DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed 8 June 2026. Claims 1-5, 8-15, 18-20 are now pending. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claims 1, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 20. The examiner also notes that claim 18 does not contain the correct status identifier and should read –(currently amended)—in place of the status of identified of “(original)”.
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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 8 June 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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:
-Claim 1 recites “a processing system” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to “receive stimuli configuration data and sleep data and determine…to use.” According to the specification the controller includes one or more processors and computer-readable storage devices or media [0023] and equivalents thereof.
-Claims 2 and 12 recites “one or more sensors” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to communicate with the processing system and supply sleep state data to the processing system. According to the specification the one or more sensors includes smart watch, video sensor, EEG sensor, EOG sensor, inertial sensors, surface load sensors, ECG sensors [0019] and equivalents thereof.
-Claims 9 and 19 recites “wearable user interface” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to supply the trigger signal. According to the specification the user interface includes a smart watch [0020] and equivalents thereof.
-Claims 9 and 19 recites “second processing system” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to supply the trigger signal. According to the specification the user interface includes an avionic system [0027] and equivalents thereof.
-Claims 9 and 19 recites “communication device” which is a generic placeholder. There is no sufficient structure for this limitation provided in the claims. The function of this limitation is to supply the trigger signal. According to the specification the communication device includes a phone, uplink call/message from the ground, or a side-link call/message from another aircraft [0027] and equivalents thereof.
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 Objections
Claims 5 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 5 recites “and the activation” in lines 3-4. Examiner recommends amending to –and wherein the activation—
-Claim 8 recites “the processing system is coupled” in lines 1-2. Examiner recommends amending to –the processing system is configured—
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-5, 8-15 and 18-20 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.
-Claim 1 recites “all available waking stimuli available for use” in lines 19-20. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from the set of available stimuli originally referenced in claim 1, line 9. It is also unclear what the use of the term available twice in this limitation imparts upon the requirements of the claim. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 3 recites “one or more sensors…one or more electroencephalogram (EEG) sensors, one or more electrooculogram (EOG) sensors, and one or more inertial sensors” in lines 1-4. It is unclear whether this claim requires one or more of a sensor, EEG, EOG, or inertial sensors, whether the claim requires one or more of a sensor or camera or wearable textile, and one or more of a EEG sensor, and one or more EOG sensor and one or more inertial sensor, or whether the claim requires one or more of a sensor, camera or wearable textile, or one or more of a EEG sensor, EOG sensor, or inertial sensor, or a separate embodiment. Further clarification should be provided.
-Claim 11 recites “the resting person” in lines 12-13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
-Claim 15 recites “a step of selectively activating…waking stimuli” in lines 2-3. It is unclear whether this is the same or different from selectively activating…waking stimuli originally referenced in claim 11, lines 11-12.
-Claim 15 recites “determining a step of selectively activating the set of available waking stimuli” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what is required to be determined based on this limitation. Further clarification should be provided to identify whether this requires a determination of whether to selectively activate the set of available waking stimuli or a separate embodiment.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4, 8-12, 14, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by D’Arbonneau (U.S. 20190352008).
Regarding Claim 1, D’Arbonneau teaches a system for waking a resting person [Abstract], comprising:
memory having user profile data stored therein that is associated with the resting person [0016]—reference to memory storing history of parameters representative of state of consciousness of active crew members;
And a processing system including one or more processors encoded with programming instructions [0080], the processing system in operable communication with the memory [0080] and configured to receive stimuli configuration data and sleep state data and configured, upon receipt of the stimuli configuration data and the sleep state data [0019]—discusses wakeup apparatus and detecting when first and second wakeup apparatus are needed given the situation, to automatically process the stimuli configuration data and the sleep state data [0188] to:
determine (i) a set of available stimuli to use to awaken the resting person [0013] and [0019] and (ii) a sequence of activation of the set of available stimuli to use [0019];
selectively activate the set of available stimuli in the determined sequence of activation, to thereby supply waking stimuli to the resting person [0019] and [0028-0030];
monitor, in response to the sleep state data, a response of the resting person to each of the set of available stimuli that is activated to determine an effectiveness of each of the set of available stimuli [0067]—reference to acknowledgement that the resting crew member is awake and [0158]—reference to acknowledgement means paired with data related to monitoring a state of consciousness of the resting crew member;
and selectively update the user profile data in the memory to reflect the response of the resting person to each of the set of available stimuli that is activated [0016; “a history of current parameters stored in the memory and/or a history of the parameter representative of the state of consciousness of said at least one other active crew member.”]
wherein: the stimuli configuration data is indicative of all available waking stimuli available for use [0013 and 0188], and
the sleep state data is indicative of a current sleep state of the resting person [0030].
Regarding Claim 2, D’Arbonneau further teaches comprising: one or more sensors in operable communication with the processing system and configured to supply the sleep state data to the processing system [0062-0063]—discusses detecting state of consciousness of the active and resting crew members.
Regarding Claim 4, D’Arbonneau teaches wherein the available waking stimuli include one or more of visual stimuli, aural stimuli, and vibrational stimuli [0110]—describes visual stimuli. This claim is interpreted to only require one of the listed limitations.
Regarding Claim 8, D’Arbonneau teaches wherein the processing system is coupled to receive a trigger signal and is configured, upon receipt of the trigger signal, to selectively activate the set of available stimuli in the determined sequence of activation [0079] and [0083]—describes the processing unit activating the wakeup apparatus and therefore, signal that the resting crew member needs to wake up.
Regarding Claim 9, D’Arbonneau teaches wherein the trigger signal is supplied from one or more of: a wearable user interface configured to be disposed on a second person; a second processing system; and a communication device [0124-0125]—includes situation information communicated via module, 40, that includes messages for implementing urgent action.
Regarding Claim 10, D’Arbonneau teaches wherein: the processing system is further configured to receive on-duty person state data [0008], the on-duty person state data indicative of a cognitive state of an on-duty person who is not the resting person [0095]; and the processing system is configured, upon receipt of the on-duty person state data, to determine the cognitive state of the on-duty person [0016] and selectively generate the trigger signal in response to the determined cognitive state of the on-duty person [0016] and [0022]—discloses upon detecting state of consciousness of the active crew member, creating activation information of the detection means if the active crew member is in an awake state which is interpreted to be the determined cognitive state.
Regarding Claim 11, D’Arbonneau teaches a method of waking a person [Abstract], comprising the steps of:
receiving, in a processing system that includes one or more processors encoded with programming instructions [0080], stimuli configuration data, the stimuli configuration data indicative of all available waking stimuli available for use [0019 and 0188];
receiving, in the processing system, sleep state data, the sleep state data indicative of a current sleep state of the person [0030];
automatically processing, in the processing system, the stimuli configuration data and the sleep state data [0188] to determine (i) a set of available waking stimuli to use to awaken the person [0013] and (ii) a sequence of activation of the set of available waking stimuli to use [0019];
selectively activating, via the processing system, the set of available waking stimuli in the determined sequence of activation, to thereby supply waking stimuli to the resting person [0019] and [0028-0030];
monitoring, in the processing system, for a response of the person to each of the set of available waking stimuli that is activated to determine an effectiveness of each of the set of available waking stimuli [0067]—reference to acknowledgement that the resting crew member is awake and [0158]—reference to acknowledgement means paired with data related to monitoring a state of consciousness of the resting crew member;
and selectively updating, via the processing system, user profile data stored in a memory, the user profile data associated with the person to reflect the response of the person to each of the set of available waking stimuli that is activated [0016; “a history of current parameters stored in the memory and/or a history of the parameter representative of the state of consciousness of said at least one other active crew member.”]
Regarding Claim 12, D’Arbonneau further teaches further comprising: supplying the sleep state data to the processing system from one or more sensors [0062-0063]—discusses detecting state of consciousness of the active and resting crew members.
Regarding Claim 14, D’Arbonneau further teaches wherein the available waking stimuli include one or more of visual stimulation, aural stimulation, and vibrational stimuli [0110]—describes visual stimuli. This claim is interpreted to only require one of the listed limitations.
Regarding Claim 18, D’Arbonneau further teaches further comprising: generating, in the processing system, a trigger that causes the processing system to selectively activate the set of available waking stimuli in the determined sequence of activation [0079] and [0083]—describes the processing unit activating the wakeup apparatus and therefore, signal that the resting crew member needs to wake up.
Regarding Claim 19, D’Arbonneau further teaches wherein the trigger is generated in response to one or more of: a signal supplied from a wearable user interface disposed on a second person; a signal supplied from a second processing system; and a signal supplied from a communication device [0124-0125]—includes situation information communicated via module, 40, that includes messages for implementing urgent action.
Regarding Claim 20, D’Arbonneau further teaches further comprising: receiving, in the processing system, on-duty person state data [0008], the on-duty person state data representative of a cognitive state of an on-duty person who is not the resting person [0095]; processing, in the processing system, the on-duty person state data to determine the cognitive state of the on-duty person; and selectively generating the trigger in response to determining the cognitive state of the on-duty person [0016] and [0022]—discloses upon detecting state of consciousness of the active crew member, creating activation information of the detection means if the active crew member is in an awake state which is interpreted to be the determined cognitive state.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 3, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Arbonneau (U.S. 20190352008) in view of Jaddu (WO 2022168000).
Regarding Claim 3, D’Arbonneau is silent on wherein the one or more sensors include one or more of a watch, a camera, a wearable textile, one or more electroencephalogram (EEG) sensors, one or more electrooculogram (EOG) sensors, and one or more inertial sensors. Jaddu teaches wherein the one or more sensors include one or more of a watch, a camera, a wearable textile, one or more electroencephalogram (EEG) sensors, one or more electrooculogram (EOG) sensors, and one or more inertial sensors[00039]—reference to using electrooculogram technologies, and one or more inertial sensors [00048]—reference to inertial motion units of operator monitoring devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include specific sensor technologies as taught by Jaddu to monitor conditions of the operator and aircraft as suggested by D’Arbonneau, as D’Arbonneau discusses monitoring physiological conditions of the operator and acceleration and altitude of the aircraft [0059 and 0062] and with Jaddu because Jaddu teaches receiving operator positional and biosignals to determine operator alertness status [00015].
Regarding Claim 13, D’Arbonneau is silent on wherein the one or more sensors include one or more of a watch, a camera, and a wearable textile. Jaddu teaches wherein the one or more sensors include one or more of a watch, a camera, and a wearable textile [Abstract]—watch and camera are not interpreted to be required by the claim.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include specific sensor technologies as taught by Jaddu to monitor conditions of the operator and aircraft as suggested by D’Arbonneau, as D’Arbonneau discusses monitoring physiological conditions of the operator and acceleration and altitude of the aircraft [0059 and 0062] and with Jaddu because Jaddu teaches receiving operator positional and biosignals to determine operator alertness status [00015].
Claim(s) 5, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over D’Arbonneau (U.S. 20190352008) in view of Bremer (EP 3826281).
Regarding Claim 5, D’Arbonneau is silent on wherein: the processing system is further configured to determine an activation method for selectively activating the set of available stimuli; and the activation method includes a gradual increase in an intensity of the activated stimuli, an abrupt activation at a first predetermined intensity, an abrupt activation at a second predetermined intensity that is greater in magnitude than the first predetermined intensity, or multiple abrupt activations at a second predetermined intensity. Bremer teaches wherein: the processing system is further configured to determine an activation method for selectively activating the set of available stimuli [0137]; and
the activation method includes a gradual increase in an intensity of the activated stimuli [0137]—discussion on gradual increase in volume, an abrupt activation at a first predetermined intensity, an abrupt activation at a second predetermined intensity that is greater in magnitude than the first predetermined intensity, or multiple abrupt activations at a second predetermined intensity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary stimulation intensities applies as taught by Bremer to activate the alarm at varying intensities as suggested by D’Arbonneau, as D’Arbonneau discusses varying vibrations, sound and light as the alarm is activated [0162, 0170, 0058] and with Bremer because Bremer teaches the described process as ensuring a more reliable wake-up at the desired wake-up time [0062].
