DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 08/27/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 1-3, 5-6 and 8-13 are pending for examination. Claims 4 and 7 are cancelled.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a monochrome part configured to separate…” in claim 1.
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. The structures can be found in at least paragraphs [0075-0080] of the specification.
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 § 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cho et al. (USPGPUB 2017/0135582) in view of Bechtel et al. (USPGPUB 2007/0049809 – cited in previous action). In regard to claim 1, Cho discloses an apparatus for measuring blood glucose level (Figs. 11-12 and associated descriptions), comprising: a light source configured to generate light (elements 130/132, Fig. 11 and associated descriptions); and to allow the light to be irradiated to a subject (OBJ, Figs. 11-12 and associated descriptions; [0142]); a monochrome part configured to separate different wavelength components of the light cause the different wavelength components to be transmitted sequentially (filters 262-1, 262-2…etc. and/or 263-1, 263-2…etc. , Fig. 11 and associated descriptions; [0125-0130]; it is noted that different wavelength components of the light are sequentially arrived to each of the detectors according to the different optical paths, see Fig. 11); a light receiver configured to receive the light transmitted via the monochrome part and to generate electrical signals based on the received light (elements 266-1, 266-2…etc., Fig. 11 and associated descriptions); and a processor configured to extract information on the blood glucose level of the subject (element 500, Fig. 12 and associated descriptions; [0142-0144]), wherein the processor is configured to: determine a plurality of wavelength-dependent intensity values, each wavelength dependent intensity value being obtained from an electrical signal generated by the light receiver when a corresponding portion of the monochrome part is disposed in an optical path of the light received by the light receiver ([0122]; [0127]; [0142-0145]); generate a Raman spectrum consisting of the plurality of wavelength-dependent intensity values ([0058]; [0122]; [0127]; [0142-0145]); and extract the information on the blood glucose level based on the Raman spectrum ([0122]; [0127]; [0142-0145]).
Cho does not specifically disclose a first mirror disposed in front of the light source to cause the light generated by the light source and emitted in a first direction to be deflected in a second direction, which is different from the first direction and a second mirror that causes light reflected or scattered from the subject to be deflected in a third direction, which is different from the first direction and the second direction and
separate different wavelength components of the light that is incident from the second mirror.
Bechtel discloses an apparatus for measuring blood glucose level (Fig. 3 and associated descriptions), comprising: a light source configured to generate light (element 12, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions; laser, [0006]); a first mirror disposed in front of the light source (element 16 or 28, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions) to cause the light generated by the light source and emitted in a first direction to be deflected in a second direction, which is different from the first direction (changes from top to bottom direction to right to left direction, or changes from right to left direction to top to bottom direction, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions), and to allow the light to be irradiated to a subject (the forearm, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions); a second mirror that causes light reflected or scattered from the subject to be deflected in a third direction (element 42 and left to right direction, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions), which is different from the first direction and the second direction (Fig. 3 and associated descriptions); a monochrome part configured to separate wavelength components of the light that is incident from the second mirror (element 56, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (Cho) to incorporate the optical configurations and associated components for guiding excitation/ reflected light to and from the sample/ tissue of a subject to detector(s) as taught by Bechtel, since both devices are Raman spectroscopy systems and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the optical configurations facilitate apply and detect lights to and from a tissue for monitoring blood glucose information using Raman spectroscopy technology (see Bechtel). The rationale would have been to obtain glucose information from a particular tissue site of a subject.
In regard to claim 2, Cho as modified by Bechtel discloses the light source irradiates a near-infrared (NIR) ray or a mid-infrared (MIR) ray (the light source may be configured to emit near infrared light having a wavelength band of about 800 nm to about 2500 nm, [0074] of Cho; a laser emitting in the infrared range of 750 nm to 1200 nm and can comprise a diode laser emitting at 830 nm, for example, [0006] of Bechtel).
In regard to claim 3, Cho as modified by Bechtel discloses a first lens disposed in front of the light source to concentrate the light irradiated by the light source (lenses, [0031] of Cho).
In regard to claim 8, Cho as modified by Bechtel discloses a second lens disposed before the monochrome part to concentrate the light that is reflected and scattered from the subject (lens, [0131] of Cho; element 46, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions of Bechtel).
In regard to claim 9, Cho as modified by Bechtel discloses an optical filter disposed before the monochrome part to allow light of a predetermined wavelength band to be transmitted to the monochrome part (elements 262-1, 262-2…etc., Fig. 11 and associated descriptions of Cho; element 44, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions of Bechtel).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cho and Bechtel as applied to claims 1-3 and 8-9 above, and further in view of Rowe et al. (USPGPUB 2004/0240712 – cited in previous action). In regard to claims 5-6, Cho as modified by Bechtel discloses all the claimed limitations except a first wavelength plate that adjusts a polarization direction of the light irradiated by the light source; a second wavelength plate that adjusts a polarization direction of the light that is reflected and scattered from the subject.
