DETAILED ACTION
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 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an
abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-13 are within the four statutory categories, however, as will be shown below, claims
1-13 are nonetheless unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1 is representative of the inventive concept and recites:
A method performed in a system comprising one or more processors for managing output data of a biosignal analysis model, comprising steps of:
acquiring, by the one or more processors, analysis result data for a plurality of pieces of biosignal data from a biosignal analysis model;
performing, by the one or more processors, clustering on a plurality of pieces of first-type biosignal data analyzed as corresponding to a first type, among the plurality of pieces of biosignal data, on the basis of the analysis result data,
and extracting at least one piece of sample biosignal data from at least one cluster generated by the clustering;
and acquiring, by the one or more processors, from an examiner's device, feedback on whether the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is accurate,
and reperforming the clustering with reference to the feedback acquired from the examiner's device, wherein the feedback acquired from the examiner's device includes feedback to the effect that the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is accurate, or feedback to the effect that the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is inaccurate, wherein the feedback acquired from the examiner's device is given to the at least one piece of sample biosignal data randomly extracted from the at least one cluster, and
wherein in response to acquiring, from the examiner's device, feedback to the effect that the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is inaccurate, the clustering is reperformed with the at least one piece of sample biosignal data being excluded from a target for the clustering.
*Claim 8 recites similar limitations as claim 1
Step 2A Prong One
The broadest reasonable interpretation of these steps includes mental processes because the
highlighted components can practically be performed by the human mind (in this case, the process of extracting, and (re)performing ) or using pen and paper. Other than reciting generic computer components/functions such as “processor”, “model”, and “device”, nothing in the claims precludes the highlighted portions from practically being performed in the mind. For example, in claim 1, but for the system language, the claim encompasses the user collecting data before analyzing and organizing it. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components/functions, then it falls within “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Additionally, the mere nominal recitation of a generic computer does not take the claim limitation out of the mental process grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13 recite additional subject matter which further narrows or defines the abstract idea embodied in the claims (such as claim 2, reciting specifically what type of biosignal data is to be analyzed and clustered, but for recitation of generic computer components/functions).
Step 2A Prong Two
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the
following additional elements:
Claim 1 recites: “processor”, “acquiring, by the one or more processors, analysis result data for a plurality of pieces of biosignal data from a biosignal analysis model”, and “acquiring, by the one or more processors, from an examiner's device, feedback on whether the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is accurate”
In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application,
other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than
limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations are recited as being performed by a “processor”, “model”, and “device”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Add insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) to the abstract idea such as the
recitation of “acquiring, by the one or more processors, analysis result data for a plurality of pieces of biosignal data from a biosignal analysis model” and “acquiring, by the one or more processors, from an examiner's device, feedback on whether the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is accurate”.
Dependent claims 5, 6, 12, and 13 recite device
Dependent claims 11-13 recite processor
In particular, the additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application,
other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than
limitations which:
Amount to mere instructions to apply an exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The limitations are recited as being performed by a “processor” and “device”. These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer.
Dependent claims 2-4, 7, and 9-10 do not include any additional elements beyond those already recited
in independent claims 1 and 8 and dependent claims 5-6, and 11-13, hence do not integrate the aforementioned abstract idea into a practical application. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer improves any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B
Claims 1 and 8 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly
more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the
abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements: A system in claim 1; amount to no
more than mere instructions to apply an exception to the abstract idea. Additionally, the additional
limitations, other than the abstract idea per se amount to no more than limitations which amount to
elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular
fields as demonstrated by the recitation of an additional element such as:
Acquiring, which refers to the process of obtaining information over a communication channel
(TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto. LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 614, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016)) in a manner that would be well-understood, routine, and conventional.
Dependent claims 2-7 and 9-13 do not include any additional elements beyond those already addressed above for independent claims 1 and 8. Therefore, they are not deemed to be significantly more than the abstract idea because, as stated above, the limitations of the aforementioned dependent claims amount to no more than generally linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use, and/or do not recite and additional elements not already recited in independent claims 1 and 8, hence does not amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea. Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea identified above. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually, and there is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology, and their collective function merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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 1-3, 5-10, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zeng(US10117594B2) in view of Bhattacharya(US20120072421A1).
