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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The Amendments to the claims filed on September 18, 2025 in response to the Office Action of June 18, 2025 is acknowledged and has been entered. Claims 2-3 and 6 are canceled. Claims 1, 4-5 and 9-10 are amended. Claims 1, 4-5 and 7-10 are pending and under examination in this Office action.
The objection to the drawing is now withdrawn in view of the amendment. The corresponding amendment to the specification is fully considered and entered.
The objection to the specification is now withdrawn in view of the amendment to the abstract.
The rejections to claims 1, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of AIA are now withdrawn in view of the claim amendment.
The claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to claims 1 and 3 is now withdrawn in view of the claim amendment and after Examiner’s reconsideration.
The rejections to claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are now withdrawn in view of the claim amendments. Objection to the claims are now made to request the deletion of the reference numbers and their parenthesis recited in claims 1, 4, 5 and 9.
The rejection to claims 1-3, 7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is now withdrawn in view of the claim amendment or claim cancellation.
The rejections to claims 4-6 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are now withdrawn in view of the claim amendment or claim cancellation.
In view of the claim amendment, new ground of rejection is now made to claims 1, 4-5 and 7-8.
The rejection to claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is maintained.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, 5 and 9 are objected.
In claims 1, 4, 5 and 9, all the reference numerals and their parenthesis in the claims should be deleted to avoid confusion. They renders the scope of the claims indefinite as it is unclear whether they are merely reference numerals or they refer to some other quantities. In addition, regardless, the information in parenthesis renders the scope of the claim indefinite as it is unclear whether it is part of the claimed invention or it merely serves as an example:
Claim 1: the element numbers and the parenthesis are deleted: “(1)”, “(5)”, “(6)”, “(7)”, “(8)”, “(51)” and “(52)” in lines 4-7, 11, 16, 19 and 23-28.
Claim 4: the element numbers and the parenthesis are deleted: “(1)” and “(2)” in lines 3-4.
Claim 5: the element numbers and the parenthesis are deleted: “(1)”, “(3)” and “(4)” in lines 3-5.
Claim 9: the element numbers and the parenthesis are deleted: “(1)” in lines 4, 5, 8 and 10.
Further, claim 1, line 6, the term “each of the miniature ultrasonic probes” should be corrected to –each of the two miniature ultrasonic probes--.
Claim 1, line 13: the term “pupil images” should be corrected to –the ultrasonic pupil images--.
Claim 1, line 22: the punctuation semi-colon “;” should be corrected to a comma --,--.
In regard to claim 5, the dependency should be corrected to claim 1: in line 2: “claim 3” should be corrected to –claim 1--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cohen et al., US 2019/0282086 A1, hereinafter Cohen.
Claim 9. Cohen teaches in FIGS.6-7 and 12 a detection method of an ultrasound pupil change-based anesthesia depth monitoring system ([0196]: FIG.12 is an illustrative flowchart 1200 of the method for assessing a subject’s pupil size using ultrasound; and [0200]: Example 2 – Determination of Pupil Size by Ultrasound), comprising the following steps:
1) making a patient wear an ultrasound monitoring apparatus (FIG.7: device 700 for determining a pupil size of a subject by ultrasonic imaging…Device 700 includes a platform unit, here illustrated as eyeglasses 710…the ultrasonic transducers contact the subject’s eyelids…when in use), wherein
two miniature ultrasonic probes separately correspond to the left and right eyes (FIG.7), and the miniature ultrasonic probes are adjusted to abut against the face ([0191]: attachment elements 720a and 720b configured to allow attachment of ultrasonic transducers. Attachment elements 720a and 720b are positioned on frame front 714 in such manner that the ultrasonic transducers contact the subject’s eyelids (or a patch positioned on the subject’s eyelids) when in use);
2) applying the shading patch (1000) to the eyelids of the patient ([0191]: a patch positioned on the subject’s eyelids), wherein
the shading patch locates the ultrasound monitoring apparatus ([0174]: the patch may include positioning markers configured to assist in positioning the ultrasound probe on the subject’s eye, so as to facilitate the determining of the subject’s pupil size);
3) transmitting and receiving, by the miniature ultrasonic probes, ultrasonic waves to monitor the left and right eyes, and obtaining ultrasonic pupil images ([0196]: FIG.12, Step 1210: ultrasound is transmitted to a subject’s eye using an ocular ultrasound probe, thereby obtaining an ultrasound output (e.g. ultrasound image, video and/or signal); and
4) transmitting the ultrasonic pupil images obtained by the miniature ultrasonic probes to the ultrasound host (FIG.6),
processing, by the ultrasound host, the ultrasonic pupil images ([0154]: the processor may be any computer, computing system, or similar electronic processing device capable of manipulating, transforming, processing, computing, calculating, determining, or estimating the subject’s pupil size…based on ocular ultrasound outputs (e.g. ultrasound images, videos and/or signals), and
displaying
the ultrasonic pupil images (FIGS.8, 9 and 14),
real-time change values of diameters of the pupils (FIG.9: the plot of time vs. pupil diameter for both eyes),
an average value of the diameters of the pupils of the two eyes ([0113]:the determined pupil size…may refer to an average pupil size of the patient),
a pupil diameter change trend chart (FIG.9: the temporal plot is the trend chart that shows the pupil diameter change over time).