Rowe teaches an optical glucose measuring apparatus (Figs. 1-3 and associated descriptions) comprises a light source (element(s) 103a-b/ 303a-b, Figs. 1 and 3 and associated descriptions) and a light detector (element 115 or 317, Figs. 1 and 3 and associated descriptions), a first wavelength plate that adjusts a polarization direction of the light irradiated by the light source (element(s) 107a-b/ 307a-b, Figs. 1 and 3 and associated descriptions); a second wavelength plate that adjusts a polarization direction of the light that is reflected and scattered from the subject (elements 111/311, Figs. 1 and 3 and associated descriptions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (Cho as modified by Bechtel) to incorporate the polarization elements and associated configurations as taught by Rowe, since both devices are optical glucose monitoring systems and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that polarization elements facilitate reducing directly reflected/ unwanted light being detected (see at least [0052-0053] of Rowe). The rationale would have been to obtain more accurate optical measurements.
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Cho and Bechtel as applied to claims 1-3 and 8-9 above, in view of Kang et al. (USPGPUB 2021/0059582 – cited in previous action) and further in view of Nakao (USPGPUB 2014/0031649 – cited in previous action). In regard to claim 10, Cho as modified by Bechtel discloses all the claimed limitations except a glucose level in an interstitial fluid is measured based on ratios of areas of (a) a peak at about 1450 cm-1, and (c) a peak at about 1125 cm-1
Kang discloses a Raman spectroscopy system (Figs. 1-5 and associated descriptions), wherein a glucose level in an interstitial fluid (ISF, [0007] and [0073]) is measured based on ratios of areas (Band-area ratios, [0083]) of (a) a peak at about 1450 cm-1 (1450 cm-1, [0083]), and (c) a peak at about 1125 cm-1 (1125 cm-1, [0083]) and the Raman spectra in the range of 810 cm-1 to 1650 cm-1 can be used in the band-area ratio calculations ([0083]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (Cho as modified by Bechtel) to incorporate the ratios of areas calculations and associated wavenumbers/functions/elements as taught by Kang, since both devices are Raman spectroscopy systems and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that ratios of areas calculation of specific wavenumbers provide additional glucose information (see Kang). The rationale would have been to obtain additional glucose information from Raman signals.
Cho as modified by Bechtel and Kang discloses the Raman spectra in the range of 810 cm-1 to 1650 cm-1 can be used in the band-area ratio calculations ([0083] of Kang) but does not specifically disclose a peak at about 1660 cm-1 .
Nakao teaches a Raman spectroscopy device (Figs. 5 and 7 and associated descriptions) configured to obtain glucose concentration information by acquiring the ratio between the peak intensity of water at 1650 cm~' and the peak intensity of glucose in the Raman spectra of tissue (Fig. 7 and associated descriptions; 1650 cm -1 and glucose peak intensity, [0078-0079]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (Cho as modified by Bechtel and Kang) to incorporate the peak wavenumber of 1650 cm-1 of Raman spectra as taught by Nakao in the band-area ratios calculations, since both devices are Raman spectroscopy systems and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the ratio of peak intensity of 1650 cm-1 and any of the peak intensities of glucose of Raman spectra provide additional glucose information of the tissue (see Nakao). The rationale would have been to obtain more glucose information.
In regard to claim 11, Cho as modified by Bechtel, Kang and Nakao discloses for (a) the peak at about 1450 cm -1, the area is obtained in a range between 1415 cm and 1480 cm -1, which corresponds to proteins (band-area ratios of 1450 cm -1, [0083] of Kang; it is inherent that a band near 1450 cm-1 satisfies the range and would correspond to proteins).
In regard to claim 12, Cho as modified by Bechtel, Kang and Nakao discloses for (b) the peak at about 1660 cm, the area is obtained in a range between 1630 cm to 1685 cm-1, which corresponds to fats (band-area ratios, [0083] of Kang; water peak of 1650 cm -1 for glucose estimation, Fig. 7 and associated descriptions; [0078-0079] of Nakao; it is inherent that a band near 1650 cm-1 satisfies the range and would correspond to fats).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,484,812 in view of Bechtel. In regard to claims 1-2 of present application, claims 1-2 and 5 of ‘812 recites all the claimed limitations except a first mirror disposed in front of the light source to cause the light generated by the light source and emitted in a first direction to be deflected in a second direction, which is different from the first direction, and to allow the light to be irradiated to a subject; a second mirror that causes light reflected or scattered from the subject to be deflected in a third direction, which is different from the first direction and the second direction. Bechtel discloses an apparatus for measuring blood glucose level (Fig. 3 and associated descriptions), comprising: a light source configured to generate light (element 12, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions); a first mirror disposed in front of the light source (element 16, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions) to cause the light generated by the light source and emitted in a first direction to be deflected in a second direction, which is different from the first direction (changes from top to bottom direction to right to left direction, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions), and to allow the light to be irradiated to a subject (the forearm, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions); a second mirror that causes light reflected or scattered from the subject to be deflected in a third direction (element 42 and left to right direction, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions), which is different from the first direction and the second direction (Fig. 3 and associated descriptions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (claims 1-2 and 5 of ‘812) to incorporate the optical configurations and associated components for guiding excitation/ reflected light to and from the tissue of a subject as taught by Bechtel, since both devices are Raman spectroscopy systems and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the optical configurations facilitate apply and detect lights to and from a tissue for monitoring blood glucose information using Raman spectroscopy technology (see Bechtel). The rationale would have been to obtain glucose information from a tissue site of a subject.
