 intention decision in the brain “Yes” 8 and [0077]), and
construct a graphic element moveable between the first graphic portion and the second graphic portion, wherein the graphic element is moveable between the first graphic portion and the second graphic portion responsive to a current brain activity of the subject associated with the first intention (Fig. 1 virtual decision function and [0040]; [0021]: “real-time”); and
a display, communicatively coupled to the computing device, configured to display the neurofeedback GUI and the graphic element to the subject to aid the subject in producing brain activity that aligns with the first intention of the subject (Fig. 1 result of determination of intention decision in the brain 10 and [0079]).
Regarding claim 2, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches wherein the desired intention is one of the first intention or the second intention ([0040]; “Yes”).
Regarding claim 3, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches wherein the brain activity of the subject recorded by the neural interface device are reduced to univariate data, wherein the univariate data is presented in a one-dimensional space through the neurofeedback GUI (Fig. 2 shows a one-dimensional space of univariate data), wherein the first graphic portion comprises a first segment of the one-dimensional space (The area above the time axis in Fig. 2 is interpreted as the first segment.), and wherein the second graphic portion comprises a second segment of the one-dimensional space (The area below the time axis in Fig. 2 is interpreted as the second segment.).
Regarding claim 4, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches wherein the one-dimensional space is a number line (Fig. 2 intention decision deduced value axis and [0040]) and the graphic element is a dot moveable along the number line (One of ordinary skill would understand that the virtual decision function as seen in Fig. 2 is made up multiple data points, or dots, along the intention deduced value axis axis.).
Regarding claim 5, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches wherein the brain activity of the subject recorded by the neural interface device is collected as multivariate data (Fig. 2 shows an intention decision deduced value axis and time axis, indicating multivariate data.), wherein the multivariate data is presented in a two-dimensional space through the neurofeedback GUI, wherein the first graphic portion comprises a first area of the two-dimensional space (Fig. 2 intention decision deduced value axis), and wherein the second graphic portion comprises a second area of the two-dimensional space (Fig. 2 time axis).
Regarding claim 6, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches wherein the two-dimensional space is a graph having two axes (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches wherein the graphic element is a dot moveable within the graph (One of ordinary skill would understand that the virtual decision function as seen in Fig. 2 is made up multiple data points, or dots, in the graph.).
Regarding claim 14, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches wherein the brain activity recorded is a power of a neural oscillation or brainwave of the subject or a change in blood flow within the brain of the subject ([0017], [0040]).
Regarding claim 15, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches wherein the neural interface device is at least one of an implantable neural interface device, an electroencephalography (EEG) device ([0040], [0046]), anelectrocorticography (ECoG) device, a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine, and a functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS) device.
Regarding claim 31, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches a method of conducting neurofeedback training, as the subject matter of claim 31 is analogous to the subject matter of claim 1.
Regarding claim 61, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to repeatedly update, at successive time points, a position of the graphic element in the GUI based on the current brain activity ([0021], [0040]).
Regarding claim 62, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches wherein a boundary between the first graphic portion and the second graphic portion represent a classifier decision boundary in a reduced coordinate space (Fig. 2 horizontal axis and [0040]).
Regarding claim 63, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches wherein multichannel neural features are mapped into a reduced coordinate space that directly drives the graphic element within a two-dimensional (2D) space (Fig. 2 shows that the virtual decision function is mapped on a 2D space.).
Regarding claim 64, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches wherein the one or more processors are further programmed to display an instruction on the GUI to formulate or carry out either the first intention or the second intention as part of the neurofeedback training (Fig. 1 intention decision in the brain “Yes”, intention decision in the brain “No” and [0040]).
Regarding claim 65, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches repeatedly updating, at successive time points, a position of the graphic element in the GUI based on the current brain activity ([0021], [0040]).
Regarding claim 66, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches wherein a boundary between the first graphic portion and the second graphic portion represent a classifier decision boundary in a reduced coordinate space (Fig. 2 horizontal axis and [0040]).
Regarding claim 67, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches wherein multichannel neural features are mapped into a reduced coordinate space that directly drives the graphic element within a two-dimensional (2D) space (Fig. 2 shows that the virtual decision function is mapped on a 2D space.).
Regarding claim 68, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches displaying an instruction on the GUI to formulate or carry out either the first intention or the second intention as part of the neurofeedback training (Fig. 1 intention decision in the brain “Yes”, intention decision in the brain “No” and [0040]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. ‘883 in view of Saggar ‘919 (US Pub No. 2019/0120919 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the multivariate data is reduced into the two-dimensional space using a dimensionality reduction function.