Claim 10. Cohen further teaches
transmitting manners of the ultrasonic pupil images comprise Bluetooth, wireless and wired ([0145]: the transducer can be standard wire based and/or wearable and/or wireless or any other kind of transducer…The transducers may be connected using wires or wireless connections including all available wireless connections).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 4-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al., US 2019/0282086 A1, hereinafter Cohen, in view of Geertsen et al., US 2015/0077712 A1, hereinafter Geertsen.
Claim 1. Cohen teaches in FIGS.6-7 and 14 an ultrasound pupil change-based anesthesia depth monitoring system ([0190]: FIG6 shows a system 600 for determining a pupil size of a subject; and [0191]: FIG.7 shows a device 700 for determining a pupil size of a subject by ultrasonic imaging), comprising:
an ultrasound monitoring apparatus (600, 700), wherein the ultrasound monitoring apparatus comprises
a head-mounted mounting member (eyeglass 710) and
two miniature ultrasonic probes ([0190]: two ocular ultrasound transducers 610a and 610b), wherein
the two miniature ultrasonic probes are symmetrically arranged at both sides of the head-mounted mounting member(FIG.7);
each one of the miniature ultrasonic probes corresponds to one eye of a user; and the miniature ultrasonic probes are configured to abut against the face of the user ([0191]: attachment elements 720a and 720b configured to allow attachment of ultrasonic transducers. Attachment elements 720a and 720b are positioned on frame front 714 in such manner that the ultrasonic transducers contact the subject’s eyelids (or a patch positioned on the subject’s eyelids) when in use) and
obtain ultrasonic pupil images ([0192]: FIG.8: an ocular ultrasound image 800…obtained by utilizing an ocular transducer) by means of ultrasonic waves emitted by the two miniature ultrasonic probes ([0194]: …allowing ultrasound waves transmitted by an ultrasound transducer to reach the subject’s eye);
an ultrasound host, wherein the ultrasound host comprises a display (620), wherein
the ultrasonic pupil images (FIGS.8, 9 and 14) obtained by the miniature ultrasonic probes are transmitted to the ultrasound host (FIG.6); and
the ultrasound host are configured to process the ultrasonic pupil images ([0154]: the processor may be any computer, computing system, or similar electronic processing device capable of manipulating, transforming, processing, computing, calculating, determining, or estimating the subject’s pupil size…based on ocular ultrasound outputs (e.g. ultrasound images, videos and/or signals) and
display
pupil images (FIGS.8, 9 and 14),
real-time change values of diameters of the pupils (FIG.9: the plot of time vs. pupil diameter for both eyes),
an average value of the diameters of the pupils of the two eyes ([0113]:the determined pupil size…may refer to an average pupil size of the patient),
a pupil diameter change trend chart by means of the display (FIG.9: the temporal plot is the trend chart that shows the pupil diameter change over time);
a shading patch (1000), configured to be applied to the eyelids ([0191]: a patch positioned on the subject’s eyelids), wherein
the shading patch is configured to eliminate impact of indoor light on pupillary tight reflex ([0173]: the patch may be sized and shaped to prevent ambient light to reach the subject’s eye), and
the two miniature ultrasonic probes are located on the shading patch ([0174]: the patch may include positioning markers configured to assist in positioning the ultrasound probe on the subject’s eye, so as to facilitate the determining of the subject’s pupil size), wherein
the two miniature ultrasonic probes are separately arranged at outer sides of the two eyes or at lower eyelids of the two eyes ([0191]: the ultrasonic transducer contact the subject’s eyelids when in use) – the eyelids are the outer side of the eye, and the eyelids include the upper and the lower eyelids, and
the head-mounted mounting member comprises
a first head-mounted mounting member and a second head-mounted mounting member ([0091], FIG.7: Frame temples 712a and 712b and the concaved middle portion where the glass sits on the nose of the user), and
a mask type mounting member ([0091], FIG.7: Frame front 714); wherein
the mask type mounting member (714) comprises a mask (714) and ties (the middle-concaved portion);