Claim 1
Zeng discloses:
A method performed in a system comprising one or more processors(Col. 24, Line 5, Zeng discloses processor) for managing output data of a biosignal analysis model, comprising steps of:
acquiring(Col. 4, Line 5, Zeng discloses acquiring a signal), by the one or more processors, acquiring analysis result data(Col. 6, Line 63, Zeng discloses: “The wave front analyzer 20 can provide wave front data that can specify the points corresponding to wave front locations and corresponding wave front lines.” [WAVE FRONT DATA CAN BE ANALYSIS RESULT DATA]) for a plurality of pieces of biosignal data(Col. 3, Line 67, Zeng discloses: “cardiac electrical signals” [CAN BE CONSIDERED A BIOSIGNAL DATA]) from a biosignal analysis model(Figure 1, Zeng discloses: “wave front analyzer”);
performing, by the one or more processors,
Zeng does not explicitly disclose:
clustering on a plurality of pieces biosignal data analyzed as corresponding to a first type, among the plurality of pieces of biosignal data, on the basis of the analysis result data, and extracting at least one piece of sample biosignal data from at least one cluster generated by the clustering;
And acquiring, by the one or more processors, from an examiner's device, feedback on whether the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is accurate, and reperforming the clustering with reference to the feedback acquired from the examiner's device, wherein the feedback acquired from the examiner's device includes feedback to the effect that the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is accurate, or feedback to the effect that the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is inaccurate, wherein the feedback acquired from the examiner's device is given to the at least one piece of sample biosignal data randomly extracted from the at least one cluster, and wherein in response to acquiring, from the examiner's device, feedback to the effect that the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is inaccurate, the clustering is reperformed with the at least one piece of sample biosignal data being excluded from a target for the clustering.
Bhattacharya discloses:
clustering on a plurality of pieces(Figure 3, Battacharya discloses a clustering process for data) of first-type(Para 0029, Bhattacharya discloses: “first cluster, c1” [FIRST CLUSTER CAN BE CONSIDERED A CLUSTER CORRESPONDING TO A FIRST TYPE]) biosignal data analyzed as corresponding to a first type, among the plurality of pieces of biosignal data, on the basis of the analysis result data, and extracting at least one piece of sample biosignal data from at least one cluster generated by the clustering(Para 0029, Bhattacharya discloses: “first cluster, c1” [CLUSTER])
wherein the feedback acquired from the examiner's device is given to the at least one piece of sample biosignal data randomly extracted from the at least one cluster(Para 0062, Battacharya discloses random selection of data for inspection and feedback), and wherein in response to acquiring, from the examiner's device, feedback to the effect that the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is inaccurate, the clustering is reperformed with the at least one piece of sample biosignal data being excluded from a target for the clustering(Figure 2, #240, Battacharya discloses reperforming clustering based on feedback)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system the analysis and detection for arrhythmia drivers of Zeng to add clustering, first-type, feedback, and accurate, as taught by Bhattacharya. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a way to organize data by feature type as use the data points as feedback into an algorithm to determine accuracy or the model or the data itself, but in this case for a method for interactive clustering(Para 0001, Bhattacharya discloses: “While clustering has been one of the most effective tools for exploratory data mining for decades, it is widely accepted that the clusters generated without any supervision often do not lead to meaningful insights for the user. Accordingly, there has been a lot of interest in developing semi-supervised clustering models that can accommodate supervision from the user to guide the clustering process for healthcare data purposes.”).
Bhattacharya does not explicitly disclose:
and acquiring, by the one or more processors, from an examiner's device, feedback on whether the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is accurate
wherein the feedback acquired from the examiner's device includes feedback to the effect that the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is accurate, or feedback to the effect that the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is inaccurate.
Fu discloses:
and acquiring, by the one or more processors, from an examiner's device(Figure 1, Fu discloses an output device which can be an examiner’s device), feedback on whether the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is accurate(Figure 4, #S42, Fu discloses a process to determine whether data is reliable)
wherein the feedback acquired from the examiner's device includes feedback to the effect that the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is accurate(Figure 4, #S42, Fu discloses a process to determine whether data is reliable), or feedback to the effect that the analysis result data for the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is inaccurate(Figure 4, #S43, Fu discloses a process to determine whether data is unreliable).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system the analysis and detection for arrhythmia drivers of Zeng to add feedback on whether biosignal data was accurate or inaccurate, as taught by Fu. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to validate data pertaining to patient health, to better improve diagnosis and patient outcomes, but in this case for an apparatus which estimates vital signs(Para 0002, Fu discloses: “However, the patient information data or vital-sign reference data may not be reliable, or the patient or medical staff or the operator of the bio-signal self-measurement measurement device cannot confirm that the patient information data or vital-sign reference data is reliable, which may result in that the bio-signal self-measurement measurement device cannot be calibrated correctly and accurately.”).
Claim 2
Zeng discloses:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the biosignal analysis model outputs analysis result data regarding whether the plurality of pieces of biosignal data correspond to arrhythmia(Figure 1, Zeng discloses: “Arrhythmia driver analyzer” [ANALYZES BIOSIGNAL DATA PERTAINING TO ARRHYTHMIA]), or analysis result data regarding what type of arrhythmia the plurality of pieces of biosignal data correspond to.