Saggar ‘919 teaches reducing the dimensionality of data using a nonlinear dimensionality reduction method ([0051]) that would aid in easily estimating for better quantification ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multivariate data of Hasegawa et al. ‘883 to include reducing into the two-dimensional space using a dimensionality reduction function as Saggar ‘919 teaches that this will aid in easily estimating for better quantification.
Regarding claim 11, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the multivariate data is reduced into the two-dimensional space using a non-linear dimensionality reduction function.
Saggar ‘919 teaches reducing the dimensionality of data using a nonlinear dimensionality reduction method ([0051]) that would aid in easily estimating for better quantification ([0048]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multivariate data of Hasegawa et al. ‘883 to include reducing into the two-dimensional space using a non-linear dimensionality reduction function as Saggar ‘919 teaches that this will aid in easily estimating for better quantification.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. ‘883 in view of Song et al. ‘662 (US Pub No. 2019/0343662 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the multivariate data is reduced into the two-dimensional space using principal component analysis (PCA).
Song et al. ‘662 teaches using electromyography signals to recognize a motion intention of a human body and decouples electromyography data based on principal component analysis, so as to effectively predict and estimate a continuous motion of a finger ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multivariate data of Hasegawa et al. ‘883 to include reducing into the two-dimensional space using principal component analysis (PCA) as Song et al. ‘662 teaches that this will aid in effectively predicting and estimating continuous motion of a finger.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. ‘883 in view of Chae ‘511 (US Pub No. 2018/0196511 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the first area and the second area of the two-dimensional space are positioned on the graph by projecting coordinates within the two-dimensional space back to a multi-dimensional space corresponding to the multivariate data.
Chae ‘511 teaches a processor 220 may execute a command to select a visual object (e.g., an icon) at a particular location on the display unit 210 mapped with the coordinates [of a user’s gaze position]. Further, when the user's brain wave data corresponding to “attention” state is received as a result of the sensing, the processor 220 may execute a command to run the selected visual object (e.g., to run the application corresponding to the selected icon) ([0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first area and the second area of the two-dimensional space of Hasegawa et al. ‘883 to include being positioned on the graph by projecting coordinates within the two-dimensional space back to a multi-dimensional space corresponding to the multivariate data as Chae ‘511 teaches that this will aid in determining a user’s gaze position.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. ‘883 in view of Connolly et al. ‘896 (US Pub No. 2018/0049896 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the multivariate data is reduced into the two-dimensional space using a hyperplane of a linear classifier.
Connolly et al. ‘896 teaches a linear discriminate classifier may generate a hyperplane that partitions the feature vector into a partition that corresponds to visual stimuli and a partition that corresponds to auditory stimuli. This would aid in reducing the number of correlated bispectrum phase features to the minimum number necessary to successfully classify 322 the user intended responses ([0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the multivariate data of Hasegawa et al. ‘883 to include reducing into the two-dimensional space using a hyperplane of a linear classifier as Connolly et al. ‘896 teaches that this will aid in successfully classifying the user’s intended responses.
Claims 13 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. ‘883 in view of Einav et al. ‘928 (US Pub No. 2009/0221928 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the first graphic portion is presented in a first color and the second graphic portion is presented in a second color.
Einav et al. ‘928 teaches a translation of color into gray scale is as follows: Colors are gradual changing values. The two rounded dark areas in the center are positive peaks and the other dark areas are negative peaks (Fig. 3 and [0036]). The positive peak areas and negative peak areas are interpreted as the first and second graphic portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the first graphic portion of Hasegawa et al. ‘883 to include being presented in a first color and the second graphic portion is presented in a second color as Einav et al. ‘928 teaches that this will aid in distinguishing between positive and negative values.
Regarding claim 19, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein a color intensity of the graphic element displayed is configured to change in accordance with a certainty value associated with a positioning of the graphic element within at least one of the first graphic portion and the second graphic portion based on the current brain activity of the subject recorded by the neural interface device.
Einav et al. ‘928 teaches a translation of color into gray scale is as follows: Colors are gradual changing values. The two rounded dark areas in the center are positive peaks and the other dark areas are negative peaks (Fig. 3 and [0036]). The positive peak areas and negative peak areas are interpreted as the first and second graphic portions.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graphic element displayed of Hasegawa et al. ‘883 to include changing in color intensity in accordance with a certainty value associated with a positioning of the graphic element within at least one of the first graphic portion and the second graphic portion based on the current brain activity of the subject recorded by the neural interface device as Einav et al. ‘928 teaches that this will aid in distinguishing between positive and negative values.
Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. ‘883 in view of Leuthardt et al. ‘311 (US Pub No. 2005/0131311 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 16, Hasegawa et al. ‘833 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein either the first intention or the second intention is an intention of the subject to move a body part of the subject.
Leuthardt et al. ‘311 teaches a standard spectral analysis of variance of frequency changes for a human subject during a given active condition (for example, imagining saying the word "move") versus the rest, inactive condition ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified either the first intention or the second intention of Hasegawa et al. ‘883 to include being an intention of the subject to move a body part of the subject as Leuthardt et al. ‘311 teaches that this will aid in the user to learn to gain control and improve performance ([0047]).
Regarding claim 17, Hasegawa et al. ‘833 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein either the first intention or the second intention is achieving or maintaining a neural rest state.
Leuthardt et al. ‘311 teaches a standard spectral analysis of variance of frequency changes for a human subject during a given active condition (for example, imagining saying the word "move") versus the rest, inactive condition ([0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified either the first intention or the second intention of Hasegawa et al. ‘883 to include achieving or maintaining a neural rest state as Leuthardt et al. ‘311 teaches that this will aid in the user to learn to gain control and improve performance ([0047]).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hasegawa et al. ‘883 in view of Anderson et al. ‘730 (US Patent No. 11,150,730 – previously cited).
Regarding claim 18, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein a size of the graphic element displayed is configured to change in accordance with a certainty value associated with a positioning of the graphic element within at least one of the first graphic portion and the second graphic portion based on the current brain activity of the subject recorded by the neural interface device.
Anderson et al. ‘730 teaches a multi-state user interface 2000 may modify a visual characteristic (e.g., size, shape, fill, emphasis, orientation, animation, etc.) of one or more elements of the GUI (e.g., cursor, control element, indicator element, etc.) to indicate the current interface state, current body state, and/or the responsive action (Column 24 Lines 49-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified size of the graphic element of Hasegawa et al. ‘883 to include changing in accordance with a certainty value associated with a positioning of the graphic element within at least one of the first graphic portion and the second graphic portion based on the current brain activity of the subject recorded by the neural interface device as Anderson et al. ‘730 teaches that this will indicate the current interface state, current body state, and/or the responsive action.
Regarding claim 20, Hasegawa et al. ‘883 teaches all of the elements of the current invention as mentioned above except for wherein the graphic element comprises a plurality of smaller graphic icons and wherein a density or shape of the smaller graphic icons are configured to change in accordance with a certainty value associated with a positioning of the graphic element within at least one of the first graphic portion and the second graphic portion based on the current brain activity of the subject recorded by the neural interface device.
Anderson et al. ‘730 teaches a multi-state user interface 2000 may modify a visual characteristic (e.g., size, shape, fill, emphasis, orientation, animation, etc.) of one or more elements of the GUI (e.g., cursor, control element, indicator element, etc.) to indicate the current interface state, current body state, and/or the responsive action (Column 24 Lines 49-54).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the graphic element of Hasegawa et al. ‘883 to include comprising a plurality of smaller graphic icons and wherein a density or shape of the smaller graphic icons are configured to change in accordance with a certainty value associated with a positioning of the graphic element within at least one of the first graphic portion and the second graphic portion based on the current brain activity of the subject recorded by the neural interface device as Anderson et al. ‘730 teaches that this will indicate the current interface state, current body state, and/or the responsive action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. Upon further consideration, Examiner respectfully disagrees. The output of the graphic element and the neurofeedback GUI does not provide an improvement or effect change. The amendment of the graphic element being moveable between the first graphic portion and the second graphic portion also does not provide anything significantly more as where the graphic element falls on the GUI is merely an output based on the recorded brain activity.
Applicant argues that the amendments overcome the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections. Examiner respectfully disagrees, as Hasegawa et al. ‘883 still reads on the claims (see 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection above). As such, the 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejections have been maintained.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamazaki et al. ‘696 (US Pub No. 2008/0261696) teaches using load sensors to determine the load applied by the left and right feet. The user is instructed in a game to shift their weight so that the load value on the left and right sides are within a predetermined range for a predetermined time, as seen on the gauge bars on the screen.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 AURELIE H TU whose telephone number is (571)272-8465. The examiner can normally be reached [M-F] 7:30-3:30.
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, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571) 272-4233. 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.
/AURELIE H TU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights