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 and Amendment Filed
Applicant’s response and amendment, filed September 15, 2025, has been entered and made of record. Accordingly, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-4, 6 and 8-11 are amended; Claims 12-15 are newly filed; Claims 5 and 7 remain as originally presented.
Previously Set Forth Rejections
Following the entry of applicant’s amendments to the claims and consideration of applicant’s arguments (both filed September 15, 2025), the status of the rejections set forth in the previous Office action (mailed August 8, 2025) is as follows:
The 35 USC 101 rejection of claims 1-11 is hereby maintained.
The 35 USC 102(a)(2) rejection of claims 1-5 and 8-11 as being anticipated by Yazawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0059854) is hereby withdrawn.
The 35 USC 103 rejection of claims 6 and 7 as being unpatentable over Yazawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0059854) in view of Kakizaki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0093635) is hereby maintained.
The following new and maintained grounds of rejection are set forth:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 11 have been amended to recite “wherein the circuitry adjust(s) the operation of the heating and cooling stimulator based on at least a skin thickness of the body part of the user” (claim 1) and “wherein the operation of the heating and cooling stimulator is adjusted based on at least a skin thickness of the body part of the user.” Previously in both independent claims 1 and 11, it is recited that the function of the heating and cooling stimulator is to dynamically control an operation of heating and cooling stimulation by a heating and cooling stimulator that repeatedly gives alternate heating stimulation and cooling stimulation. However, para. 0053 of the published application (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0016656) states, as a known fact, that the skin of women is likely to be relatively thin and therefore the intensity of the heating and cooling stimulation is set to be lower. Dynamically controlling the repeated operation of alternate heating and cooling is NOT equivalent to controlling the intensity. Controlling the intensity says nothing about alternating heating and cooling nor does it say anything about dynamically controlling the heating and cooling. In other words, para. 0053 does not support the recitation that the controlling of the heating and cooling stimulator is based on a skin thickness of the body part of the user.
As claims 2-10 and 12-15 depend from claims 1 and 11, they are likewise rejected.
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 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of claims 1-11 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of claims 1-11 recites at least one step or instruction for dynamically controlling the operation of heating and cooling stimulation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III).
The courts do not distinguish between claims that recite mental processes performed by humans and claims that recite mental processes performed on a computer. As the Federal Circuit has explained, "[c]ourts have examined claims that required the use of a computer and still found that the underlying, patent-ineligible invention could be performed via pen and paper or in a person’s mind." Versata Dev. Group v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1335, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1702 (Fed. Cir. 2015). See also Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (‘‘[W]ith the exception of generic computer-implemented steps, there is nothing in the claims themselves that foreclose them from being performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.’’); Mortgage Grader, Inc. v. First Choice Loan Servs. Inc., 811 F.3d 1314, 1324, 117 USPQ2d 1693, 1699 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (holding that computer-implemented method for "anonymous loan shopping" was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer. The Supreme Court recognized this in Benson, determining that a mathematical algorithm for converting binary coded decimal to pure binary within a computer’s shift register was an abstract idea. The Court concluded that the algorithm could be performed purely mentally even though the claimed procedures "can be carried out in existing computers long in use, no new machinery being necessary." 409 U.S at 67, 175 USPQ at 675. See also Mortgage Grader, 811 F.3d at 1324, 117 USPQ2d at 1699 (concluding that concept of "anonymous loan shopping" recited in a computer system claim is an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer").
Because both product and process claims may recite a "mental process", the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim. The courts have identified numerous product claims as reciting mental process-type abstract ideas, for instance the product claims to computer systems and computer-readable media in Versata Dev. Group. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 115 USPQ2d 1681 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Both product claims (e.g., computer system, computer-readable medium, etc.) and process claims may recite mental processes. For example, in Mortgage Grader, the patentee claimed a computer-implemented system and a method for enabling borrowers to anonymously shop for loan packages offered by a plurality of lenders, comprising a database that stores loan package data from the lenders, and a computer system providing an interface and a grading module. The Federal Circuit determined that both the computer-implemented system and method claims were directed to "anonymous loan shopping", which was an abstract idea because it could be "performed by humans without a computer." 811 F.3d. at 1318, 1324-25, 117 USPQ2d at 1695, 1699-1700. See also FairWarning IP, 839 F.3d at 1092, 120 USPQ2d at 1294 (identifying both system and process claims for detecting improper access of a patient's protected health information in a health-care system computer environment as directed to abstract idea of detecting fraud); Content Extraction & Transmission LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 776 F.3d 1343, 1345, 113 USPQ2d 1354, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (system and method claims of inputting information from a hard copy document into a computer program). Accordingly, the phrase "mental processes" should be understood as referring to the type of abstract idea, and not to the statutory category of the claim.
Specifically, independent claim 1 recites “dynamically controls an operation of heating and cooling stimulation” and independent claim 11 recites “controlling dynamically an operation of heating and cooling stimulation” which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)). Further, dependent claims 2-10 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent claims 1 and 11 (and dependent claims 2-10) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements, either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h). More specifically, the additional elements of: a control unit, are generically recited computer elements in independent claims 1 and 11 (and dependent claims 2-10) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1 and 11 (and dependent claims 2-10) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a control unit as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent claims 1 and 11 (and dependent claims 2-10) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent claims 1 and 11 (and dependent claims 2-10) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of claims 1-11 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a control unit. The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
In light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term control unit is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the control unit. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in claims 1-11 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatus and method of claims 1-11 is directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent claims 1 and 11 (and dependent claims 2-10) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the claims 1-11 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, claims 1-11 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yazawa et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0059854) in view of Kakizaki et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0093635).
In regard to claims 1-5 and 8-12, Yazawa et al. teach a thermal therapy system 100 comprised of a portable thermal pack 102 that includes a portable housing 114 and a wireless computing device 106 (see Fig. 1 and para. 0016). The housing 114 has a printed circuit board 116 and a thermoelectric module 118 that includes a plurality of Peliter elements 230, 231 (see Figs. 1 and 4 and paras. 0020 and 0025). The printed circuit board 116 supports a control circuit 140, a power storage unit 142, a DC regulator 144 and a throw switch 146 (see para. 0036 and Fig. 4). The control circuit 140 is operably connected to control the operation of the switch 146 and also includes a wireless communication circuit 150 configured to receive wireless signals including control information (see paras. 0037-0038). The received control information can include information identifying the value of at least one operating parameter of the thermoelectric module 118 including information identifying whether heating or cooling is to be applied (e.g., the position of switch 146) (see para. 0040). The control information may also include the level of heating and/or cooling (see para. 0040). The wireless device 106 has a user interface that allows a user to specify operating levels for the thermoelectric module 118 or run a preprogrammed sequence of parameter sets that operate based on time (see para. 0040). The wireless device 106 may include a program that alternates heating and cooling (via appropriate control information that cause the control circuit 140 to operate the switch 146) every fifteen minutes (see para. 0040). Such a program can include level adjustments to alter the outputs of the thermoelectric module 118 (see para. 0040). Thus, the control unit 140 is a programmable device, processor, microcontroller or the like that is configured to generate control signals to the DC regulators 144, 145 and the switch 146 (see para. 0041). Yazawa et al. also teach that in general, the control circuit 140 provides such control signals based on the content of control information received from the wireless communication circuit 150 but the control circuit 140 may also include internal programs that adjust certain parameter levels for example based on inputs of temperature sensors 148 or other sensors that measure ambient air temperature (see para. 0041). Yazawa et al. also teach that the wireless device 106 has a user interface that allows a user to specify operating levels for the thermoelectric module 118 (see para. 0040). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention that this user input can include personal information about the user, such as the user’s work (and whether it is manual or deskwork) and which part of the body is receiving the hot/cold therapy.
Yazawa et al. do not disclose that the control circuit 140 adjusts the heating/cooling operation of the device based on at least a skin thickness of the body part of the user. However, Kakizaki et al. teach a processor 40a for controlling the delivery of hot/cold therapy to a driver’s seat that has a programmable logic circuit that implements a personal characteristic identifier 410 which includes a sex identifier 411 (see paras. 0112-0121). When the sex is identified as female, adjustments are made to the temperature and duration of a hot/cold stimulus (see Fig. 6B and paras. 0195-0200). As noted by applicant at page 7 of the response filed September 15, 2025, para. 0053 of the published application (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2024/0016656) states, as a known fact, that the skin of women is likely to be relatively thin and therefore the intensity of the heating and cooling stimulation is set to be lower. It would have bee obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention that Kakizaki et al., in adjusting the temperature and duration of the heating/cooling for a female is adjusting the intensity of the heating/cooling based on the female’s skin thickness. Kakizaki et al. also demonstrate that adjusting the intensity of heating/cooling based upon sex (and therefore skin thickness as related to sex) is well known in the art. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the control circuit 140 of Yazawa et al. with the ability to identify the sex (and therefore skin thickness as related to sex) and adjust the temperature/duration (intensity) of the heating/cooling therapy accordingly.
With further respect to claim 11, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Also, the claiming of a new use, new function or unknown property which is inherently present in the prior art does not necessarily make the claim patentable. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1254, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). In In re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1258, 73 USPQ2d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In regard to claims 6 and 7, Yazawa et al. are silent as to adjusting the heating/cooling based on the part of the user to which the heating/cooling stimulator is attached and a condition of the part and whether the condition includes muscle hardness or subjective fatigue degree. Kakizaki et al. teach a fatigue reduction facilitating system 1 comprised of a mobile terminal 2 and a human machine interface (HMI) system 4 with a hot-cold stimulator 6 (see Fig. 1). The HMI system 4 is comprised of a human machine control unit (HCU) 40 that includes at least one processor 40a, a memory unit 40b and an input/output interface 40c (see para. 0057). Various programs for causing the processor 40a to perform various routine associated with reduction of a driver’s fatigue and recovery from driver’s fatigue are stored in the memory unit 40b (see para. 0062). Kakizaki et al. also teach that the driver enters information from the mobile terminal 2 where the information is used to determine the level of fatigue (see, e.g., paras. 0123-0137). Kakizaki et al. thus demonstrate that it is well known in the art to provide a system that can deliver heating/cooling with using a processor including input from the user that relates to subjective fatigue degree. Accordingly, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to provide the device of Yazawa et al. with the ability for the control unit 140 to select a program based on information input from wireless device 106 regarding subjective fatigue degree.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 and the application of the prior art have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Specifically, as set forth above, Kakizaki et al. teaches that the heating and cooling stimulation is adjusted based upon skin thickness.
Regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101, circuitry is not part of the abstract idea. Rather, it is an additional (or renamed) element. For the reasons set forth in the 101 rejection above, the mere inclusion of “circuitry” does not amount to significantly more than the identified abstract idea. Additionally, for the reasons set forth in the 101 rejection above, the examiner disagrees that the claims integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
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 BEVERLY MEINDL FLANAGAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4766. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM to 5:00PM.
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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at 571-272-4764. 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.
/BEVERLY M FLANAGAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794