DETAILED ACTION
This office action is based on the claim set filed on 01/09/2026.
Claims 1, 5, and 7-9 have been amended. Claim 4 was canceled.
Claims 1-3, and 5-9 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “unit” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an obtaining unit”, “an evaluation unit” in claim 1 and 7 have been interpreted under 112(f) as a means plus function limitation because of the combination of a non-structural term “unit” and functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 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.
Claim 1-3, and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 are drawn to an apparatus/system, Claim 8 is drawn to a method, and Claim 9 is directed to an art of manufacturer, and, and each of which is within the four statutory categories (i.e., a machine and a process). Claims 1-3 and 5-9 are further directed to an abstract idea on the grounds set out in detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 1, the steps of the claim for the invention represents an abstract idea of a series of steps that recite a process for evaluating a treatment information. Collecting a vital signs data to calculate an index value as ration between reference and target value are steps that could have been performed by a human mind but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for which both the instant claims and the abstract idea are defined as Metal Process that can be performed using human mind with the aid of pencil and paper.
Independent Claim 1 recites the steps of:
“an obtaining unit configured to obtain vascular dynamic information indicating a circulation state of blood of a subject;
a processor configured to perform a normalization processing on the vascular dynamic information to obtain an index value of pain evaluation of the subject,
wherein the processor is configured to:
calculate a reference value, based on the vascular dynamic information obtained in a reference period before a start of a treatment event related to a treatment for the subject;
calculate a degree of variation in a value indicated by the vascular dynamic information, based on the vascular dynamic information divide a period after the start of the treatment event into a plurality of target value calculation periods:
calculate a target value for each of the target value calculation periods, the target value being an average value or median value of the degree of variation in each of the target value calculation periods; and
calculate, for each of the target value calculation periods, a ratio of the target value to the reference value as the index value, as the normalization processing
an evaluation unit configured to perform the pain evaluation of the subject by comparing the index value obtained by the processor with a threshold; and
an output unit configured to output a visual or auditory warning based on the comparison between the index value and the threshold, whereby a medical worker can understand that the subject is in pain”.
Independent Claims 8 and 9 recite similar steps as in Claim 1.
These limitations, as drafted, given the broadest reasonable interpretation cover performance of the limitations by a human mind with aid of pen and paper reciting an abstract idea for Mental Process along with mathematical calculations and relationships that constitute Mathematical Concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, the limitations encompass a user the ability to obtain vital signs data, normalize the data, calculate reference value, target value, and ratio between both values as index value to compare to a threshold to evaluate a treatment, which are steps that that could have been performed by a human to implement the abstract idea and are steps reciting mental process that could have been performed using a human mind with aid of pen and paper but other than the mere nominal recitation of "processor", to implement the abstract idea for performing the steps of observing, evaluating, judgment and opinion which can be performed using a human mind with the aid of pencil and paper, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Accordingly, the claim limitations (in BOLD) recite an abstract idea. Any limitations not identified above as part of the Mental Process are deemed "additional elements," and will be discussed in further detail below.
Under Step 2A, Prong 2, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the remaining elements amount to no more than general purpose computer components programmed to perform the abstract ideas, linking the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements such as “ a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, computer, processor, evaluation unit, obtaining unit, output unit” that iteratively takes input data and analyzes said data to determine an output to performing generic computer functions for determining a metabolic dysfunction such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f), and a mere data gathering process that does not add a meaningful limitation to the above abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.04(d). As set forth in the 2019 Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. at 55 "merely include[ing] instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer" is an example of when an abstract idea has not been integrated into a practical application. Accordingly, looking at the claim as a whole, individually and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Under step 2B, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to "significantly more" than the judicial exception because as mentioned above, the additional elements amount to no more than generic computing components, recited at a high level of generality, do not present improvements to another technology or technical field, nor do they affect an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, that amount to no more than mere instruction to perform the abstract idea such that it amounts no more than adding the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) to apply the exception using generic computer component, see MPEP 2106.05(f). There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation and mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept, See Alice, 573 U.S. at 223 ("mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention."). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims 2-3 and 5-7 include all of the limitations of claim(s) 1 and therefore likewise incorporate the above-described abstract idea. While the depending claims add additional limitations, such as
As for claims 2-3, 6 the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper, “Mental Process” but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
As for claims 5, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper, reciting an abstract idea for Mental Process along with mathematical calculations and relationships that constitute Mathematical Concepts but for the recitation of generic computer components. For example, calculating sleep quality index, normalization by mean and standard deviation, is/are Mathematical Concepts. The claims are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
As for claims 7, the claim(s) recite limitations that are under the broadest reasonable interpretation, further define the abstract idea noted in the independent claim(s) that covers performance by a human mind with the aid of pen and paper, “Mental Process”, but for, the recitation of the generic computer components which are similarly rejected because, neither of the claims, further, defined the abstract idea and do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible. The claims recite additional elements “processor, evaluation unit, obtaining unit” that implement the identified abstract idea. These hardware components are recited at a high level of generality to perform the steps that amounts to no more than the words "apply it" with a computer because it appears to intend to do so, which would still amount to mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Additionally, the claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements amount to more than mere instruction to apply the exception using generic computer component and have been re-evaluated under the “significantly more” analysis. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huiku et al. (US 2005/0143665 A1- “Huiku”)
Regarding Claim 1 (Currently Amended), Huiku teaches a vital signs information processing apparatus comprising:
an obtaining unit configured to obtain vascular dynamic information indicating a circulation state of blood of a subject Huiku discloses using a photoplethysmographic (PPG) unit for acquiring a signal representing peripheral cardiovascular flow in a patient comprising heart beat pulses (Huiku: [0011], [0013], [0027-0028], [0052])
a processor configured to perform a normalization processing on the vascular dynamic information to obtain an index value of pain evaluation of the subject Huiku discloses normalization of the signal such that equalizing and proportionating to compensate the long-term variations in order to detect nociception (pain) during anesthesia or sedation (Huiku: [Fig. 3, 7], [0017-0018], [0027], [0030])
wherein the processor is configured to:
calculate a reference value, based on the vascular dynamic information obtained in a reference period before a start of a treatment event related to a treatment for the subject Huiku discloses the acquired signal of the heart beat pulses calculating a pulse wave parameters before incision and measuring baseline of the PPG signal calculating reference value (Yref) over a predetermined time period and/or over predetermined number of R of heart beat pulses prior to performing the treatment (Huiku: [Fig. 6A-B], [0011], [0013], [0030-0032], [0050], [0052])
calculate a degree of variation in a value indicated by the vascular dynamic information, based on the vascular dynamic information divide a period after the start of the treatment event into a plurality of target value calculation periods: Huiku discloses variation in PPG amplitude value such as blood volume based on prior incision event and time after incision which are divided into plurality of time segments and measuring the delta of differences between predetermined value and reference value over fixed time periods indicating variation of each value and quantifying change(s) [degree of variation] between prevailing predefined pulse wave parameter(s) and reference value (Huiku: [Fig. 2, 5, 6A-B], [0020], [0026], [0028], [0032])
calculate a target value for each of the target value calculation periods, the target value being an average value or median value of the degree of variation in each of the target value calculation periods Huiku discloses calculating the average pulse and notch of pulse beat [target value] over a time prior where the average value is indicated at each period of time prior incision and after incision that is calculating the average value for pulse with target value of the pulse before incision for identifying nociception level over a period of time and calculating average value of the pulse after incision and target level calculated and compared to prior incision pulse and quantifying changes between reference and notch (Huiku: [Fig. 6], [0013], [0020], [0033, 0042-0048], [0052])
calculate, for each of the target value calculation periods, a ratio of the target value to the reference value as the index value, as the normalization processing Huiku discloses quantifying change(s) between one or several prevailing predefined pulse wave parameter(s) comparing dicrotic notch value in respect to the reference value dividing current value delta of the signal by the reference period value [ratio] (Huiku: [Fig. 6A-B, 9D], [0032], [0052-0053], [0057])
an evaluation unit configured to perform the pain evaluation of the subject by comparing the index value obtained by the processor with a threshold; Huiku discloses evaluating of analgesia (pain) of a patient based on marker of nociception provided by PPG describes calculated average value for pulse with target value of the pulse before incision for identifying nociception level over a period of time and calculating average value of the pulse after incision and target level calculated and compared to prior incision pulse reference value to notch signal level to identify lack or presence of nociception [Fig. 6, 7], [0020], [0024], [0027], [0053-0054], [0057])
an output unit configured to output a visual or auditory warning based on the comparison between the index value and the threshold, whereby a medical worker can understand that the subject is in pain Huiku discloses displaying and/or recording said change(s) or lack of change(s) respectively in said at least one predefined pulse wave parameter which can be displayed and/or recorded and evaluated in respect to whether the patient suffers nociception or not (Huiku: [Fig. 7], [0012], [0021], [0058]).
Regarding Claim 2 (Original), Huiku teaches the vital signs information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the treatment event is an event that causes pain to the subject, and the event that causes pain to the subject includes at least one of an event of administering a drug to the subject, an event of performing an examination on the subject, or an event of performing a procedure on the subject Huiku discloses monitoring a condition of a patient under anesthesia or sedation to assess analgesia (pain) (Huiku: [0013], [0024]).
Regarding Claim 3 (Original), Huiku teaches the vital signs information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the vascular dynamic information is information indicating an ECG waveform or a pulse waveform of the subject (Huiku: [0027]).
Regarding Claim 5 (Currently Amended), Huiku teaches the vital signs information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein each of the target value calculation periods includes a plurality of sub-calculation periods, the processor is configured to:
calculate the degree of variation for each of the sub-calculation periods Huiku discloses calculating change in waveform over different time periods (Huiku: [Fig. 3, 4])
calculate, as the target value, an average value or a median value of the degree of variation for each of the plurality of sub-calculation periods, for each of the target value calculation periods Huiku discloses calculating and average of the pulse variation over different time periods and reference value median of a time period (Huiku: [Fig 3-4, 6A-B], [0052]).
Regarding Claim 6 (Original), Huiku teaches the vital signs information processing apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the consecutive sub-calculation periods include periods overlapping each other Huiku discloses in a successive heart eat pulses, an overlap of pulse beat periods (Huiku: [Fig. 2], [0030]).
Regarding Claim 7 (Currently Amended), Huiku teaches the vital signs information processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the obtaining unit is further configured to obtain, as vital signs information, at least one of information indicating arterial blood oxygen saturation of the subject, information indicating a heart rate of the subject, information indicating blood pressure of the subject, information indicating pulse wave propagation time of the subject, information indicating corrected QT time (QTc) of the subject, information indicating body temperature of the subject, or information indicating a perfusion index of the subject, Huiku discloses including using vital information to include vasodilation and vasoconstriction, heart rate, blood pressure, fluid balance, measurement site temperature, etc. (Huiku: [0027])
the evaluation unit is configured to perform the pain evaluation of the subject, based on one or a plurality of types of the vital signs information in addition to the index value Huiku discloses the PPG monitoring apparatus, consisting of means for measuring the PPG signal, detecting PPG pulse waveforms, and identifying the PPG notch in each pulse wave and extracting information for beat-to-beat representation or as filtered over several beats where the pulse morphology is dependent on various factors, including vasodilation and vasoconstriction, heart rate, blood pressure, fluid balance, measurement site temperature, etc. and level of analgesia (Huiku: [0024], [0027]).
Regarding Claim 8 (Currently Amended), Huiku teaches a vital signs information processing method of a vital signs information processing apparatus, the vital signs information processing method comprising:
the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Regarding Claim 9 (Currently Amended), Huiku teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a vital signs information processing program used in a vital signs information processing apparatus, the program comprising instructions, when executed by a computer, causing the computer in the vital signs information processing apparatus to:
the claim recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1, as such, are rejected for similar reasons as given above.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/09/2026 have been fully considered by the Examiner and addressed as the following:
In the remarks, Applicant argues the substance:
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection on page 9-11.