Regarding Claim 15, D’Arbonneau is silent on determining, in the processing system, a step of selectively activating the set of available waking stimuli, wherein the step of selectively activating the set of available stimuli includes a gradual increase in an intensity of the set of available waking stimuli. Bremer teaches determining, in the processing system, a step of selectively activating the set of available waking stimuli [Abstract; “a processor is used for determining a stimulus intensity curve for the alarm”],
wherein the step of selectively activating the set of available stimuli includes a gradual increase in an intensity of the set of available waking stimuli [0062], an abrupt activation at a first predetermined intensity [0062], an abrupt activation at a second predetermined intensity that is greater in magnitude than the first predetermined intensity, or multiple abrupt activations at a second predetermined intensity[0062; “There may for example be a step increase in intensity at the end of the curve to ensure a more reliable wake-up at the desired wake-up time, if the user has not already woken up (and turned off the alarm) by then.”]—where step increases are interpreted to be intensity increases in an abrupt fashion.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to vary stimulation intensities applies as taught by Bremer to activate the alarm at varying intensities as suggested by D’Arbonneau, as D’Arbonneau discusses varying vibrations, sound and light as the alarm is activated [0162, 0170, 0058] and with Bremer because Bremer teaches the described process as ensuring a more reliable wake-up at the desired wake-up time [0062].
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8 June 2026 with respect to the drawing and specification objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the
amendments.
Applicant's arguments filed 8 June 2026 with respect to the claim objections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the Amendments except for claim 5 which was previously proposed to read –and wherein—
Applicant's arguments filed 8 June 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 101
rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Applicant's arguments filed 8 June 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112
rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive, however, new grounds of rejection are presented in light of the amendments for claims 1-5, 8-15 and 18-20.
Applicant's arguments filed 8 June 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1 and 11, applicant contends that claims have now been amended to recite “memory having the user profile data stored therein that is associated with the resting person” and “processing system…monitor, in response to the sleep data, a response of the resting person to each of the set of available stimuli that is activated to determine and effectiveness of each…and selectively update the user profile data is in the memory to reflect the response of the resting person to each of the set of available stimuli that is activated.” More specifically the applicant contends that D’Arbonneau does not teach these limitations.
The examiner notes for the limitation “memory…resting person” that the recited paragraph discusses storing historical data related to the crew members based on their state of consciousness. This equates to a user profile including data associated with the resting person since both crew members are described as transitioning through consciousness states.
The examiner further notes regarding the limitation “monitor…response…effectiveness of each” the recites paragraphs of [0067] describes a monitoring system which includes a system that allows a crew member to provide an indication to active crew members that he is awake. The applicant also indicates in the arguments that [0158] includes a monitoring, detection and acknowledgement means to the attention of crew members. If the crew member is awakened by a stimulus and then communicates to the crew that the waking stimulus did in fact wake them, this would equate to the monitoring and stimulation system working effectively to provide stimulus to the resting person, waking them up and then providing that information to the rest of the crew.
The examiner notes for the limitation regarding “updating…that is activated” that the recited paragraph includes information related to the data and parameters that are actively stored based on “able to record” references. It also describes using this historical data to display history of current parameters that represent the state of consciousness of the crew members. This description involves the use of a database to update and display real-time information based on historical data which would fulfill the requirement of the claim.
In view of the foregoing, the previously presented rejections citing D’Arbonneau are maintained.
Applicant's arguments filed 8 June 2026 with respect to 35 U.S.C. 103
rejections have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In view of the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections citing D’Arbonneau in view of Jaddu for claims 3 and 13, and D’Arbonneau in view of Bremer for claims 5 and 15 are maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 BROOKE NICOLE KOHUTKA whose telephone number is (571)272-5583. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7:30am-5:00pm EST.
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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at 571-272-4730. 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.
/B.N.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/CHRISTINE H MATTHEWS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights