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 .
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) filed on May 12, 2026 have/has been acknowledged and considered by the examiner. Initialed copies of supplied IDS(s) forms are included in this correspondence.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because too many words. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Response to Amendment
Regarding Applicant’s amendments and remarks as they pertain to Suzuki, the claims continue to capture the art of Suzuki. Specifically, Suzuki’s test spot is in fact visible to the person at a point of the movement along the path. Suzuki’s user/patient triggers the device when the spot is visible as it moves along the path. The claim then recites two conditional events for triggering:
a) when the displayed spot becomes invisible to the person during movement along the path (doesn’t appear taught by Suzuki)
or
b) becomes visible again after having become invisible during movement along the path (taught by Suzuki).
Suzuki’s target begins each location invisible while moving along its path and then, when it becomes visible, the user/patient triggers the computer (interaction device). Suzuki does not, as Applicant suggests, perform this a single time. Suzuki performs this for many paths and target positions.
Thus, Suzuki is understood to display an invisible target (i.e. 101a, not visually recognizable by the patient due to its placement and/or vision defects of the user), move the target (101a) along a path (e.g. path along 102a), and then when visible, the user triggers and a mark is created on the display. The target (101a) then moves to another location where it is invisible again, moves along the path (e.g. 102a), becomes visible again, and the user triggers to set another mark where the target became visible.
Furthermore, path (102a) isn’t the only path, but also path (102b) is used, but as per Suzuki, the luminance levels of the target(s) are different along path (102b) versus path (102a).
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have resolved the USC 112(b) issues, unless otherwise noted below.
Applicant’s remarks as they pertain to the USC 112(f) interpretation are not persuasive. No structure is connotated by “device”, “interaction device”, “unit”, or “processing unit”. Applicant’s claim language passes the 3-prong test as set forth in MPEP 2181. Examiner reminds Applicant: Application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is driven by the claim language, not by applicant’s intent or mere statements to the contrary included in the specification or made during prosecution. See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F.3d at 1194, 29 USPQ2d at 1850 (MPEP 2181.I).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a) triggering an interaction device; an interaction device configured to be triggered…in claims 1, 27.
b) a processing unit…in claims 22, 27
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 11, 19, 21 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.
As to claim 2, the claim recites “the current positions” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 2, the claim recites “displaying information and/or an area of the person's field of view on the area display and/or on a further area display, the current positions at which the test spot has become invisible or has become visible again during said movement along the path” which in light of the “and/or” language is unclear what is being displayed where. For purposes of compact prosecution, so long as information of any sort is being displayed, the limitations are considered met.
Claims 11, 21 are rejected as dependent upon claim 2.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “the test spot has a speed S/f in cm/s when moving on the display where S is the distance traveled by the spot in cm, and wherein f is a number in seconds in the range from 2 to 7” which is a relative/subjective term (MPEP 2173.05(b)). Specifically, the speed of the test spot appears entirely arbitrary as being based on a random distance (S) divided by a number between 2 and 7. In other words, the claim appears to set forth the condition: S/2 < speed < S/7.
The metes and bounds are unclear since those of ordinary skill in the art would fail to understand what the moving speed of the spot is limited to. For purposes of compact prosecution, Examiner will understand the art such that so long as the spot moves, such features are necessarily met.
As to claim 3, the claim recites “at least 500 to 50000 different location…in particular 1000 to 25000 different locations” which is a broad range and narrow range in the same claim (MPEP 2173.05(c)) and exemplary language “in particular” (MPEP 2173.05(d)).
As to claim 3, the claim recites “the path has a total length of at least 17.625cm to 705cm, and wherein the path has a total length of at least 32.5cm to 352.5 cm” which is a broad range and narrow range in the same claim (MPEP 2173.05(c)).
As to claim 3, the claim recites “the measurement process” which lacks antecedent basis (MPEP 2173.05(e)).
As to claim 3, the claim recites “during the measurement run within a period of 1 minute…wherein the test spot travels along the entire path…within a period of time which is less than or equal to 1 minute and greater than zero” which is unclear for multiple reasons. First issue: “zero” what? Minutes? Seconds? Second issue: the claimed range includes nanoseconds, thus it is unclear how the test spots travel the distance in times on the order of nanoseconds.
For purposes of compact prosecution, due to the optional nature of such limitations, Examiner will essentially ignore the limitations for art purposes.
Claim 14 is rejected as dependent upon claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3, 6, 10-11, 14-15, 19, 21-23, 25-28, 30-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (US 2005/0068498; of record).
As to claim 1, Suzuki teaches a method for measuring a visual field (Suzuki Figs. 3-7; para. [0001]) of a person using a device (Suzuki Fig. 1; Fig. 2), comprising the steps of
displaying a visually detectable spot on an area display of the device (Suzuki Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0050], [0059]) viewed by the person with an eye of the person (Suzuki Fig. 1 - E; para. [0050]);
and moving the test spot on the area display using the device along a path during a measurement run (Suzuki Figs. 4-7; para. [0059]), the test spot being visible to the person at a point of the movement along the path (Suzuki Figs 4-7; para. [0060]) and triggering an interaction device of the device (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 35; para. [0051]) by the person when the displayed spot becomes invisible to the person during said movement along the path or becomes visible again after having become invisible during the movement along the path at a current position (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 101a, 102a, 101b, 102b; para. [0059]-[0060] - patient presses button when target becomes visible again after being invisible from path location to path location), wherein the device is caused by triggering of the interaction device to store the respective current position as well as associated information indicating whether the test spot has become invisible to the person or has become visible again (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 32, 33, 31, 34; para. [0051]; Fig. 4 - 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0061]).
As to claim 2, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches displaying information and/or an area of the person’s field of view on the area display and/or on a further area display (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 31; Figs. 4-7), the current positions at which the test spot has become invisible or has become visible again during said movement along the path (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 101a, 101b, 102a, 102b).
As to claim 3 (as understood), Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches the test spot has a speed S/f in cm/s (Suzuki para. [0059] - teaching a speed of 5o/s whereby the angle (5o) is necessarily convertible to linear distance (cm) on the LCD (20)).
As to claim 6, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches the path comprises a plurality of mutually parallel first sections and/or the path comprises a plurality of mutually parallel second sections (Suzuki Figs. 4-7; para. [0063] - paths being concentric (mutually parallel) circles).
As to claim 10, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches the path has at least one section running along the vertical or inclined to the vertical; and/or the path has at least one section running in an arcuate shape; and/or the path has at least one section crossing nerve fibers and running orthogonally to the nerve fibers (Suzuki Figs. 3-7).
As to claim 11, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Suzuki further teaches for visualization of the area the current positions at which the test spot has become invisible are connected with a line which is displayed as a border line of the area on the further area display (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070])
and/or in that the current positions at which the test spot has become visible are connected with a line which is displayed as a border line of the area on the further area display, wherein in particular the area surrounded by the border lines is displayed on the further area display optically differentiable from the background of the further area display (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]);
and/or wherein the area is checked by guiding the test spot on the area display under control of an examiner and under observation by the person repeatedly out of the area into a surrounding area in which the test spot is visible to the person (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]).
As to claim 14, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 3, and Suzuki further teaches the speed of the test spot is temporarily slowed down as required by the examiner (Suzuki Fig. 6 - 100, P, Y1, Y2; para. [0064], [0067]-[0069]), by interaction with a user interface of the device (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 37; para. [0051]).
As to claim 15, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches the method further comprises the step of: performing a further measurement run for each section of the path of the measurement run extending between two adjacent stored current positions (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), in which in each case the test spot on the area display is moved by means of the device along a further path within an area on the area display which contains the respective section as a center (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), and in each case triggering of the interaction device of the device by the person (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), when the displayed test spot becomes invisible to the person during said movement along the further path within the area at a current position or becomes visible again (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), wherein the device is caused by the triggering of the interaction device to store the respective current position of the test spot in the area as well as associated information indicating whether the test spot at the current position has become invisible to the person or visible again (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]).
As to claim 19, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches performing at least one further measurement run for an area selected by the examiner (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), wherein the test spot on the area display is moved along a further path within an area on the area display by means of the device (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), and in each case triggering of the interaction device of the device by the person (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), when the displayed test spot, during said movement along the further path within the area, becomes invisible to the person at a current position or becomes visible again (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), wherein the device is caused by the triggering of the interaction device to store the respective current position of the test spot in the area as well as associated information indicating whether the test spot at the current position has become invisible to the person or visible again (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]),and/or
performing at least one further measurement run, wherein the test spot on the area display is moved along a further path under the control of the examiner by means of the device (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), and in each case triggering of the interaction device of the device by the person when the displayed test spot becomes invisible to the person during said movement along the further path within the area at a current position or becomes visible again (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]), wherein the device is caused by the triggering of the interaction device to store the respective current position of the test spot in the area as well as associated information indicating whether the test spot has become invisible to the person at the current position or has become visible again(Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 110; 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0070]).
As to claim 21, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 2, and Suzuki further teaches a content of the area display is transmitted to the further area display via a data transmission link and/or a content of the further display area is transmitted to the area (Suzuki Fig. 1 - 20; Fig. 2 - 31, 30, 20; para. [0058]-[0060]).
As to claim 22, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches a processing unit (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30; Fig. 4 - 100; para. [0058]-[0059]).
As to claim 23, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 22, and Suzuki further teaches the processing unit is one of
a local processing unit at the location of the person, and wherein the respective current position as well as the associated information are stored on the local processing unit and are transmitted to a further processing unit via a data transmission link and are evaluated on the further processing unit to generate a result data set (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30, 34; para. [0051], [0058]-[0060]);
a local processing unit at the location of the person, and wherein the respective current position as well as the associated information are stored on the local processing unit and are evaluated on the local processing unit to generate a result data set, wherein the result data set is optionally transmitted to a further processing unit via a data transmission link (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30, 34; para. [0051], [0058]-[0060]).
As to claim 25, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 22, and Suzuki further teaches a local processing unit at the location of the person, which is connected to the area display, wherein the processing unit causes the display and movement of the visually detectable test spot on the area display via a data transmission link to the local processing unit, wherein the respective current position as well as the associated information are stored on the processing unit and evaluated to generate a result data set (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 20, 30; Figs. 4-7; para. [0058]-[0062]).
As to claim 26, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 22, and Suzuki further teaches a computer program comprising instructions that cause the processing unit to perform the method (Suzuki Figs. 1-7).
As to claim 27, Suzuki teaches a device for measuring the visual field of a person comprising
an area display configured to be viewed by a person (Suzuki Fig. 1 - 20),
a processing unit configured to display a test spot on the area display to the person and to move it along a predefinable path on the area display (Suzuki Figs. 4-7; para. [0059]; Fig. 6 - 101a, P; para. [0067]), the test spot being visible to the person at a point of movement of the test spot along the path (Suzuki Figs 4-7; para. [0060]);
an interaction device configured to be triggered by the person (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 35; para. [0051]) when the displayed test spot becomes invisible to the person during said movement along the path at a current position or becomes visible again after having become invisible during said movement along the path (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 101a, 102a, 101b, 102b; para. [0059]-[0060] - patient presses button when target becomes visible again after moving from location to location);
wherein the processing unit is configured to store, upon triggering the interaction device, the respective current position and associated information (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 32, 33, 31, 34; para. [0051]; Fig. 4 - 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0061]) indicating whether the test spot has become invisible to the person at the current position or has become visible again (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 32, 33, 31, 34; para. [0051]; Fig. 4 - 101a, 101b; para. [0060]-[0061]).
As to claim 28, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 27, and Suzuki further teaches a further area display configured to be viewed by an examiner (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 31; para. [0055]), wherein the processing unit is further configured to display an area of the person’s field of view on the further display (Suzuki Figs. 3-7), said current positions forming edge points of the area (Suzuki Figs. 4-7 - 101a, 101b).
As to claim 30, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 27, and Suzuki further teaches a fixation unit configured to fix a head position of the person with respect to the area display (Suzuki Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0055]).
As to claim 31, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 27, and Suzuki further teaches a further processing unit (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 31, 30), and wherein the processing unit is configured to transmit the current positions as well as the associated information to the further processing unit via a data transmission link (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30, 31), wherein the further processing unit is configured to evaluate the current positions as well as the associated information to generate a result data set (Suzuki Figs. 4-7; para. [0063]).
As to claim 32, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 27, and Suzuki further teaches a further processing unit (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30), and wherein the processing unit is configured to evaluate the current positions and the associated information to generate a result data set and to transmit the result data set to the further processing unit via a data transmission link (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30, 31; para. [0063]); and/or
a local processing unit at the location of the person (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30), which is connected to the area display (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 31), wherein the processing unit causes the display and movement of the visually detectable test spot on the area display via a data transmission link to the local processing unit (Suzuki Fig. 2 - 30, 31; Figs. 4-7), wherein the respective current position as well as the associated information are stored on the processing unit and evaluated to generate a result data set (Suzuki Figs. 4-7; para. [0063]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mantysalo et al. (US 2016/0249798 - Mantysalo; of record).
As to claim 13, Suzuki teaches all the limitations of the instant invention as detailed above with respect to claim 1, and Suzuki further teaches during the measurement run a central object is displayed on the area display (Suzuki Fig. 1 - 20; para. [0050]), and which is viewed by the person to fix a viewing direction of the person (Suzuki para. [0050], [0056]; claim 1).
Suzuki doesn’t specify the central object (fixation point) is weaker in light than the test spot.
In the same field of endeavor Mantysalo teaches providing weaker central object (fixation point) light than test spot (Mantysalo para. [0026]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant invention to provide a weaker fixation point since, as taught by Mantysalo, such dim fixation points help to attract the viewing of the patient by being more interesting (Mantysalo para. [0026]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Soya (JP 2007-075350) is cited as an additional examples of a visual field method with moving target and user input indicating visible/invisible spot appearance.
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 ZACHARY W WILKES whose telephone number is (571)270-7540. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 (Pacific).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ricky Mack can be reached at 571-272-2333. 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.
/ZACHARY W WILKES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 May 12, 2026
Prosecution Insights