Claim 3
Zeng discloses:
The method of Claim 1, wherein the number of the at least one piece of sample biosignal data is less than the number of the plurality of pieces of first-type biosignal data at or below a predetermined level (Col. 22, Line 56, Zeng discloses: “At 464 rotors can be filtered based upon applying threshold statistics, which can be set to respective predetermined values or can be programmable in response to a user input.”)
Claim 5
Zeng discloses:
The method of Claim 1, wherein accuracy of analysis results for at least one piece of sample biosignal data(Col. 3, Line 67, Zeng discloses: “cardiac electrical signals” [CAN BE CONSIDERED A BIOSIGNAL DATA]) extracted from a specific cluster(Para 0029, Bhattacharya discloses: “first cluster, c1” [CLUSTER]) is dynamically calculated on the basis of the feedback(Figure 2, #240, Battacharya discloses reperforming clustering based on feedback) acquired from the examiner’s device, and the analysis result data(Col. 6, Line 63, Zeng discloses: “The wave front analyzer 20 can provide wave front data that can specify the points corresponding to wave front locations and corresponding wave front lines.” [WAVE FRONT DATA CAN BE ANALYSIS RESULT DATA]) for all biosignal data belonging to the specific cluster is estimated to be accurate when the accuracy is at or above a predetermined level(Col. 22, Line 56, Zeng discloses: “At 464 rotors can be filtered based upon applying threshold statistics[CAN BE ACCURACY], which can be set to respective predetermined values or can be programmable in response to a user input.”).
Zeng does not explicitly disclose: cluster, feedback
Bhattacharya discloses: cluster, feedback
cluster(Para 0029, Bhattacharya discloses: “first cluster, c1” [CLUSTER])
feedback(Figure 2, #240, Battacharya discloses reperforming clustering based on feedback)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system the analysis and detection for arrhythmia drivers of Zeng to add cluster and feedback, as taught by Bhattacharya. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a way to organize data by feature type as use the data points as feedback into an algorithm to determine accuracy or the model or the data itself, but in this case for a method for interactive clustering(Para 0001, Bhattacharya discloses: “While clustering has been one of the most effective tools for exploratory data mining for decades, it is widely accepted that the clusters generated without any supervision often do not lead to meaningful insights for the user. Accordingly, there has been a lot of interest in developing semi-supervised clustering models that can accommodate supervision from the user to guide the clustering process for healthcare data purposes.”).
Bhattacharya does not explicitly disclose: examiner’s device
Fu discloses:
examiner’s device(Figure 1, Fu discloses an output device which can be an examiner’s device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system the analysis and detection for arrhythmia drivers of Zeng to add examiner’s device, as taught by Fu. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to input and output data pertaining to patient health, to better improve diagnosis and patient outcomes, but in this case for an apparatus which estimates vital signs(Para 0002, Fu discloses: “However, the patient information data or vital-sign reference data may not be reliable, or the patient or medical staff or the operator of the bio-signal self-measurement measurement device cannot confirm that the patient information data or vital-sign reference data is reliable, which may result in that the bio-signal self-measurement measurement device cannot be calibrated correctly and accurately.”).
Claim 6
Zeng discloses:
The method of Claim 1, wherein accuracy of analysis results for a plurality of pieces of first-type(Para 0029, Bhattacharya discloses: “first cluster, c1” [FIRST CLUSTER CAN BE CONSIDERED A CLUSTER CORRESPONDING TO A FIRST TYPE]) biosignal data(Col. 3, Line 67, Zeng discloses: “cardiac electrical signals” [CAN BE CONSIDERED A BIOSIGNAL DATA]) analyzed as corresponding to the first type is dynamically calculated on the basis of the feedback(Figure 2, #240, Battacharya discloses reperforming clustering based on feedback) acquired from the examiner’s device, and the analysis result data(Col. 6, Line 63, Zeng discloses: “The wave front analyzer 20 can provide wave front data that can specify the points corresponding to wave front locations and corresponding wave front lines.” [WAVE FRONT DATA CAN BE ANALYSIS RESULT DATA]) for all biosignal data analyzed as corresponding to the first type is estimated to be accurate when the accuracy is at or above a predetermined level(Col. 22, Line 56, Zeng discloses: “At 464 rotors can be filtered based upon applying threshold statistics[CAN BE ACCURACY], which can be set to respective predetermined values or can be programmable in response to a user input.”).
Zeng does not explicitly disclose: first-type, feedback
Bhattacharya discloses: first-type, feedback
first-type(Para 0029, Bhattacharya discloses: “first cluster, c1” [FIRST CLUSTER CAN BE CONSIDERED A CLUSTER CORRESPONDING TO A FIRST TYPE])
feedback(Figure 2, #240, Battacharya discloses reperforming clustering based on feedback)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system the analysis and detection for arrhythmia drivers of Zeng to add first-type and feedback, as taught by Bhattacharya. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a way to organize data by feature type(for first-type) as use the data points as feedback into an algorithm to determine accuracy or the model or the data itself, but in this case for a method for interactive clustering(Para 0001, Bhattacharya discloses: “While clustering has been one of the most effective tools for exploratory data mining for decades, it is widely accepted that the clusters generated without any supervision often do not lead to meaningful insights for the user. Accordingly, there has been a lot of interest in developing semi-supervised clustering models that can accommodate supervision from the user to guide the clustering process for healthcare data purposes.”).
Bhattacharya does not explicitly disclose: examiner’s device
Fu discloses:
examiner’s device(Figure 1, Fu discloses an output device which can be an examiner’s device)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system the analysis and detection for arrhythmia drivers of Zeng to add examiner’s device, as taught by Fu. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a means to input and output data pertaining to patient health, to better improve diagnosis and patient outcomes, but in this case for an apparatus which estimates vital signs(Para 0002, Fu discloses: “However, the patient information data or vital-sign reference data may not be reliable, or the patient or medical staff or the operator of the bio-signal self-measurement measurement device cannot confirm that the patient information data or vital-sign reference data is reliable, which may result in that the bio-signal self-measurement measurement device cannot be calibrated correctly and accurately.”).
Claim 7
Claim 7 recites similar limitations as claim 1. See claim 1 analysis
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites similar limitations as claim 1. See claim 1 analysis
Claim 9
Claim 9 recites similar limitations as claim 2. See claim 2 analysis
Claim 10
Claim 10 recites similar limitations as claim 3. See claim 3 analysis
Claim 12
Claim 12 recites similar limitations as claim 5. See claim 5 analysis
Claim 13
Claim 13 recites similar limitations as claim 6. See claim 6 analysis
Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Zeng(US10117594B2) in view of Bhattacharya(US20120072421A1) in further view of Brauker(US9750441B2).
Claim 4
Battacharya discloses:
The method of Claim 1, wherein in the reperforming step(Figure 2, #240, Battacharya discloses reperforming clustering based on feedback), an algorithm used for the clustering is updated.
Battacharya does not explicitly disclose: updated
Brauker discloses: updated
an algorithm used for the clustering is updated(Col. 39, Line 12, Brauker discloses: “evaluation can be performed periodically so that the dynamic and intelligent algorithms[CAN BE A CLUSTERING ALGORITHM] are periodically and systematically adapting to the changing physiological analyte data.”[A CLUSTERING ALGORITHM CAN ADAPT OR BE UPDATED]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system the analysis and detection for arrhythmia drivers of Zeng to add an algorithm update, as taught by Brauker. One of ordinary skill would have been so motivated to provide a way to update an algorithm based on dynamic feedback to ensure accuracy of the model, but in this case for a system which processes signals from a continuous analyte sensor(Col. 1, Line 46, Brauker discloses: “Due to the lack of comfort and convenience, a person with diabetes will normally only measure his or her glucose levels two to four times per day. Unfortunately, these time intervals are so far apart that the person with diabetes will likely find out too late, sometimes incurring dangerous side effects, of a hyper- or hypo-glycemic condition. “).
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites similar limitations as claim 4. See claim 4 analysis.
Response to Arguments
Regarding Invocation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) and 25 U.S.C. 112(b) Rejection
Applicant’s arguments and amendments have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(f) invocation and 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
35 U.S.C. 101
(Page 6) Regarding the assertion that under Step 2A, that the amended claim recites additional elements that integrate the alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer improves any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Please refer to 101 analysis above.
(Page 7) Regarding the assertion that the additional elements reflect an improvement to the technical field of wearable devices and to the broader technical field of biosignal analysis.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer improves any other technology. Their collective function merely provides conventional computer implementation and do not impose a meaningful limit to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Please refer to 101 analysis above.
(Page 6) Regarding the assertion that under Step 2A, that the amended claim recites additional elements that integrate the alleged judicial exceptions into a practical application.
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, other than the abstract idea per se, because the additional elements amount to no more than limitations which amount to mere instruction to apply an exception. Please refer to 101 analysis above.
(Page 8) Regarding the assertion that Step 2B is not necessary
Applicant's argument have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Please refer to 101 analysis above.
35 U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coleman(US11635813B2): Coleman discloses a system for collecting, analyzing, and sharing bio-signal and non-bio-signal data. Some disclosures are similar to that of this instant pending application. (Specification, para 34-41)
Guttag(US20140296724A1): Guttag discloses method and apparatus for predicting patient outcomes from a physiological segmentable patient signal. Some disclosures are similar to that of this instant pending application. (Specification, para 34-41)
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 SHERYL GOPAL PATEL whose telephone number is (703)756-1990. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 5:30am to 2:30pm PST.
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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at 571-272-6702. 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.
/S.G.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3685
/KAMBIZ ABDI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3685