DETAILED ACTION
Claims 1-23 are currently pending and have been examined.
This action is in response to the arguments filed on 3/6/2026.
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-8, 12-19, & 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Step 1:
Claims 1-11 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) and claims 12-23 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-23 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 23 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 23 recites:
23. A system for non-invasively measuring tissue hemoglobin of a subject, comprising:
a near infrared spectrophotometric (NIRS) sensing device, having at least one transducer and a controller, the transducer having at least one light source and at least one light detector, the controller having at least one processor in communication with the at least one transducer and a memory device having stored instructions, which instructions when executed cause the processor to:
control the NIRS sensing device to non-invasively sense tissue of a subject and produce NIRS signal data representative of at least one NIRS tissue THb value;
control the NIRS sensing device to determine a hemodynamic parameter and produce HP signal data representative of the hemodynamic parameter;
determine whether at least one Hb confounding factor is present during the non-invasive tissue sensing using HP signal data; and
determine a NIRS circulatory THb value based on the NIRS signal data and the presence of the at least one Hb confounding factor.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations because determining the presence of a confounding factor and determining a NIRS value based on parameters and the confounding factor amount to determining variables using mathematical methods. Applicant’s specification describes various equations that are used to determine the NIRS circulatory THb value (see para. 43 & 47 for example).
Accordingly, independent claim 23 and analogous independent claims 1, 12, & 22 recite at least one abstract idea.
Furthermore, dependent claims 1-8, & 13-19, & 21 further narrow the abstract idea described in the independent claims. Claims 8 and 19 recites determining the relationship between the circulatory THb value and Hb confounding factor. These limitations only serve to further limit the abstract idea and hence, are directed towards fundamentally the same abstract idea as independent claim 23 and analogous independent claims 1, 12, & 22, even when considered individually and as an ordered combination.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP §2106.04(II)(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP §2106.05(I)(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
23. A system for non-invasively measuring tissue hemoglobin of a subject, comprising:
a near infrared spectrophotometric (NIRS) sensing device, having at least one transducer and a controller, the transducer having at least one light source and at least one light detector, the controller having at least one processor in communication with the at least one transducer and a memory device having stored instructions, which instructions when executed cause the processor to:
control the NIRS sensing device to non-invasively sense tissue of a subject and produce NIRS signal data representative of at least one NIRS tissue THb value;
control the NIRS sensing device to determine a hemodynamic parameter and produce HP signal data representative of the hemodynamic parameter;
determine whether at least one Hb confounding factor is present during the non-invasive tissue sensing using HP signal data; and
determine a NIRS circulatory THb value based on the NIRS signal data and the presence of the at least one Hb confounding factor.
For the following reasons, the Examiner submits that the above identified additional limitations do not integrate the above-noted at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of the processor, memory device; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of a hemodynamic measuring device sensing a hemodynamic parameter; a NIRS device with a transducer and controller obtaining THb values, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(II)(A)(2).
For these reasons, independent claim 23 and analogous independent claims 1, 12, & 22 do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Accordingly, the claims recites at least one abstract idea.
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claims 2-7 and 13-18: These claims recite using the hemodynamic device to obtain parameter values various types of exam parameters and therefore merely represent insignificant extra-solution activity (e.g., receiving and transmitting data)(see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, any additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria - Alice/Mayo Test: Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claim 10 does not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
As discussed above, regarding the additional limitations of the processor, memory device; the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using computers as tools to perform the above-noted at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Regarding the additional limitation of a hemodynamic measuring device sensing a hemodynamic parameter; a NIRS device with a transducer and controller obtaining THb values, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined it to not be unconventional based on prior publication describing the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of hemodynamic device collected hemodynamic data and a NIRS device collecting THb data (Abay et al. “Reflectance Photoplethysmography as Noninvasive Monitoring of Tissue Blood Perfusion” 2015).
The dependent claims also do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Regarding the additional limitations of using the hemodynamic device to obtain parameter values various types of exam parameters which the Examiner submits merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined them to not be unconventional based on prior publication describing the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of hemodynamic device collected hemodynamic data and a NIRS device collecting THb data (Abay et al. “Reflectance Photoplethysmography as Noninvasive Monitoring of Tissue Blood Perfusion” 2015).
Therefore, claims 1-8, 12-19, & 22-23 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Benni (US20200033258) in view of Desebbe (“Tissue hemoglobin monitoring is unable to follow variations of arterial hemoglobin during transitions from pulsatile to constant flow in cardiac surgery”).
As per claim 1, Benni teaches a method of non-invasively measuring tissue hemoglobin of a subject, comprising:
non-invasively sensing tissue of a subject using a near infrared spectrophotometric (NIRS) sensing device (para. 31: NIRS scanner), and determining at least one NIRS tissue THb value based on the non-invasive sensing (para. 31: THb value determined using NIRS device).
Benni does not expressly teach
determining whether at least one Hb confounding factor is present during the non-invasive tissue sensing with the NIRS sensing device; and
determining a NIRS circulatory THb portion of the NIRS tissue THb value based on the presence of the at least one Hb confounding factor during the non-invasive tissue sensing with the NIRS sensing device.
Desebbe, however, teaches to where confounding factors to THb, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters included and analyzed by regression model (pg. 669-670). Desebbe also teaches to effects of hemodynamic variables on THb; THb is impacted by local hemodynamic and physiological effects (Table 4; pg. 671-672).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the aforementioned features in Desebbe with Benni based on the motivation of providing a useful measurement of THb during cardiac surgery or in patients with cardiac hearts in the ICU setting (Desebbe – pg. 668).
As per claim 2, Benni and Desebbe teach the method of claim 1. Benni does not expressly teach wherein the step of determining whether at least one Hb confounding factor is present during the non-invasive tissue sensing with the NIRS sensing device includes using a hemodynamic measuring device to measure a hemodynamic parameter of the subject at about a same period of time as when the NIRS sensing device is used to non-invasively sensing the tissue of the subject.
Desebbe, however, teaches to other devices used to obtain hemodynamic parameters from patient (pg. 669).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 3, Benni and Desebbe teach the method of claim 2. Benni does not expressly teach wherein the hemodynamic parameter is a heart rate of the subject.
Desebbe, however, teaches to heart rate obtained (pg. 669).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 4, Benni and Desebbe teach the method of claim 2. Benni teaches wherein the hemodynamic parameter is a cardiac output of the subject (para. 7: total hemoglobin as determined by NIRS is affected by physiological parameters such as cardiac output).
As per claim 3, Benni and Desebbe teach the method of claim 2. Benni does not expressly teach wherein the hemodynamic parameter is a level of vasoreactivity of the subject.
Desebbe, however, teaches to vasoreactivity value obtained (pg. 671-672).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 6, Benni and Desebbe teach the method of claim 2. Benni does not expressly teach wherein the hemodynamic parameter is a blood carbon dioxide level within the subject.
Desebbe, however, teaches to PaC02 value obtained (pg. 669:).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 7, Benni and Desebbe teach the method of claim 2. Benni does not expressly teach wherein the hemodynamic parameter is a blood pressure level of the subject.
Desebbe, however, teaches to MAP value obtained (pg. 669:).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 8, Benni and Desebbe teach the method of claim 1. Benni does not expressly teach wherein the step of determining a NIRS circulatory THb portion of the NIRS tissue THb value includes determining a portion of the NIRS tissue THb value attributable to the Hb confounding factor and accounting for the portion of the NIRS tissue THb value attributable to the Hb confounding factor.
Desebbe, however, teaches to determining mutual adjustment of variables’ effect on THb where each variable is adjusted on THb, time, and type-time interaction from a linear regression model (Table 5; pg. 672). Desebbe also teaches to determining that AHb is linearly related to THb taking into account for cofounding factors PaCO2 and CVP (pg. 671).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 9, Benni and Desebbe teach the method of claim 1. Benni does not expressly teach wherein the step of non-invasively sensing tissue of the subject using a NIRS sensing device and the step of determining whether said at least one Hb confounding factor is present during the non-invasive tissue sensing are both performed using the NIRS sensing device.
Desebbe, however, teaches to other devices used to obtain hemodynamic parameters from patient (para. 669). Desebbe teaches to database receives parameter data and software used to analyze data (para. 667-670). Desebbe further teaches to where confounding factors to THb, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters included and analyzed by regression model using the NIRS sensing device data (pg. 669-670). Desebbe also teaches to effects of hemodynamic variables on THb; THb is impacted by local hemodynamic and physiological effects (Table 4; pg. 671-672).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 10, Benni and Desebbe teach the method of claim 2. Benni teaches wherein the step of non-invasively sensing tissue of the subject using a NIRS sensing device is performed using a NIRS sensing device that is calibrated using at least one blood circulatory THb value (para. 8: teaches to calibrating the NIRS sensing device using a blood circulatory THb value).
As per claim 11, Benni and Desebbe teach the method of claim 1. Benni teaches wherein the step of non-invasively sensing tissue of the subject using a NIRS sensing device is performed using a NIRS sensing device that is calibrated using empirical data including blood circulatory THb values (para. 37: calibrating the NIRS sensing device using a blood circulatory THb value and other empirical data).
As per claim 12, Benni discloses a system for non-invasively measuring tissue hemoglobin of a subject, comprising:
a near infrared spectrophotometric (NIRS) sensing device, having at least one transducer and a controller (para. 11, 31-33: NIRS scanner with controller), the transducer having at least one light source and at least one light detector (para. 31: NIRS scanner), the controller having at least one processor in communication with the at least one transducer and a memory device having stored instructions (para. 11: processor in communication with transducer), which instructions when executed cause the processor to:
control the NIRS sensing device to non-invasively sense tissue of a subject and determine at least one NIRS tissue THb value based on the non-invasive sensing (para. 31: THb value determined using NIRS device);
Benni does not expressly teach a hemodynamic measuring device configured to sense a hemodynamic parameter and produce signal data representative of the hemodynamic parameter (pg. 669: other devices used to obtain hemodynamic parameters from patient); determine whether at least one Hb confounding factor is present during the non-invasive tissue sensing using signal data produced by the hemodynamic measuring device; determine a NIRS circulatory THb portion of the NIRS tissue THb value, the determination accounting for the presence of the at least one Hb confounding factor during the non-invasive tissue sensing with the NIRS sensing device.
Desebbe, however, teaches to other devices used to obtain hemodynamic parameters from patient (para. 669). Desebbe further teaches to where confounding factors to THb, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters included and analyzed by regression model (pg. 669-670). Desebbe also teaches to effects of hemodynamic variables on THb; THb is impacted by local hemodynamic and physiological effects (Table 4; pg. 671-672).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Claims 13-19 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 2-8, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Claims 20-21 recite substantially similar limitations as those already addressed in claims 10-11, and, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
As per claim 22, Benni discloses a system for non-invasively measuring tissue hemoglobin of a subject, comprising:
a near infrared spectrophotometric (NIRS) sensing device, having at least one transducer and a controller, the transducer having at least one light source and at least one light detector (para. 11: processor in communication with transducer with NIRS scanner), the controller having at least one NIRS processor in communication with the at least one transducer and a NIRS memory device having stored NIRS instructions (para. 11: processor in communication with transducer), which NIRS instructions when executed cause the NIRS processor to control the NIRS sensing device to non-invasively sense tissue of a subject and produce NIRS signal data representative of at least one NIRS tissue THb value (para. 31: THb value determined using NIRS device); and
Benni does not expressly teach a hemodynamic measuring device configured to sense a hemodynamic parameter and produce HP signal data representative of the hemodynamic parameter; a system controller having at least one SC processor in communication with the hemodynamic measuring device, the NIRS sensing device, and a SC memory device having stored SC instructions, which SC instructions when executed cause the SC processor to determine whether at least one Hb confounding factor is present during the non-invasive tissue sensing using HP signal data; and
determine a NIRS circulatory THb value based on the NIRS signal data and the presence of the at least one Hb confounding factor.
Desebbe, however, teaches to other devices used to obtain hemodynamic parameters from patient (para. 669). Desebbe teaches to database receives parameter data and software used to analyze data (para. 667-670). Desebbe further teaches to where confounding factors to THb, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters included and analyzed by regression model (pg. 669-670). Desebbe also teaches to effects of hemodynamic variables on THb; THb is impacted by local hemodynamic and physiological effects (Table 4; pg. 671-672).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
As per claim 23, Benni teaches a system for non-invasively measuring tissue hemoglobin of a subject, comprising:
a near infrared spectrophotometric (NIRS) sensing device, having at least one transducer and a controller, the transducer having at least one light source and at least one light detector (para. 11: processor in communication with transducer), the controller having at least one processor in communication with the at least one transducer and a memory device having stored instructions, which instructions when executed cause the processor to:
control the NIRS sensing device to non-invasively sense tissue of a subject and produce NIRS signal data representative of at least one NIRS tissue THb value (para. 31: THb value determined using NIRS device);
control the NIRS sensing device to determine a hemodynamic parameter and produce HP signal data representative of the hemodynamic parameter (determine blood oxygen parameter values, including oxygen saturation values (that may be referred to as “SnO2”, “StO2”, “SctO2”, “CrSO2”, “rSO2”, etc.) and hemoglobin concentration values (e.g., HbO2 and Hb);
Benni does not expressly teach determine whether at least one Hb confounding factor is present during the non-invasive tissue sensing using HP signal data; and
determine a NIRS circulatory THb value based on the NIRS signal data and the presence of the at least one Hb confounding factor.
Desebbe, however, teaches to other devices used to obtain hemodynamic parameters from patient (para. 669). Desebbe further teaches to where confounding factors to THb, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters included and analyzed by regression model (pg. 669-670). Desebbe also teaches to effects of hemodynamic variables on THb; THb is impacted by local hemodynamic and physiological effects (Table 4; pg. 671-672).
The motivations to combine the above mentioned references are discussed in the rejection of claim 1, and incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection on pages 7-17 in regards to claims 1-20 have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
The claims do not recite or require a mathematical expression and therefore do not recite a judicial exception.
The Examiner, however, asserts that the underlined limitations as shown above in the 101 rejection are clearly directed to a mathematical calculation which falls within the mathematical concepts grouping of abstract ideas. For example, determining whether at least one Hb confounding factor is present using signal data can be considered analogous to a calculation of determining if a specific variable exists in the data. Furthermore, Applicant’s specification describes calculating the NIRS circulatory THb value based on the NIRS signal data and presence of a Hb confounding factor as shown by equation 2 in para. 43.
The claims recite a significant improvement over NIRS tissue oximeters and do not preempt all ways of determining circulatory THb data.
Examiner disagrees. The instant application, however, present a non-technical problem -determining blood circulatory hemoglobin values (see the instant Specification in para. 2). The solution to the problem is rooted in an improvement to the abstract idea itself and not a technical failure of a computer system. The additional elements can best be characterized as tools to perform an existing process and only amounts to an instruction to implement the abstract idea using a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)(2) see case requiring the use of software to tailor information and provide it to the user on a generic computer within the "Other examples., v."). Regarding the additional limitation of a hemodynamic measuring device sensing a hemodynamic parameter; a NIRS device with a transducer and controller obtaining THb values, the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant extra-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea in a manner that does not meaningfully limit the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) and is conventional as it merely consists of transmitting data over a network (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II)). Furthermore, the Examiner has reevaluated such limitations and determined it to not be unconventional based on prior publication describing the well-understood, routine, and conventional nature of hemodynamic device collected hemodynamic data and a NIRS device collecting THb data (Abay et al. “Reflectance Photoplethysmography as Noninvasive Monitoring of Tissue Blood Perfusion” 2015).
Applicant’s arguments on pages 17-20 regarding claims 1-20 being rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that:
The Desebbe reference teaches away from the combination of Benni and Desebbe references because Desebbe concludes that THb monitoring should not be used to guide eventual blood transfusion management.
The Examiner, however, asserts that the Benni reference teaches to determining a blood circulatory hemoglobin value for a subject using a near-infrared spectrophotometric (NIRS) sensing device. The Benni reference does not describe using the data to guide eventual blood transfusion management. The Desebbe reference was used to describe how confounding factors to THb, hemodynamic and respiratory parameters included and analyzed by regression model and where effects of hemodynamic variables on THb; THb is impacted by local hemodynamic and physiological effects. Therefore, Desebbe’s conclusion regarding the use of THb monitoring does not discourage the solution of using confounding factors to determine THb.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Benni (US20220412883) teaches to A method and apparatus of non-invasively determining a blood circulatory hemoglobin value for a subject using a near-infrared spectrophotometric (NIRS) sensing device is provided.
Chen (US20120108927) teaches to A method and apparatus for non-invasively determining the blood oxygenation within a subject's tissue is provided that utilizes a near infrared spectrophotometric (NIRS) sensor capable of transmitting a light signal into the tissue of a subject and sensing the light signal once it has passed through the tissue via transmittance or reflectance.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jonathan K Ng whose telephone number is (571)270-7941. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Anita Coupe can be reached at 571-270-7949. 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.
/Jonathan Ng/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3619
Prosecution Insights