On page 10-11 of the remarks, the Applicant argues “the method of claim 1 is directed to a practical application and more than a mere abstract idea. In this way, the claim is directed to a specific improvement to a technical problem and is analogous to the claims found the claims to be patent eligible in CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc., 955 F.3d 1358, 1368-69 (Fed. Cir. 2020), ... Like the claims in CardioNet, the claims of the present application provide a specific improvement to address a problem in a technical field: improvement in the technical field of determining whether a subject is in pain and alerting a medical worker when the subject is in pain”, Examiner respectfully disagree. The claims, given their broadest reasonable interpretation, recite an abstract idea which have been analyzed under Step 2A, Prong One reciting a process for obtaining/collecting, calculating reference value and variation over plurality of time periods to calculate an index value and determine pain level which are steps of observing, evaluating, judgment, and opinion that are citing a process for which can be performed using a human mind with the aid of pencil and paper, see MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III), along with mathematical calculations, but for the fact that the claims recite a general-purpose computer processor to implement the abstract idea for which both the instant claims and the abstract idea are defined as Mental Process. The claim(s) in CardioNet focuses on specific means and/or methods that improve cardiac monitoring such as detecting an atrial fibrillation in light of cardiac beat to beat variability that avoids false positives and false negatives and identify sustained episodes that increased clinical significance. In contrast, the instant invention limitations disclose collecting patient care data and analyzing/calculating reference value, target value, index value to determine pain level to determine and estimate discharge using model(s) using generic computing component(s).
Calculating index value to determine pain level of a patient, using computers, do not indicate any improvement to another technology or technical field, or an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself and while relying on computing devices to perform routine tasks more quickly or more accurately is insufficient to render a claim patent eligible (See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2359 "use of a computer to create electronic records, track multiple transactions, and issue simultaneous instructions" is not an inventive concept). As discussed in the rejection above, the components of the instant system, when taken alone, each execute in a manner conventionally expected of these components. At best, Applicant has claimed features that may improve an abstract idea. However, an improved abstract idea is still abstract, (SAP America v. Investpic *2-3 ("'We may assume that the techniques claimed are "groundbreaking, innovative, or even brilliant," but that is not enough for eligibility. Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576, 591 (2013); accord buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Nor is it enough for subject-matter eligibility that claimed techniques be novel and nonobvious in light of prior art, passing muster under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Mayo Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 566 U.S. 66, 89-90 (2012). Thus, the instant claim does not provide improvement to a computing system or a technical field.
On page 11 of the remarks, the Applicant argues Desjardins (see Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (ARP Sept. 26, 2025)), quoting (Many advancements in computer technology, "by their very nature, may not be defined by particular physical features but rather by logical structures and processes." Citing Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2016).). First, the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) found the Desjardins claims to be directed to methods for training artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI) models and the claims improved the functioning of the computer itself, as such it is not “directed to” an abstract idea under Alice Step 1. Second, the improvement in Enfish, for example, provided an improvement to a computer function and/or technical field (self-pointing database) reciting a self-referential table for a computer database providing a particular improvement in the computer’s functionality that improves the way a computer stores and retrieves data in memory whereas the instant claim(s) and specifications do not recite an improvement to technology, as in Enfish, nor Desjardins, as appealed, but to performance of an abstract idea such as displaying vital patient data while using well-known computing system and components.
Therefore, the Examiner has addressed the Applicant argument(s) and found this argument is not found to be persuasive. Hence, Examiner remains the 101 rejections of claims which have been updated to address Applicant's amendments.
Applicant's arguments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 102/103 rejection on page 8-9.
On page 9 of the remarks, the Applicant argues “But Huiku never calculates any target value that is "an average value or median value of the degree of variation" for each of Huiku' s times from ti or ti+ 1”, Examiner respectfully disagrees. As described in the rejection above, Huiku describes calculating a notch of wave and the average pulse in relation to the notch of pulse beat over a time prior incision and after incision and calculating average value of the pulse after incision and target level calculated and compared to prior incision pulse and quantifying changes between reference and notch.
Therefore, Examiner find the Applicant argument is unpersuasive.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAAELDIN ELSHAER whose telephone number is (571)272-8284. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30.
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, MAMON OBEID can be reached at Mamon.Obeid@USPTO.GOV. 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.
/ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687