Claims 1-2 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2 and 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,484,813 in view of Bechtel. In regard to claims 1-2 of present application, claims 1-2 and 5 of ‘813 recites all the claimed limitations except a first mirror disposed in front of the light source to cause the light generated by the light source and emitted in a first direction to be deflected in a second direction, which is different from the first direction, and to allow the light to be irradiated to a subject; a second mirror that causes light reflected or scattered from the subject to be deflected in a third direction, which is different from the first direction and the second direction. Bechtel discloses an apparatus for measuring blood glucose level (Fig. 3 and associated descriptions), comprising: a light source configured to generate light (element 12, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions); a first mirror disposed in front of the light source (element 16, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions) to cause the light generated by the light source and emitted in a first direction to be deflected in a second direction, which is different from the first direction (changes from top to bottom direction to right to left direction, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions), and to allow the light to be irradiated to a subject (the forearm, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions); a second mirror that causes light reflected or scattered from the subject to be deflected in a third direction (element 42 and left to right direction, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions), which is different from the first direction and the second direction (Fig. 3 and associated descriptions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (claims 1-2 and 5 of ‘813) to incorporate the optical configurations and associated components for guiding excitation/ reflected light to and from the tissue of a subject as taught by Bechtel, since both devices are Raman spectroscopy systems and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the optical configurations facilitate apply and detect lights to and from a tissue for monitoring blood glucose information using Raman spectroscopy technology (see Bechtel). The rationale would have been to obtain glucose information from a tissue site of a subject.
The followings are provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejections because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 8-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/427,879 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 3 of ‘879 anticipate/ recite similar limitations of claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 8-9 of present application.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 8-9 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3-4 of copending Application No. 18/427,880 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 3-4 of ‘879 anticipate/ recite similar limitations of claims 1, 3, 5-6, and 8-9 of present application.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-6, 9, and 11 of copending Application No. 18/427,883 in view of Bechtel. In regard to claim 1 of present application, claims 1, 5-6, 9, and 11 of ‘883 recites all the claimed limitations except a first mirror disposed in front of the light source to cause the light generated by the light source and emitted in a first direction to be deflected in a second direction, which is different from the first direction, and to allow the light to be irradiated to a subject; a second mirror that causes light reflected or scattered from the subject to be deflected in a third direction, which is different from the first direction and the second direction. Bechtel discloses an apparatus for measuring blood glucose level (Fig. 3 and associated descriptions), comprising: a light source configured to generate light (element 12, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions); a first mirror disposed in front of the light source (element 16, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions) to cause the light generated by the light source and emitted in a first direction to be deflected in a second direction, which is different from the first direction (changes from top to bottom direction to right to left direction, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions), and to allow the light to be irradiated to a subject (the forearm, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions); a second mirror that causes light reflected or scattered from the subject to be deflected in a third direction (element 42 and left to right direction, Fig. 3 and associated descriptions), which is different from the first direction and the second direction (Fig. 3 and associated descriptions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus (claims 1, 5-6, 9, and 11 of ‘883) to incorporate the optical configurations and associated components for guiding excitation/ reflected light to and from the tissue of a subject as taught by Bechtel, since both devices are Raman spectroscopy systems and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the optical configurations facilitate apply and detect lights to and from a tissue for monitoring blood glucose information using Raman spectroscopy technology (see Bechtel). The rationale would have been to obtain glucose information from a tissue site of a subject.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 13 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: In regard to claim 13, the prior art of record does not teach or suggest “for (c) the peak at about 1125 cm-1, the area is obtained by summing areas in three ranges (c-i) between 1089 cm-1 and 1160 cm-1, (c-ii) between 1115 cm-1 and 1140 cm-1, and (c-iii) between 1120 cm-1 and 1130 cm-1, which correspond to glucose”, in combination with the other claimed elements/ steps.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to claim 1 filed on 08/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are deemed to be moot in views of the new grounds of rejection.
In regard to the double patenting rejections, applicant requested that the rejections be held in abeyance. In response, the DP rejections maintained for the reasons of record.
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 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 CHU CHUAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-6pm).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/CHU CHUAN LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights