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
Applicant’s amendments overcome the objections to the specification and the claims. The objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments overcome the rejections under 35 USC 101. The rejections under 35 USC 101 are withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes some of the rejections under 35 USC 112. However, other issues under 35 USC 112 remain, as detailed below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13 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.
It is noted that the claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) has not been traversed and remains.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the claim recites “as step M1) the following step:” followed by further limitations. It is unclear if this replaces the step M1 of claim 1, in which case a rejection under 35 USC 112(d) would apply for not including all of claim 1, or if step M1 further comprises the recitation of claim 3. It is suggested to amend the claim to recite “wherein step M1) further comprises”
Regarding claim 7, a broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 7 recites the broad recitation “the carrier” and “an avian egg”, and the claim also recites “preferably the carrier rack” and “preferably a chicken egg” which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
It is noted that there is no antecedent basis for “the carrier rack”, and antecedent basis already exists for “a chicken egg”.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The claim is dependent on claim 1, but only incorporates steps M1 to M4 of claim 1, leaving step M5 as an alternative. Furthermore, the claim includes step M4A, which is not present in claim 1, only present in claim 2.
The claim recites “A non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program for determining the sex of an avian embryo inside an egg based on a transmission spectrum acquired according to steps M1) to M4) of the method as defined in claim 1, wherein the computer program comprises instructions which cause a computer to carry out step M5) or steps M4A) and/or M5) of the method if the program is executed by the computer.”
The claim must incorporate all parts of claim 1, and not include steps of other claims, unless dependent on the other claim. Furthermore, the last line of the claim should recite “when the program is executed by the computer”, rather than “if the program is executed by the computer”.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitani (WO 2018/101139 A1), cited in IDS, references to English machine translation, hereinafter “Fujitani”, and further in view of Adar (US 2022/0196624 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Fujitani teaches a non-invasive method of determining sex of an avian embryo inside an egg (abstract, Figs. 2-18, 21-26), comprising at least the following steps:
M1) obtaining an avian egg (paragraph [0027], Fig. 2),
M2) candling the egg obtained in step M1) with light having a spectrum extending at least over the range of wavelengths from ≥700 nm to ≤900 nm from a light source (paragraphs [0028]-[0031], Fig. 2, light includes this range),
M3) capturing light transmitted through the egg, wherein the captured transmitted light is a portion of the light used for candling the egg in step M2) (paragraphs [0028]-[0031], Fig. 2),
M4) acquiring a transmission spectrum of the transmitted light captured in step M3) based on one or more distinctive wavelength ranges, wherein the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges are in each case predefined wavelength subranges (paragraphs [0032]-[0033], [0099]-[0100], [0129]; Figs. 3, 21), and
M5) determining a property of the avian egg and/or the one or more properties of the avian embryo inside the egg based on the transmission spectrum acquired in step M4) (paragraphs [0032]-[0033], [0100]-[0128], Figs. 4, 22-26).
Fujitani is silent regarding wherein the egg has been incubated for a period in the range from ≥ 9 to ≤ 15 days after laying, acquiring the transmission spectrum wherein the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges are in each case predefined wavelength subranges of the range of wavelengths from ≥700 nm to ≤900 nm; and determining sex based on the transmission spectrum acquired in step M4).
However, Adar teaches a method of determining sex of an egg (abstract) including wherein the egg has been incubated for a period in the range from ≥ 9 to ≤ 15 days after laying (paragraph [0065] “the sufficiently strong signals were obtained on the 10-th day”), acquiring the transmission spectrum wherein the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges are in each case predefined wavelength subranges of the range of wavelengths from ≥700 nm to ≤900 nm; (paragraph [0062]; the provided responses are transmissions of illuminations with wavelengths of 850 nm and 740 nm in the upper and lower graphs in FIG. 2A respectively, and 850 nm in the graph of FIG. 2B.) and determining sex based on the transmission spectrum acquired in step M4) (paragraphs [0058], [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Fujitani with the teaching of Adar by including wherein the egg has been incubated for a period in the range from ≥ 9 to ≤ 15 days after laying, acquiring the transmission spectrum wherein the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges are in each case predefined wavelength subranges of the range of wavelengths from ≥700 nm to ≤900 nm; and determining sex based on the transmission spectrum acquired in step M4) as Adar teaches that a strong signal for embryo determination is found on the 10th day, using wavelengths of 740 and 850 nm, paragraphs [0062], [0065].
Regarding claim 5 Fujitani teaches the light used for candling the egg in step M2) is light having a spectrum extending at least over the range of wavelengths from ≥720 nm to ≤870 nm (paragraphs [0005], [0099], [0127], light includes at least this range).
Regarding claim 7, Fujitani teaches wherein step M1) further comprises providing a carrier, having a plurality of compartments, wherein each compartment is configured for receiving a chicken egg, and the compartments are separated from each other by partition walls for reducing the amount of scattered light, wherein the carrier, preferably the carrier rack, is configured for allowing candling with a light source an avian egg, preferably a chicken egg, placed in a compartment; and for allowing capturing light transmitted through the egg; and placing the chicken egg, in a compartment of the carrier (Figs. 14, 15, paragraphs [0055]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 8, Fujitani teaches wherein the light source for candling the egg in step M2) is a halogen lamp (paragraph [0129]), but is silent regarding the halogen lamp has a power of ≥35 W.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the halogen lamp has a power of ≥35 W, as it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). One would chose the claimed intensity and power to effectively measure the egg.
Regarding claim 9, Fujitani is silent regarding wherein the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges of step M4) are selected from the group consisting of the wavelength range from ≥720 nm to ≤760 nm the wavelength range from ≥730 nm to ≤830 nm, the wavelength range from ≥750 nm to ≤870 nm.
However, Adar teaches wherein the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges of step M4) are selected from the group consisting of the wavelength range from ≥720 nm to ≤760 nm the wavelength range from ≥730 nm to ≤830 nm, the wavelength range from ≥750 nm to ≤870 nm (paragraph [0062]; the provided responses are transmissions of illuminations with wavelengths of 850 nm and 740 nm in the upper and lower graphs in FIG. 2A respectively, and 850 nm in the graph of FIG. 2B.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Fujitani with the teaching of Adar by including wherein the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges of step M4) are selected from the group consisting of the wavelength range from ≥720 nm to ≤760 nm the wavelength range from ≥730 nm to ≤830 nm, the wavelength range from ≥750 nm to ≤870 nm as analysis at these wavelengths give the desired information.
Regarding claim 13, Fujitani teaches a system for non-invasively determining a property of a chicken embryo inside an egg (abstract, Figs. 12-13, 14-15), the system comprising at least the following elements:
S1) a light source for candling the egg with light having a spectrum extending at least over the range of wavelengths from ≥700 nm to ≤900 nm (paragraphs [0058], [0129], Figs. 12, 13),
S2) light capturing means for capturing transmitted light, wherein the captured transmitted light is a portion of the light for candling the egg having a spectrum as defined in element S1), wherein the portion is transmitted through the egg (paragraphs [0059], [0129], Figs. 12, 13),
S3) a spectrometer for acquiring a transmission spectrum of the captured transmitted light as defined in element S2), wherein the transmission spectrum is based on one or more distinctive wavelength ranges and the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges are in each case predefined wavelength subranges (paragraph [0129]) and
S4) a determination unit for determining the properties of the avian egg (paragraphs [0028], [0065], Figs. 12, 13).
Fujitani is silent regarding wherein the egg has been incubated for a period in the range from ≥ 9 to ≤ 15 days after laying, acquiring the transmission spectrum wherein the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges are in each case predefined wavelength subranges of the range of wavelengths from ≥700 nm to ≤900 nm; and determining sex based on the transmission spectrum acquired in step M4).
However, Adar teaches a method of determining sex of an egg (abstract) including wherein the egg has been incubated for a period in the range from ≥ 9 to ≤ 15 days after laying (paragraph [0065] “the sufficiently strong signals were obtained on the 10-th day”), acquiring the transmission spectrum wherein the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges are in each case predefined wavelength subranges of the range of wavelengths from ≥700 nm to ≤900 nm; (paragraph [0062]; the provided responses are transmissions of illuminations with wavelengths of 850 nm and 740 nm in the upper and lower graphs in FIG. 2A respectively, and 850 nm in the graph of FIG. 2B.) and determining sex based on the transmission spectrum acquired in step M4) (paragraphs [0058], [0065]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Fujitani with the teaching of Adar by including wherein the egg has been incubated for a period in the range from ≥ 9 to ≤ 15 days after laying, acquiring the transmission spectrum wherein the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges are in each case predefined wavelength subranges of the range of wavelengths from ≥700 nm to ≤900 nm; and determining sex based on the transmission spectrum acquired in step M4) as Adar teaches that a strong signal for embryo determination is found on the 10th day, using wavelengths of 740 and 850 nm, paragraphs [0062], [0065].
Regarding claim 15, Fujitani and Adar teach a non-transitory computer readable medium storing a computer program for determining the sex of an avian embryo inside an egg based on a transmission spectrum acquired according to steps M1) to M4) of the method as defined in claim 1, wherein the computer program comprises instructions which cause a computer to carry out step M5) or steps M4A) and/or M5) of the method if the program is executed by the computer (Fujitani, paragraphs [0060]-[0062], [0066]-[0082], Figs. 16-19, Adar Supra).
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitani and Adar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walukas et al. (US 2015/0138535 A1), hereinafter “Walukas II”.
Regarding claim 2, Fujitani is silent regarding comparing the transmission spectrum of the transmitted light acquired in step M4), or an absorption spectrum based on said transmission spectrum, in the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges with corresponding transmission spectra or with corresponding absorption spectra from a predefined database in the respective same one or more distinctive wavelength ranges, where the corresponding transmission spectra or the corresponding absorption spectra and further comprises comparing the transmission spectrum of the transmitted light acquired in step M4), or the absorption spectrum based on said transmission spectrum, in the one or more defined distinctive wavelength ranges, with the corresponding transmission spectra or with the corresponding absorption spectra from a predefined database in the respective same one or more distinctive wavelength ranges, as defined in step M4A).
However, Walukas II teaches an egg identification system (abstract) including comparing the transmission spectrum of the transmitted light acquired in step M4), or an absorption spectrum based on said transmission spectrum, in the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges with corresponding transmission spectra or with corresponding absorption spectra from a predefined database in the respective same one or more distinctive wavelength ranges, where the corresponding transmission spectra or the corresponding absorption spectra and further comprises comparing the transmission spectrum of the transmitted light acquired in step M4), or the absorption spectrum based on said transmission spectrum, in the one or more defined distinctive wavelength ranges, with the corresponding transmission spectra or with the corresponding absorption spectra from a predefined database in the respective same one or more distinctive wavelength ranges, as defined in step M4A) (paragraphs [0038]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Fujitani with the teaching of Walukas II by including comparing the transmission spectrum of the transmitted light acquired in step M4), or an absorption spectrum based on said transmission spectrum, in the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges with corresponding transmission spectra or with corresponding absorption spectra from a predefined database in the respective same one or more distinctive wavelength ranges, where the corresponding transmission spectra or the corresponding absorption spectra and further comprises comparing the transmission spectrum of the transmitted light acquired in step M4), or the absorption spectrum based on said transmission spectrum, in the one or more defined distinctive wavelength ranges, with the corresponding transmission spectra or with the corresponding absorption spectra from a predefined database in the respective same one or more distinctive wavelength ranges, as defined in step M4A) as using a calibrated value to determine a property is a common technique in analysis of a sample.
Regarding claim 10, Fujitani is silent regarding wherein the method comprises step M4A and wherein in step M5 determining the sex of the chicken embryo is based on an absorption spectrum, wherein the absorption spectrum is determined based on the transmission spectrum acquired in step M4) and a calibration spectrum, wherein the calibration spectrum is a measured spectrum of the light used for candling the egg in step M2).
However, Walukas II teaches an egg identification system (abstract) including wherein the method comprises step M4A and wherein in step M5 determining the sex of the chicken embryo is based on an absorption spectrum, wherein the absorption spectrum is determined based on the transmission spectrum acquired in step M4) and a calibration spectrum, wherein the calibration spectrum is a measured spectrum of the light used for candling the egg in step M2) (paragraphs [0038]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Fujitani with the teaching of Walukas II by including wherein the method comprises step M4A and wherein in step M5 determining the sex of the chicken embryo is based on an absorption spectrum, wherein the absorption spectrum is determined based on the transmission spectrum acquired in step M4) and a calibration spectrum, wherein the calibration spectrum is a measured spectrum of the light used for candling the egg in step M2), as using a calibrated value to determine a property is a common technique in analysis of a sample.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitani and Adar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walukas et al. (US 2015/0138535 A1), hereinafter “Walukas II” and McKay (US 9179651 B2).
Regarding claim 3, Fujitani is silent regarding obtaining an egg from a chicken that produces feather colour differentiation of the chicken, based on the sex of the chicken, and as additional step M4A) the following step: M4A) comparing the transmission spectrum of the transmitted light acquired in step M4), or an absorption spectrum based on said transmission spectrum, in the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges with corresponding transmission spectra or corresponding absorption spectra from a predefined database in the respective same one or more distinctive wavelength ranges, where the corresponding transmission spectra or the corresponding absorption spectra define known sexes of chicken embryos inside their eggs; and wherein step M5) of determining the sex of the chicken embryo inside the egg further comprises comparing the transmission spectrum of the transmitted light acquired in step M4), or an absorption spectrum based on said transmission spectrum, in the one or more defined distinctive wavelength ranges, with corresponding transmission spectra or with corresponding absorption spectra from a predefined database in the respective same one or more distinctive wavelength ranges, as defined in step M4A).
However, McKay teaches obtaining an egg from a chicken that produces feather colour differentiation of the chicken, based on the sex of the chicken (col 4, lines 58-64).
Furthermore, Walukas II teaches an egg identification system (abstract) including as additional step M4A) the following step: M4A) comparing the transmission spectrum of the transmitted light acquired in step M4), or an absorption spectrum based on said transmission spectrum, in the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges with corresponding transmission spectra or corresponding absorption spectra from a predefined database in the respective same one or more distinctive wavelength ranges, where the corresponding transmission spectra or the corresponding absorption spectra define known sexes of chicken embryos inside their eggs; and wherein step M5) of determining the sex of the chicken embryo inside the egg further comprises comparing the transmission spectrum of the transmitted light acquired in step M4), or an absorption spectrum based on said transmission spectrum, in the one or more defined distinctive wavelength ranges, with corresponding transmission spectra or with corresponding absorption spectra from a predefined database in the respective same one or more distinctive wavelength ranges, as defined in step M4A) (paragraphs [0038]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Fujitani with the teaching of Walukas II and McKay by including obtaining an egg from a chicken that produces feather colour differentiation of the chicken, based on the sex of the chicken, and as additional step M4A) the following step: M4A) comparing the transmission spectrum of the transmitted light acquired in step M4), or an absorption spectrum based on said transmission spectrum, in the one or more distinctive wavelength ranges with corresponding transmission spectra or corresponding absorption spectra from a predefined database in the respective same one or more distinctive wavelength ranges, where the corresponding transmission spectra or the corresponding absorption spectra define known sexes of chicken embryos inside their eggs; and wherein step M5) of determining the sex of the chicken embryo inside the egg further comprises comparing the transmission spectrum of the transmitted light acquired in step M4), or an absorption spectrum based on said transmission spectrum, in the one or more defined distinctive wavelength ranges, with corresponding transmission spectra or with corresponding absorption spectra from a predefined database in the respective same one or more distinctive wavelength ranges, as defined in step M4A).as using a calibrated value to determine a property is a common technique in analysis of a sample.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitani and Adar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McKay (US 9179651 B2).
Regarding claim 4 Fujitani is silent regarding wherein the egg obtained in step M1) is obtained from a breed of chicken that produces brown or brownish feathers for one sex and white or yellowish feathers for the opposite sex.
However, McKay teaches analysis of egg properties (abstract) including an egg from a breed of chicken that produces brown or brownish feathers for one sex and white or yellowish feathers for the opposite sex (col 4, lines 58-64).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Fujitani with the teaching of McKay by including wherein the egg obtained in step M1) is obtained from a breed of chicken that produces brown or brownish feathers for one sex and white or yellowish feathers for the opposite sex as this is a common color marker to differentiate chickens (col. 2, lines 1-20).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fujitani and Adar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Walukas et al. (US 2015/0136988 A1), hereinafter “Walukas”.
Regarding claim 6, Fujitani is silent regarding wherein the light transmitted through the egg is captured in step M3) within a defined measuring spot on the egg's surface, wherein the measuring spot extends over an area in the range from ≥0.2 to ≤5 cm2, on the egg's surface.
However, Walukas teaches an egg identification system (abstract) including wherein the light transmitted through the egg is captured in step M3) within a defined measuring spot on the egg's surface, wherein the measuring spot extends over an area in the range on the egg's surface (paragraphs [0039], [0049], Fig. 5).
Walukas does not teach the exact range. However, it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). One would chose the claimed range in order to have a sufficiently concentrated light and detect the proper contents of the inside of the egg.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Fujitani with the teaching of Walukas by including wherein the light transmitted through the egg is captured in step M3) within a defined measuring spot on the egg's surface, wherein the measuring spot extends over an area in the range from ≥0.2 to ≤5 cm2, on the egg's surface in order to provide an accurate measurement of the egg.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 11, the prior art of record, taken either alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a non-invasive method of determining sex of an avian embryo, the method comprising, among other essential elements, wherein in step M5 the sex of the chicken embryo is determined by determining whether a combination value lies above or below a predetermined threshold, wherein the combination value refers to a combination of values of a spectral absorption function at different wavelengths wherein the combination value is determined from one or more principal components of the spectral absorption function, wherein the one or more principal components refer to a principal component analysis performed on spectral absorption functions determined for an ensemble of chicken embryos, inside their egg, in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1, 2, 10, and the above claim. Claim 12 is dependent from claim 11 and therefore is also included in the allowed subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ngadi (US 10607338 B2) teaches a further identification of sex of an egg using spectral analysis.
Schortgen (US10060854B2) teaches a further identification of sex of an egg using spectral analysis.
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 DOMINIC J BOLOGNA whose telephone number is (571)272-9282. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-3:30pm.
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, Uzma Alam can be reached on (571) 272-3995. 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.
/DOMINIC J BOLOGNA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights