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
1. The amendment filed November 26, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-24 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 11-13, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0117328 A1) in view of Norris et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0269833 A1, hereinafter "Norris").
Regarding Claim 1, Herrmann teaches an apparatus (hearing prosthesis, Figs. 1-4, Para. [0032]) for affecting pressure waves within at least part of or in proximity to an ear of a user (the hearing prosthesis has ultrasound device 2 for affecting pressure waves within ear of user, Figs. 1-4, Para. [0032]), at least part of the apparatus being configured to be wearable within at least part of or in proximity to said ear of said user (hearing prosthesis within the ear, Figs. 1-4),
the apparatus comprises an array of ultrasound emitters (ultrasound array 8, Figs. 1, 2, and 4, Para. [0036]) and processor means (processor 5, Figs. 1 and 4, Paras. [0034] and [0041]) operative in response to an input signal of an input means (microphone 1, Figs. 1 and 4, Paras. [0034] and [0041]) to control an output of the array of ultrasound emitters (acoustic waves are converted by a microphone 1 into electrical impulses and transmitted via an analog-to-digital converter 4 to a speech processor 5 that processes these signals used to generate control signals for an ultrasonic driver 7, Figs. 1 and 4, Para. [0034]).
Herrmann fails to explicitly teach wherein the array of ultrasound emitters is configured to generate interfering ultrasound outputs comprising patterns of ultrasound waves that interfere to provide an ultrasound standing wave in air and/or biological tissue at or within, or in proximity to the ear, ear-drum and/or ear-canal of said user.
However, Norris teaches wherein the array of ultrasound emitters is configured to generate interfering ultrasound outputs comprising patterns of ultrasound waves that interfere to provide an ultrasound standing wave in air and/or biological tissue at or within, or in proximity to the ear, ear-drum and/or ear-canal of said user (ultrasound emitter 70 creates ultrasound waves 144 within the ear canal, Fig. 1, Para. [0036]; the ear canal can be made to resonate with a standing wave at ultrasonic frequences with the in-ear ultrasonic transducer earpiece which provides ultrasonic waves that interface to provide the ultrasonic standing wave within the ear canal, Para. [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (as taught by Herrmann) to include the array of ultrasound emitters generating interfering ultrasound outputs to provide an ultrasound standing wave within the ear canal (as taught by Norris). Doing so will enable tuning the ultrasound carrier frequency to maximize signal at the ear canal (Norris Para. [0074]).
Regarding Claim 2, Herrmann in view of Norris teach wherein the ultrasound outputs transmit, either directly or indirectly, ultrasound towards one or more of the group comprising:
a) at least part of:
i) an ear-drum complex to affect movement and/or vibration of at least part of the ear- drum complex; or
ii) a inner and/or middle ear structure or space(s) to affect movement and/or vibration of at least part of an inner and/or middle ear structure or space(s) (Herrmann, ultrasound output is transmitted towards a region of the inner ear, Para. [0034]).
Regarding Claim 3, Herrmann in view of Norris teach wherein the ultrasound outputs generate a fluctuating pressure wave of variable frequency and/or amplitude configured to replicate vibration of an ear-drum commensurate with vibrations expected in a normal ear in response to sound (Herrmann, ultrasound device 2 generates a plurality of focused, pulsed ultrasonic beams of varying frequencies, Para. [0032] and [0034]).
Regarding Claim 5, Herrmann in view of Norris teach wherein the input means comprises:
a control signal (Herrmann, acoustic waves are converted by a microphone 1 into electrical impulses and transmitted via an analog-to-digital converter 4 to a speech processor 5 that processes these signals to generate control signals, Figs. 1 and 4, Para. [0034]);
a sound input (Herrmann, microphone 1 receives sound input, Figs. 1 and 4, Paras. [0032] and [0034]).
Regarding Claim 6, Herrmann in view of Norris teach wherein the input signal to the processor means is analysed to determine frequencies and corresponding amplitudes of the sound input and/or the detected sound (Herrmann, acoustic waves are converted by a microphone 1 into electrical impulses and transmitted via an analog-to-digital converter 4 to a speech processor 5 that processes these signals. The frequency- and time-resolved amplitudes of the ultrasonic beams are encoded on multiple channels, so that multichannel control signals for an ultrasonic driver 7 of an ultrasound device 2 are generated, Figs. 1 and 4, Para. [0034]), and the processor means provides an output signal for the emitters which is configured to affect:
an ear-drum complex consistent with said user hearing the sound input or the detected sound (Herrmann, the ultrasound device 2 generates a plurality of ultrasonic beams 3 which stimulate regions of nerves in the cochlea or regions of the auditory pathway, Figs. 1-4, Para. [0034]).
Regarding Claim 7, Herrmann in view of Norris teach wherein the processor means is configured to provide an output signal to the ultrasound emitters for providing ultrasound of predetermined amplitude, frequency, duration, modulation, harmonics, timing, and/or interference pattern (Herrmann, processor 5 outputs signals to the ultrasonic driver 7 of ultrasonic device 2 providing frequency- and time-resolved amplitudes of the ultrasonic beams encoded on multiple channels, Para. [0034]; duration of the irradiation and the repetition of the stimulation/blocking that is produced is generated in the ultrasonic driver 7 for each individual element or for the group of arrays by the encoded control signals from the speech processor 5, Para. [0036]).
Regarding Claim 11, it is similarly rejected as Claim 1, The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
Regarding Claim 12, it is similarly rejected as Claim 2. The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
Regarding Claim 13, Herrmann in view of Norris teach wherein the ultrasound outputs transmit to at least part of the ear-drum complex, inner or middle ear, ear-canal or other structure or space, or to at least part of the cochlear implant or hearing prosthetic to provide a perception of sound to the user (Herrmann, ultrasound output is transmitted towards a region of the inner ear, Para. [0034]).
Regarding Claim 15, it is similarly rejected as Claim 3. The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
Regarding Claim 17, it is similarly rejected as Claim 6. The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
4. Claim(s) 4, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0117328 A1) in view of Norris et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0269833 A1, hereinafter "Norris"), and further in view of Van Tol et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0092958 A1, hereinafter "Van Tol").
Regarding Claim 4, Herrmann in view of Norris teach wherein the ultrasound outputs generate:
a) patterns of ultrasound waves that interfere at one or more points, areas, and/or two- or three-dimensional planes to affect a change in pressure at or close to any of the points, areas or planes (Norris, ultrasound emitter 70 creates ultrasound waves 144 within the ear canal, Fig. 1, Para. [0036]; the ear canal can be made to resonate with a standing wave at ultrasonic frequences with the in-ear ultrasonic transducer earpiece which provides ultrasonic waves that interface to provide the ultrasonic standing wave within the ear canal, Para. [0074]);
b) patterns of ultrasound waves that interfere at a position or area, in or adjacent to a site or position within the ear-canal, the external auditory meatus, and/or the ear-canal wall and/or surrounding bone (Norris, ultrasound emitter 70 creates ultrasound waves 144 within the ear canal, Fig. 1, Para. [0036]; the ear canal can be made to resonate with a standing wave at ultrasonic frequences with the in-ear ultrasonic transducer earpiece which provides ultrasonic waves that interface to provide the ultrasonic standing wave within the ear canal, Para. [0074]);
c) a constant or fluctuating pressure wave of constant or varying frequency and/or amplitude configured to provide interference to reduce or obstruct the effects of an adverse pressure wave reaching said ear-drum complex, cochlear implant or hearing prosthetic (Herrmann, ultrasound device 2 generates a plurality of focused, pulsed ultrasonic beams of varying frequencies, Para. [0032] and [0034]; generated ultrasound provide interference to reduce focal volume is produced by superposition of the beams, Fig. 7, Para. [0038]).
Herrmann in view of Norris fail to explicitly teach d) a constant pressure wave configured to act as an acoustic filter or acoustic grate, to reduce or prevent transmission of specific frequencies and/or amplitudes of an adverse pressure wave reaching said ear-drum complex, cochlear implant or hearing prosthetic; and/or
e) patterns of ultrasound waves to provide interference to reduce or obstruct the effects of an adverse pressure wave reaching said ear-drum complex, cochlear implant or hearing prosthetic, or modify an adverse pressure wave to remove its adverse effect(s).
However, Van Tol teaches ultrasound output to reduce or prevent transmission of specific frequencies and/or amplitudes of an adverse pressure wave reaching said ear-drum complex (ultrasonic signal generation module 310-c, receives signal from microphone module 1110 and adjust ultrasonic signals 1115-a and 1115-b to cancel the audio 1120 received at microphone module 1110 from location A 905-b, Fig. 11, Para. [0059]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (as taught by Herrmann in view of Norris) to include ultrasound output to reduce transmission of adverse pressure waves reaching ear-drum complex (as taught by Van Tol). Doing so, users hear a reduced level of noise or unwanted sound (Von Tol Para. [0059]).
Regarding Claim 14, it is similarly rejected as Claim 4. The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
Regarding Claim 16, it is similarly rejected as Claim 4. The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
5. Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0117328 A1) in view of Norris et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0269833 A1, hereinafter "Norris"), and further in view of Hyde et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0118035 A1, hereinafter "Hyde").
Regarding Claim 8, Herrmann in view of Norris teach wherein the processor means is configured to additionally analyse one or more inputs from an ultrasound transducer/receiver, a laser and/or light emitter/receiver, microphone, proximity sensor, a time of flight sensor, an imager, and/or an ultrasound transducer/receiver, or combination thereof (Herrmann, acoustic waves are converted by a microphone 1 into electrical impulses and transmitted via an analog-to-digital converter 4 to a speech processor 5 that processes these signals. The frequency- and time-resolved amplitudes of the ultrasonic beams are encoded on multiple channels, so that multichannel control signals for an ultrasonic driver 7 of an ultrasound device 2 are generated, Figs. 1 and 4, Para. [0034]), and modify the output signal (ultrasound source 2 generates reference beams 3' focused on reference points R. The reference beams 3' are used to detect changes in position of the hearing aid or ultrasound device 2 so as to perform a correction of the other ultrasonic beams 3, Para. [0037]).
Herrmann in view of Norris fail to explicitly teach wherein the processor means is configured to additionally analyse one or more inputs from an ultrasound transducer/receiver, a laser and/or light emitter/receiver, microphone, proximity sensor, a time of flight sensor, an imager, and/or an ultrasound transducer/receiver, or combination thereof, which detect movement and/or vibration of any ear structure, or a movement in close proximity to said ear, and, thereby, modify the output signal.
However, Hyde teaches detect movement and/or vibration of any ear structure, or a movement in close proximity to said ear (vibration sensor 150 detects vibrational noise sound waves near a listener's ear, Fig. 1, Para. [0027]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (as taught by Herrmann in view of Norris) to include detecting movement and/or vibration of any ear structure, or a movement in close proximity to said ear (as taught by Hyde). Doing so will ensure and improve clarity and/or intelligibility or audio perception.
6. Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0117328 A1) in view of Norris et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0269833 A1, hereinafter "Norris"), and further in view of Kappus et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0057529 A1, hereinafter "Kappus").
Regarding Claim 9, Herrmann in view of Norris fail to explicitly teach wherein the processor means is configured to compare a detected response of one or more ear structures to the ultrasound outputs with an expected response to sound, and is configured to modify the ultrasound outputs to improve replication of the sound.
However, Kappus teaches wherein the processor means is configured to compare a detected response of one or more ear structures to the ultrasound outputs with an expected response to sound, and is configured to modify the ultrasound outputs to improve replication of the sound (a hearing response profile of a listener to an audio modulated ultrasonic carrier signal can be determined, and audio content can be adjusted to at least partially compensate for the listener's hearing response profile, Para. [0078]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (as taught by Herrmann in view of Norris) to include comparing detected response to ultrasound output (as taught by Kappus). Doing so can improve clarity and/or intelligibility or audio perception (Kappus Para. [0079]).
Regarding Claim 18, it is similarly rejected as Claim 9. The method can be found in Herrmann (Paras. [0019] and [0020]).
7. Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0117328 A1) in view of Norris et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0269833 A1, hereinafter "Norris"), and further in view of Cowan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0293913 A1, hereinafter "Cowan").
Regarding Claim 10, Herrmann in view of Norris fail to explicitly teach further comprising a cochlear apparatus.
However, Cowan teaches a cochlear apparatus (cochlear apparatus 32, 34, Figs. 3b and 3c, Paras. [0036] and [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (as taught by Herrmann in view of Norris) to include the cochlear apparatus (as taught by Cowan). Doing so will enable a much more robust utilization of site and region specific stimulation (Cowan Para. [0031]).
8. Claim(s) 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0293913 A1, hereinafter "Cowan") in view of Norris et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0269833 A1, hereinafter "Norris"), and further in view of Herrmann (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0117328 A1).
Regarding Claim 19, Cowan teaches a cochlear apparatus, for implantation within at least part of a cochlear canal of a user or for replacement of a cochlea of a user (cochlear implant system (CIS) is shown in Figs. 3b, 3c, 4a, and 4b, Paras. [0036]-[0040]), the cochlear apparatus comprising:
one or more regions adapted to receive an ultrasound output of an ultrasound emitter (multiple receiver-stimulators consisting of receiver 32 and electrodes 34 are placed within multiple regions of the cochlea to receive ultrasound from controller-transmitter transducer 30, Figs. 3b and 3c, Paras. [0031], [0036] and [0037]).
Cowan fails to explicitly teach an earphone, fully-locatable in an ear-canal of said user, the earphone comprising the ultrasound emitter directed towards an ear-drum of said user, the ultrasound emitter being configured to generate interfering patterns of ultrasound waves that interfere in the one or more regions of the cochlear apparatus so as to generate one or more electrical signals for providing a perception of sound to said user.
However, Norris teaches an earphone, fully-locatable in an ear-canal of said user (earpiece 140 located in ear-canal, Fig. 1, Paras. [0027] and [0036]), the earphone comprising the ultrasound emitter directed towards an ear-drum of said user (ultrasound emitter 70 which can direct waves towards ear-drum of user, Fig. 1, Paras. [0037] and [0074]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (as taught by Cowan) to include the earphone comprising ultrasound emitter (as taught by Norris). Doing so, a perfect or near-perfect transient response which can improve clarity (Norris Para. [0076]).
However, Herrmann teaches the ultrasound emitter being configured to generate interfering patterns of ultrasound waves that interfere in the one or more regions of the cochlear apparatus so as to generate one or more electrical signals for providing a perception of sound to said user (generated ultrasound beams 3 are superposed to provide interfering patterns focused in the cochlea for providing a perception of sound to user, Fig. 7, Paras. [0034] and [0038]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (as taught by Cowan in view of Norris) to include the generation of interfering patterns of ultrasound in the region of the cochlear apparatus (as taught by Herrmann). Doing so reduces the stress caused by ultrasonic radiation (Herrmann Para. [0038]).
Regarding Claim 20, Cowan in view of Norris, and further in view of Herrmann teach wherein the cochlear apparatus comprises means for stimulating auditory nerve cells of the inner ear (Cowan, receiver-stimulator device used to electrically stimulate cochlear nerves, Para. [0025]).
Regarding Claim 21, Cowan in view of Norris, and further in view of Herrmann teach wherein the one or more regions comprise piezoelectric material capable of receiving said ultrasound output and generating one or more electrical signals (Cowan, receiver-stimulator 42 contains ultrasound transducer 20 made of piezoelectric material which receives ultrasound output and generates electrical signals, Fig. 4b, Para. [0040]).
Regarding Claim 22, Cowan in view of Norris, and further in view of Herrmann teach wherein the one or more regions are spatially located along at least part of the cochlear apparatus such that different regions are responsive to different frequencies, amplitudes and/or modulation of said ultrasound output (Cowan, multiple receiver-stimulators can receive transmitted acoustic energy independently by responding only to acoustic energy of a specific character (i.e., of a certain frequency, amplitude, or by other modulation or encoding of the acoustic waveform) intended to energize only that specific region, Para. [0031]).
Regarding Claim 23, Cowan in view of Norris, and further in view of Herrmann teach wherein the cochlear apparatus comprises a receiving surface for propagating received sound, ultrasound or electromagnetic signals to the cochlear apparatus (Cowan, receiver 32, Figs. 3b and 3c, Paras. [0036] and [0037]).
Regarding Claim 24, Cowan in view of Norris, and further in view of Herrmann teach wherein the ultrasound emitter comprises an array of interfering ultrasound emitters (Herrmann, ultrasound array 8 which can provide interfering ultrasound beams, Figs. 1, 2, 4, and 7, Para. [0036] and [0038]).
Response to Arguments
9. Applicant's arguments filed November 26, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent Claims 1 and 11 applicant argues (see applicant’s remark pages 10-12), Claim 1 is amended to recite "apparatus comprises an array of ultrasound emitters and processor means operative in response to an input signal of an input means to control an output of the array of ultrasound emitters, wherein the array of ultrasound emitters is configured to generate interfering ultrasound outputs comprising patterns of ultrasound waves that interfere to provide an ultrasound standing wave in air and/or biological tissue at or within, or in proximity to the ear, ear-drum and/or ear-canal of said user.", Claim 11 has been similarly amended, and that in Herrmann, there is no teaching relating to combining these individual ultrasonic beams to interfere and provide an ultrasound standing wave. Herrmann does not disclose the above-described features of amended claims 1 and 11.
In response the Applicant’s argument above, independent Claims 1 and 11 have rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Norris.
Herrmann teaches the array of ultrasound emitters (Figs. 1, 2, and 4, Para. [0036]).
Norris teaches wherein the array of ultrasound emitters is configured to generate interfering ultrasound outputs comprising patterns of ultrasound waves that interfere to provide an ultrasound standing wave in air and/or biological tissue at or within, or in proximity to the ear, ear-drum and/or ear-canal of said user (Fig. 1, Para. [0036] and [0074]).
The combination of the teachings of Herrmann in view of Norris renders Claims 1 and 11 obvious.
The rejections of Claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Norris are maintained.
Regarding independent Claim 19 applicant argues (see applicant’s remark pages 12 and 13), Claim 19 has been amended to recite " . . . an earphone, fully-locatable in an ear-canal of said user, the earphone comprising the ultrasound emitter directed towards an ear-drum of said user, the ultrasound emitter being configured to generate interfering patterns of ultrasound waves that interfere in the one or more regions of the cochlear apparatus so as to generate one or more electrical signals for providing a perception of sound to said user. " and Cowan does not disclose such a deliberately interfering output nor does it disclose causing interference in specific regions of the cochlear apparatus. Cowan does not disclose the above-described features of amended claim 19.
In response to Applicant’s argument above, independent Claim 19 has been rejected on a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan in view of Norris and further in view of Herrmann.
Norris teaches an earphone, fully-locatable in an ear-canal of said user (Fig. 1, Paras. [0027] and [0036]), the earphone comprising the ultrasound emitter directed towards an ear-drum of said user (Fig. 1, Paras. [0037] and [0074]).
Herrmann teaches the ultrasound emitter being configured to generate interfering patterns of ultrasound waves that interfere in the one or more regions of the cochlear apparatus so as to generate one or more electrical signals for providing a perception of sound to said user (Fig. 7, Paras. [0034] and [0038]).
The combination of the teachings of Cowan in view of Norris, and further in view of Herrmann renders Claim 19 obvious.
The rejection of Claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan in view of Norris and further in view of Herrmann is maintained.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 12, 13, 15, and 17 have been rejected on new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Norris.
The rejections of dependent Claims 2, 3, 5-7, 12, 13, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Norris are maintained.
Dependent Claim 8 has been rejected on new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Norris, and further in view of Hyde.
The rejection of dependent Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Norris, and further in view of Hyde is maintained.
Dependent Claims 9 and 18 have been rejected on new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Norris, and further in view of Kappus.
The rejections of dependent Claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Norris, and further in view of Kappus are maintained.
Dependent Claim 10 has been rejected on new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Norris, and further in view of Cowan.
The rejection of dependent Claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herrmann in view of Norris, and further in view of Cowan is maintained.
Dependent Claims 20-24 have been rejected on new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan in view of Norris, and further in view of Herrmann.
The rejections of dependent Claims 20-24 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cowan in view of Norris, and further in view of Herrmann are maintained.
Conclusion
10. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Moses (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0154030 A1) teaches implantable ultrasonic hearing aid.
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHIMEZIE E BEKEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0202. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7.30-5.
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, Duc Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-7503. 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.
/CHIMEZIE EZERIWE BEKEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2691
/DUC NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2691