the mask comprises a first mask body (the bottom half of 714 located on the two sides of the middle-concaved portion) and a second mask body (the top half of 714 located on the two sides of the middle-concaved portion, where 720a and 720b are positioned);
the first mask body is connected with a breathing line (the middle-concaved portion) (the top portion is connected with the middle-concaved portion) – the middle-concaved portion sits on the nose of the user when worn, hence is considered the “breathing line” as claimed;
the second mask body is configured to abut against the face (the top edge of the glass, when worn, abuts against the face) contour around the eyes ([0191]: the ultrasonic transducer contact the subject’s eyelids when in use) – since the transducer contacts the subject’s eyelids, the second mask body on which the transducer is mounted would contour around the eyes;
the two miniature ultrasonic probes are arranged in mounting slots (720a, 720b) of the second mask body;
the miniature ultrasonic probes are configured to abut against the lower eyelids of the eyes ([0191]: the ultrasonic transducer contact the subject’s eyelids when in use) – the eyelids include the upper and the lower eyelids.
Cohen does not teach that the mas type mounting member comprises ties, and
and the ties are fixedly mounted on the mask.
However, in an analogous head-worn device mounting configuration field of endeavor, Geertsen teaches
the mask type mounting member comprises ties (FIG.15: the elastic strap 54), and the ties are fixedly mounted on the mask ([0124]: an elastic head strap 54 is connected to the temporal end portions of flanges 24, 26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute the frame temples of Cohen as the mounting members with the tie of Geertsen. Both the frame temple and the tie are conventionally used configuration for securing a head-worn device to the user. Substituting one known mounting configuration with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, as an alternative means for securing the eye pieces on the subject, for the advantage of not needing an adhesive layer on the eyepieces while firmly regain the eye pieces on the head, as suggested in Geertsen, [0124].
Claim 4. Cohen teaches all the limitations of claim 1, including the first and the second head-mounted mounting member being the frame temples (712a and 712b and the concaved middle portion where the glass sits on the nose of the user) that sit on the ears of the user to secure the device, and the two miniature ultrasonic probes are separately arranged at the outer sides of the two eyes ([0191]: the ultrasonic transducer contact the subject’s eyelids when in use) – the eyelids are the outer side of the eye.
Cohen does not teach that the first head-mounted mounting member comprises a cambered first elastic headband; and the two miniature ultrasonic probes are symmetrically arranged at two ends of the first elastic headband.
However, in an analogous head-worn device mounting configuration field of endeavor, Geertsen teaches
the head-mounted mounting member comprises a cambered elastic headband (FIG.15: 54; and [0124]: an elastic head strap 54 that is connected to the temporal end portions of flanges 24, 26 and extends around the rear of the head); and
the two eye-activity tracking components are symmetrically arranged at two ends of the elastic headband (FIG.15: eyepieces 12, 14; [0124]: the nose strap 52 and head strap 54 cooperate to firmly retain the eye pieces 12, 14 on the head; and [0012]: the video goggles have camera(s) that is/are capable or recording EM radiation outside the visible range passing through the region, e.g. infrared camera(s), ultraviolet camera(s), etc, for observation of eye movements).
Since Cohen teaches that the two eye-activity tracking components are miniature ultrasonic probes, when Cohen and Geertsen are combined, it teaches that the two miniature ultrasonic probes are symmetrically arranged at two ends of the elastic headband of Geertsen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute the frame temples of Cohen as the mounting members with the elastic head strap of Geertsen. Both the frame temple and the elastic head strap are conventionally used configuration for securing a head-worn device to the user. Substituting one known mounting configuration with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, as an alternative means for securing the eye pieces on the subject, for the advantage of not needing an adhesive layer on the eyepieces while firmly regain the eye pieces on the head, as suggested in Geertsen, [0124].
Claim 5. Cohen teaches all the limitations of claim 3, including the first and the second head-mounted mounting member being the frame temples (712a and 712b and the concaved middle portion where the glass sits on the nose of the user) that sit on the ears of the user to secure the device, and the miniature ultrasonic probes are configured to be abut against the lower eyelids of the eyes ([0191]: the ultrasonic transducer contact the subject’s eyelids when in use) – the eyelids include the upper and the lower eyelids.
Cohen further teaches that the mounting member comprises
a nose pad (FIG.7: the concaved portion in the middle of the mask); the nose pad is configured to be stuck on the nose bridge of the user's face (the concaved portion of a pair of glasses sits on the users nose);
the two miniature ultrasonic probes are symmetrically arranged at two sides of the nose pad (FIG.7).
Alternatively, if Cohen is considered not teaching the nose pad, the nose pad is stuck on the nose bridge of the user's face, and the two miniature ultrasonic probes are symmetrically arranged at two sides of the nose pad, Geertsen teaches such features as considered below.
Cohen further does not teach that the head-mounted mounting member comprises a second elastic headband.
However, in an analogous head-worn device mounting configuration field of endeavor, Geertsen teaches
the head-mounted mounting member comprises an elastic headband (54) and a nose pad (52) (FIG.15: 52, 54; and [0124]: a nose strap,…an elastic head strap 54 that is connected to the temporal end portions of flanges 24, 26 and extends around the rear of the head);
the nose pad is stuck on the nose bridge of the user's face; and the two eye-activity tracking components are symmetrically arranged at two sides of the nose pad (FIG.15; and [0124]: a nose strap 52 that interconnects the adjacent nasal ends of flanges 24, 26).
Since Cohen teaches that the two eye-activity tracking components are miniature ultrasonic probes, when Cohen and Geertsen are combined, it teaches that the two miniature ultrasonic probes are symmetrically arranged at two ends of the elastic headband of Geertsen.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute the frame temples of Cohen as the mounting members with the elastic head strap of Geertsen. Both the frame temple and the elastic head strap are conventionally used configuration for securing a head-worn device to the user. Further the nose pad is a conventional means for connecting the eye pieces if they are separately mounted. Substituting one known mounting configuration with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, as an alternative means for securing the eye pieces on the subject, for the advantage of not needing an adhesive layer on the eyepieces while firmly regain the eye pieces on the head, as suggested in Geertsen, [0124].
Claim 7. Cohen further teaches that
the shading patch is a medical cold compress eye patch ([0170]: the patch may be made from a material nonabsorbent to liquids, such as water, saline or gels used for ultrasound) – a cold compress eye patch is made of gels. Gels used for ultrasound is considered medical grade material.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of in view of Geertsen, further in view of Humayun et al., US 2018/0161051 A1, hereinafter Humayun.
Claim 5. Cohen and Geertsen combined teaches all the limitations of claim 1, including the first and the second head-mounted mounting member being the frame temples (Cohen: 712a and 712b and the concaved middle portion where the glass sits on the nose of the user) that sit on the ears of the user to secure the device, and the miniature ultrasonic probes is configured to be abut against the lower eyelids of the eyes (Cohen: [0191]: the ultrasonic transducer contact the subject’s eyelids when in use) – the eyelids include the upper and the lower eyelids.
Cohen further teaches that the mounting member comprises
a nose pad (FIG.7: the concaved portion in the middle of the mask); the nose pad is configured to be stuck on the nose bridge of the user's face (the concaved portion of a pair of glasses sits on the users nose);
the two miniature ultrasonic probes are symmetrically arranged at two sides of the nose pad (FIG.7).
Cohen and Geertsen combined does not teach that the mounting member comprises an elastic headband.
However, in an analogous ocular ultrasound probe securing field of endeavor, Humayun teaches that
the mounting member comprises an elastic headband ([0054]: the attachment device can include an apparatus or device worn by the patient to secure the ultrasound probe in place physically against the target location. An exemplary attachment device can include a strap or headpiece for securing the ultrasound probe in place at the patient’s eye. For example, the attachment device can be configured similar to an eye patch attached around the patient’s head by an elastic or cloth band)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substitute the frame temples of Cohen and Geertsen combined as the mounting members with the elastic head band of Humayun. Both the frame temple and the elastic head band are conventionally used configuration for securing a head-worn device to the user. Substituting one known mounting configuration with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art, for the advantage of “to secure the ultrasound probe in place physically against the target location”, as suggested in Humayun, [0054].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen in view of Geertsen, further in view of Krueger et al., US 2020/0214559 A1, hereinafter Krueger.
Claim 8. Cohen and Geertsen combined teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Cohen further teaches that the ultrasound host further comprises
a warning module ([0136]: the alarm may be triggered if an abnormal pupil size is detected…if the pupil size is determined to be more than a size…if less than a certain percentage change in the subject’s pupil size is detected; and [0159]: the alarm may be triggered if the pupil size has changed by more than a suitable percentage).
Cohen and Geertsen combined does not teach that the warning module comprises a sound warning module or a light warning module.
However, in an analogous pupil size monitoring field of endeavor, Krueger teaches that
the warning module comprises a sound warning module or a light warning module ([0252]: a sensor attached to the face guard can be configured for generating an alarm signal in response to information received from the group of eye movement information…These alarm signals would be in response to any abnormally measured value from the eye sensor information for…pupil size…The alarm or alert signal can be haptic, auditory, visual).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the alarm module of Cohen and Geertsen combined employ such a feature of comprising a sound warning module or a light warning module, as taught in Krieger for the advantage of “providing notification of abnormally measured values”, as suggested in Krueger, [0252].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in regard to the rejection to claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered but they are moot. In view of the claim amendment, the previously issued rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is now withdrawn and a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is now made. The amendment of claim 1 incorporates the claim limitations of claims 2, 3 and 6, now canceled. In the new ground of rejection, Cohen remains being relied upon for the teaching of the features of claims 2 and 3. Geertsen that was relied upon for the teaching of the features of claim 6, remains being relied upon for the teaching of those features that are incorporated from claim 6 to claim 1. Applicant’s assertion is addressed below:
In the Remarks, p.9, last paragraph, Applicant asserted that, in regard to Cohen, “the ultrasonic transducer contact the subject’s eyelids when in use, and there is no ties fixedly mounted on the device” – Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that, Cohen teaches that
Cohen teaches that the ultrasonic transducers contact the subject’s eyelids in [0191]; and
Cohan is not relied upon for the teaching of the tie being fixedly mounted on the device.
Further, in the Remarks, p.10, last paragraph: “the two miniature ultrasonic probes [of the claimed invention] separately correspond to the left and right eyes, and the miniature ultrasonic probes are adjusted to abut against the face, but they will not compress the eyes, and the ties are fixedly mounted on the mask” – Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that,
Cohen teaches in FIG.7 that the two miniature ultrasound probes separately correspond to the left and right eyes; and teaches that the miniature ultrasonic probes are adjusted to abut against the face in [0191].
the feature of the two miniature ultrasonic probes “will not compress the eyes” is not recited or reflected in the claim, hence the argument is irrelevant.
Further, in the Remarks, p.11, second paragraph, Applicant asserted that “the two miniature ultrasonic probes can be arranged at the outer sides of the two eyes or at the lower eyelids of the two eyes; and the positions of the miniature ultrasonic probes are flexible, which reduces service restrictions; and the positions of the probes can be set flexibly according to requirements, to ensure an effect of anesthesia depth monitoring” – Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that
Cohen teaches that “the two miniature ultrasonic probes can be arranged at the outer sides of the two eyes or at the lower eyelids of the two eyes” in [0191] with a consideration that the eyelids are the outer side of an eye.
In regard to the feature of “the positions of the miniature ultrasonic probes are flexible” is not recited or reflected in the claim. The argument hence is irrelevant.
Further, in the Remarks, p.12, first paragraph: “That is, the scheme of substituting the frame temples of Cohen as the mounting members with the tie of Geertsen does not allow for flexible adjustment of the probe positions” – once more, Examiner notes that the feature of the position of the miniature ultrasonic probes being flexible is not recited in the claim. Nor does the claim recite any component in a way that allow the position to be flexible.
Based on the above considerations, claims 1, 4-5 and 7-10 remain rejected.
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 YI-SHAN YANG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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, Pascal M Bui-Pho can be reached at 571-272-2714. 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.
/YI-SHAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights