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
This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 21 August 2025. As directed by the amendment: Claims 62, 63, 66, 69, and 74 have been amended, Claims 1-61, 72, and 81 have been cancelled, and no claims have been added. Claims 64, 65, 67, 68, 74-80, and 82 were previously withdrawn due to a Restriction Requirement. Thus, Claims 62, 63, 66, 69, 70, 71, and 73 are presently pending in this application.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 62, 71, and 73, rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,813,477. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the instant application are broader in scope than those of U.S. Patent No. 11,813,477, with minor rewording of the claimed details.
Claim 62 is broader in scope than and is fully encompassed by Claims 1-5, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,813,477, since both sets of claims are directed to apparatuses for providing tissue therapy comprising: a field generator configured to generate a field and to apply the field through a portion of a biological medium; a direct current (DC) power supply configured to provide DC to the field generator; and a light source configured to deliver laser light to the portion of the biological medium during application of the field, and to deliver the laser light to the portion of the biological medium along a laser light path, and wherein the apparatus is configured such that application of the field prior to and/or during delivery of the laser light moves free electrons within the portion of the biological medium away from the laser light path.
Claim 71 is broader in scope than and is fully encompassed by Claims 1, 5, and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,813,477, since both sets of claims are directed to apparatuses wherein the field generator is configured to apply the field through the portion of the biological medium to induce movement of free electrons within the portion of the biological medium.
Claim 73 is broader in scope than and is fully encompassed by Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,813,477, since both sets of claims are directed to apparatuses to delivery a field and laser light to the biological medium comprising skin or tissue.
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.
Claims 62, 71, and 73 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Varghese et al. (US Publication No. 2016/0271419, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 62, Varghese et al. discloses an apparatus for providing tissue therapy (Abstract), the apparatus comprising:
a field generator (100, Fig. 2, 3A, Paragraph 0014, 0016-0017, 0026-0027, 0030, 0042-0044) configured to generate a field and to apply the field through a portion of a biological medium (Paragraph 0014, 0016-0017, 0026-0027, 0030, 0042-0044);
a direct current (DC) power supply (119, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0026, 0045-0046) configured to provide DC to the field generator (Paragraph 0026, 0030, 0045-0046);
and a light source (105, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0007, 0026, Abstract) configured to deliver laser light (106, Fig. 2, 3A-C) to the portion of the biological medium along a laser light path (106, Fig. 2, 3A-C) during application of the field (Paragraph 0014, 0016-0017, 0026-0027, 0030, 0042-0044),
and wherein the apparatus is configured such that application of the field prior to and/or during delivery of the laser light moves free electrons within the portion of the biological medium away from the laser light path (at least one free electron [seed] is freed from target position by generated field, causing avalanche ionization, 310, 320, and electrons/energy in diagram of Fig. 1, Paragraph 0025; free electrons are directed by field to different directions/depths, including away from laser, Paragraph 0014-0017, 0019, 0030; see plasma [with free electrons] 100 focus of Figs. 2-3, which is partially away from laser path 106).
Regarding Claim 71, Varghese et al. discloses the apparatus further wherein the field generator is configured to apply the field through the portion of the biological medium (Paragraph 0014, 0016-0017, 0026-0027, 0030, 0042-0044) to induce movement of free electrons within the portion of the biological medium (at least one free electron [seed] is freed from target position by generated field, causing avalanche ionization, 310, 320, and electrons/energy in diagram of Fig. 1, Paragraph 0014, 0025, 0030, Abstract; see plasma [with free electrons] 100 focus of Figs. 2-3; free electrons are directed by field to different directions/depths, including away from laser, Paragraph 0014-0017, 0019, 0030).
Regarding Claim 73, Varghese et al. discloses the apparatus further wherein the biological medium comprises skin or tissue (Paragraph 0006, 0026, 0029, 0030, Abstract).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 66 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese et al. (US Publication No. 2016/0271419, previously cited) in view of Anderson et al. (US Publication No. 2005/0065503, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 66, Varghese discloses an apparatus for providing tissue therapy (Abstract) including a light source (105, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0007, 0026, Abstract) configured to deliver laser light (106, Fig. 2, 3A-C) to the portion of the biological medium during application of the field (Paragraph 0014, 0016-0017, 0026-0027, 0030, 0042-0044), wherein the light source has a fluence of 0.5 J/cm2 to 20 J/cm2 (3 J/cm2 , Paragraph 0037, 0039).
However, Varghese does not explicitly disclose wherein the light source comprises a pulsed laser configured to deliver the laser light with a pulse rate in a range of 1 Hz-10Hz. Anderson teaches an apparatus for providing tissue therapy (Abstract) including a laser light source (Paragraph 0034, 0037) wherein the light source has a fluence of 0.1 J/cm2 to 20 J/cm2 (Paragraph 0042) and wherein the light source comprises a pulsed laser configured to deliver the laser light with a pulse rate in a range of at least 1 Hz, approximately 10Hz, or 1-5Hz (Paragraph 0020, 0038, 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the laser light source in the apparatus disclosed by Varghese to be a pulsed laser configured to deliver the laser light with a pulse rate of approximately 1-10 Hz, as taught by Anderson, in order to provide sufficient treatment while minimizing excess damage to tissue. Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges in values such as pulse frequency involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 63 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese et al. (US Publication No. 2016/0271419, previously cited) in view of Schwarz et al. (US Publication No. 2017/0106201, previously cited), further in view of in view of Anderson et al. (US Publication No. 2005/0065503, previously cited).
Regarding Claim 63, Varghese discloses an apparatus for providing tissue therapy (Abstract) including wherein the field generator is configured to apply the field through the portion of the biological medium (Paragraph 0014, 0016-0017, 0026-0027, 0030, 0042-0044) to induce movement of free electrons within the portion of the biological medium (at least one free electron [seed] is freed from target position by generated field, causing avalanche ionization, 310, 320, and electrons/energy in diagram of Fig. 1, Paragraph 0014, 0025, 0030, Abstract; see plasma [with free electrons] 100 focus of Figs. 2-3; free electrons are directed by field to different directions/depths, including away from laser, Paragraph 0014-0017, 0019, 0030).
Schwarz et al. teaches an apparatus for providing skin and/or tissue therapy (Abstract, Paragraph 0002, 0010-0012) including a field generator and laser light source (Paragraph 0004, 0061, 0076, 0160) to induce movement of free electrons within a portion of biological medium (Paragraph 0173), wherein the field generator is configured to apply an essentially static field to the biological medium (static magnetic field, Paragraph 0074; static position of field applicator, Paragraph 0102, 0105).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the field generator in the apparatus disclosed by Varghese to generate a static field, as taught by Schwarz et al., in order to apply a consistent field to tissue regions such as to reduce/prevent injury, and/or to reduce power consumption or manufacturing complexity.
Furthermore, Varghese discloses an apparatus for providing tissue therapy (Abstract) including delivery of the laser light to the portion of the biological medium which provides optical breakdown of tissue particles (Paragraph 0002-0003, 0025, 0045) for skin treatment (Paragraph 0047, Claim 1). Varghese does not explicitly disclose wherein the delivery of the laser light to the portion of the biological medium provides optical breakdown of tissue pigment particles.
Schwarz et al. does teach an apparatus for providing skin and/or tissue therapy (Abstract, Paragraph 0002, 0010-0012) including a field generator and laser light source (Paragraph 0004, 0061, 0076, 0160), wherein the device may be used for tattoo removal or treatment of pigmented skin regions (Paragraph 0070, 0160 0179). Furthermore, Anderson teaches an apparatus for providing tissue therapy (Abstract) including a laser light source (Paragraph 0034, 0037) wherein the delivery of the laser light to the portion of the biological medium provides optical breakdown of tissue pigment particles (Paragraph 0016, 0030, 0031, 0034). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the laser light to induce optical breakdown of tissue pigment particles, as taught by Anderson, in the apparatus disclosed by Varghese, in order to reduce the appearance of unwanted skin markings such as pigmented lesions or tattoos, as also taught by both Anderson (Paragraph 0030) and Schwarz et al. (Paragraph 0070, 0160 0179).
Claim 69 and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Varghese et al. (US Publication No. 2016/0271419, previously cited) in view of Smith III (US Publication No. 2002/0193831, previously cited).
Regarding Claims 69 and 70, Varghese discloses an apparatus for providing tissue therapy (Abstract) including wherein the field generator is configured to apply the field through the portion of the biological medium (Paragraph 0014, 0016-0017, 0026-0027, 0030, 0042-0044) such that the field generator is configured to be positioned relative to the biological medium such that the static electrical field induces an additional electric field in the biological medium (Paragraph 0014, 0016-0017, 0026-0027, 0030, 0042-0044) to also induce movement of free electrons within the portion of the biological medium (at least one free electron [seed] is freed from target position by generated field, causing avalanche ionization, 310, 320, and electrons/energy in diagram of Fig. 1, Paragraph 0014, 0025, 0030, Abstract), including a therapeutic laser system (105, 106, Fig. 2, 3A-B, Paragraph 0007, 0026, Abstract) configured to deliver a laser beam to the portion of the biological medium (Paragraph 0014, 0016-0017, 0026-0027, 0030, 0042-0044).
Varghese does not explicitly disclose wherein the apparatus comprises an electret configured to provide a static electrical field, wherein the electret is configured to be positioned relative to the biological medium such that the static electrical field induces an electric field in the biological medium.
Smith III teaches an apparatus for providing tissue therapy (Abstract, Paragraph 0019-0022, 0047) including an optical laser light device (Paragraph 0041, 0103) and an electret configured to provide a static electrical field (Paragraph 0030, 0093, 0096, 0098, 0104; Claims 4, 27), wherein the electret is configured to be positioned relative to the biological medium such that the static electrical field induces an electric field in the biological medium (Paragraph 0030, 0093, 0096, 0098, 0104; Claims 4, 27).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include an electret configured to provide a static electrical field, wherein the electret is configured to be positioned relative to the biological medium such that the static electrical field induces an electric field in the biological medium, as taught by Smith III, in the apparatus disclosed by Varghese, in order to provide treatment to the skin/tissue which is both effective and relatively pain-free, as also taught by Smith III (Paragraph 0007), since “the electrostatic application further ensuring the discharge of a microcurrent which is surprisingly found to be particularly beneficial in the treatment of a selected area of a cosmetic skin condition” (Paragraph 0016 of Smith III).
Furthermore, neither Varghese nor Smith III explicitly discloses wherein the electret is transparent and is configured to permit transmission of the laser beam through the electret by transmitting the laser beam through the electret.
Smith III does teach that the electret may comprise a film wrap/membrane (Paragraph 0093, 0096) and that the optical laser light device (Paragraph 0041, 0103) therapy may be applied in combination with the static field of the electret (Paragraph 0030, 0041, 0093, 0096, 0098, 0103, 0104; Claims 4, 27), and further teaches that the apparatus comprises glass areas and transparent sections configured to be placed adjacent to skin (Paragraph 0088-0090, 0103) for optical transmission. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the electret film wrap/membrane (Paragraph 0093, 0096) taught by Smith III to be transparent to permit transmission of the laser beam through the electret, in order to allow for the optical/laser to penetrate through the electret to provide both forms of treatment simultaneously, in order to increase the overall effectiveness and/or to save time during treatment sessions, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70. Furthermore, it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material (such as a transparent material for the electret) on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Response to Arguments
The previous Claim Objections, 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections as made in the previous Non-Final Rejection Office Action mailed 21 April 2025 have been withdrawn due to the amendments to Claims 62, 63, 66, 69, and 74 filed in the Response filed 21 August 2025, which corrects the indefinite claim language at issue.
The previous Double Patenting rejections have NOT been withdrawn. No specific arguments were provided, however the Applicant has requested that the rejections be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter has otherwise been indicated (Pages 1-2 of Remarks filed 21 August 2025).
The Applicant's arguments filed in the Response filed 21 August 2025 with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections of Claims 62, 63, 66, 69, 70, 71, and 73 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) rejection of independent Claim 62:
The purpose of the invention described in the prior art is not the same as or even suggestive of the invention claimed here because generating electrons at the treatment area counters the goal of moving electrons away from the laser light path and thereby away from the treatment area. Therefore, Varghese at least fails to disclose an apparatus where "during delivery of the laser light moves free electrons within the portion of the biological medium away from the laser light path," as in amended Claim 62. Accordingly, for at least these reasons, amended Claim 62 is novel over Varghese.
However, the Examiner disagrees with these arguments. Varghese et al. discloses a light source (105, Fig. 2, Paragraph 0007, 0026, Abstract) configured to deliver laser light (106, Fig. 2, 3A-C) to the portion of the biological medium along a laser light path (106, Fig. 2, 3A-C) during application of the field (Paragraph 0014, 0016-0017, 0026-0027, 0030, 0042-0044), and wherein the apparatus is configured such that application of the field prior to and/or during delivery of the laser light moves free electrons within the portion of the biological medium away from the laser light path (at least one free electron [seed] is freed from target position by generated field, causing avalanche ionization, 310, 320, and electrons/energy in diagram of Fig. 1, Paragraph 0025; free electrons are directed by field to different directions/depths, including away from laser, Paragraph 0014-0017, 0019, 0030; see plasma [with free electrons] 100 focus of Figs. 2-3, which is partially away from laser path 106).
As described above, Varghese et al. discloses that at least one free electron [seed] is freed from target position by the generated field, causing avalanche ionization, thereby moving the electrons away from the exact target positions. As shown in Fig. 1 reproduced below, steps 310 and 320 show that “the multiphoton ionization process actually is a two-step process in which, in a first step 310, a seed electron is created via absorption of multiple photons having a same polarization state. In a second step 320, an ionization avalanche is generated by Inverse Bremsstrahlung absorption of photons by the seed electron…..As soon as the seed electron is freed in the target position 110, the seed electron will absorb part of the Inverse Bremsstrahlung of the photons provided by the laser beam to generate the avalanche ionization process.” (Paragraph 0025 of Varghese et al.). In addition, see Figs. 3A and 3B annotated below, showing that the application of the field prior to and/or during delivery of the laser light moves free electrons within the portion of the biological medium away from the laser light path, as required by Claim 62.
PNG
media_image1.png
453
673
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
808
485
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Paragraph 0019 of Varghese et al. further states (emphasis added), “at least a portion of the plasma penetrates the skin tissue for generating at least one free electron in each of said plurality of target positions. In this embodiment, the penetration of the plasma into the skin tissue may occur over a relatively large area of the skin surface. A single plasma unit may be used to generate the at least one free electron in each of said plurality of target positions, which may be distributed over a relatively large treatment area. For example, the skin treatment device may comprise a scanning system by means of which the treatment laser beam is scanned and focused in a plurality of adjacent target positions inside the skin tissue.” Since the free electrons are generated from the target position to be “freed” (moved) from the target potions of the laser light focus (path), the Examiner maintains that this reads on the limitation, “wherein the apparatus is configured such that application of the field prior to and/or during delivery of the laser light moves free electrons within the portion of the biological medium away from the laser light path” are required by Claim 62.
The Applicant further argues (Page 4 of Remarks):
Contrary to the prior art, the present application describes a system for laser induced optical breakdown (LIOB) where the field generator applied to the biological medium causes free electrons to be diverted away from the target. For instance, free electrons are emitted into the dermis of the biological medium during the particle LIOB event are swept away from a laser beam path based on field. This removal of free electrons aids in impeding the initiation of dermal LIOBs without adversely affecting the laser ablation of the pigment particle. As a result, the damage to the skin is reduced.
In response to the Applicant's arguments that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that these features upon which the Applicant relies (i.e., “a system for laser induced optical breakdown (LIOB) where the field generator applied to the biological medium causes free electrons to be diverted away from the target”, “free electrons are emitted into the dermis of the biological medium during the particle LIOB event are swept away from a laser beam path based on field” and “the damage to the skin is reduced”) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). It is recommended by the Examiner that these features be added to independent Claim 62 in order to distinguish the claims over the prior art of record.
Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the process disclosed by Varghese et al. as described in detail above reads on the limitation as currently written in Claim 62, “wherein the apparatus is configured such that application of the field prior to and/or during delivery of the laser light moves free electrons within the portion of the biological medium away from the laser light path”.
No additional specific arguments (Pages 4-6 of Remarks) were made with respect to dependent Claims 63, 66, 69, 70, 71, and 73, nor specifically with respect to the previously cited Schwarz et al., Anderson et al., and Smith III references.
As described in detail above, the combination of the Varghese et al., Schwarz et al., Anderson et al., and/or Smith III references teach all of the claimed limitations of Claims 62, 63, 66, 69, 70, 71, and 73. Therefore, Claims 62, 63, 66, 69, 70, 71, and 73 remain rejected as described in detail above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to the Applicant's disclosure:
Mullen et al. (US Patent No. 5,149,406, previously cited) discloses a system and method of applying a laser to a medium (Abstract; 22, Figs. 1-2; 40, Fig. 4), and wherein an electric field is applied in the vicinity of the medium in order to divert and/or remove free electrons induced by the laser (Col. 2, Line 60 – Col. 3, Line 33; Col. 4, Line 45 – Col. 5, Line 5; Col. 6, Lines 25-65; Claims 1 and 6).
Whitehouse et al. (US Patent No. 5,737,462, previously cited) discloses a laser light guidance system (Abstract; Claims 1 and 11), and wherein an electric field is applied in the vicinity of the laser light path in order to divert and/or deplete free electrons induced by the laser away from the laser light path (Col. 2, Lines 5-36; Col. 3, Lines 26-35; Claims 1, 6, 11, 14, 20).
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 PAMELA M BAYS whose telephone number is (571)270-7852. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 6:00pm 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/PAMELA M. BAYS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796