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 filed a response dated 11/7/2025 in which claims 1-15 and 17-19 have been amended, claims 16 and 20 have been canceled and new claims 22-25 have been added. Thus, the claims 1-15, 17-19, and 21-25 are pending in the application.
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 1-15, 17-19, and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea of determining specified quantities of multiple pill types based on their weights without significantly more.
Examiner has identified claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention presented in independent claims 1 and 18.
Claim 1 is directed to a system, which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 1 is directed to a system, comprising: a host processor and memory comprising instructions to cause the host processor to: communicate with a patient pill case platform, a communication device of a patient, and a database via respective communication channels, wherein the patient pill case platform comprises multiple pill case containers, and wherein the database comprises pill types and associated pill weights; receive a patient medication schedule from the communication device of the patient determine specified quantities of multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule, for each of the pill case containers, based on the patient medication schedule; provide instructions to the communication device of the patient for loading the specified quantities of the multiple pill types into the pill case containers based on the patient medication schedule; receive indications of container weights of the pill case containers from the patient pill case platform, subsequent to providing the instructions to the communication device of the patient; compute a statistic for a pill type of the patient medication schedule for which the database includes multiple pill weights, wherein the statistic comprises one or more of a median and a standard deviation of the multiple pill weights; and determine whether the pill case containers contain the specified quantities of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule based on the container weights, the database of pill types and associated pill weights, and the statistic. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of determining specified quantities of multiple pill types based on their weights, which correspond to a certain methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of a host processor and memory, a patient pill case platform, a communication device, and a database do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 1 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a host processor and memory, a patient pill case platform, a communication device, and a database result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a host processor and memory, a patient pill case platform, a communication device, and a database are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic computer element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 1 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 1 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of a host processor and memory, a patient pill case platform, a communication device, and a database are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 1 is not patent eligible.
Similar arguments can be presented for other independent claim 18 and hence the claim 18 is rejected on similar grounds as claim 1.
Dependent claims 2-15, 17, 19, and 21-24 further define the abstract idea that is present in their respective independent claims 1 and 18, thus correspond to a certain methods of organizing human activity, and hence are abstract in nature for the reason presented above. Dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Therefore, the claims 1-15, 17-19, and 21-24 are not patent-eligible.
Claim 25 is directed to a pill case platform (i.e., an apparatus), which is one of the statutory categories of invention (Step 1: YES).
The claim 25 is directed to a patient pill case platform, comprising: multiple pill case containers; one or more load cells configured to output a sensed load signal for each of the pill case containers; processing circuitry configured to detect weight detection events of the load cells based on the sensed load signals of the respective load cells and a detection threshold, and determine container weights of the pill case containers for the weight detection events based on the sensed load signals of the respective load cells; and communication circuitry configured to transmit the container weights of the weight detection events to a host. These limitations (with the exception of italicized limitations) describe the abstract idea of transmit the container weights to a host, which correspond to a certain methods of organizing human activity. The additional elements of a patient pill case platform, pill case containers, load cells, processing circuitry, and a communication circuitry do not restrict the claim from reciting an abstract idea. Thus, the claim 25 recites an abstract idea (Step 2A, Prong One: YES).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements of a patient pill case platform, pill case containers, load cells, processing circuitry, and a communication circuitry result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements of a patient pill case platform, pill case containers, load cells, processing circuitry, and a communication circuitry are recited at a high level of generality and under their broadest reasonable interpretation comprises a generic computer arrangement. The presence of a generic computer arrangement is nothing more than to implement the claimed invention by applying the exception using a generic computer element (MPEP 2106.05(f)). Therefore, the recitations of additional elements do not meaningfully apply the abstract idea and hence does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Thus, the claim 25 is directed to an abstract idea (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO).
The claim 25 does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim recites the additional elements of a patient pill case platform, pill case containers, load cells, processing circuitry, and a communication circuitry are recited at a high level of generality in that it result in no more than simply applying the abstract idea using generic computer elements. The additional elements when considered separately and as an ordered combination do not amount to add significantly more as these elements provide nothing more than to simply apply the exception in a generic computer environment (Step 2B: NO). Thus, the claim 25 is not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cizmarik, US Patent No. 10,055,552 in view of Hoffman, US Patent Application No. 2024/0197569 in view of Chessa et al., US Patent Application No. 2018/0125760.
Regarding claim 1, Cizmarik discloses a system, comprising:
a host processor and memory comprising instructions to cause the host processor to (col. 1, lines 48-col. 2, line 4; col. 4, lines 40-60):
communicate with a patient pill case platform, a communication device of a patient, and a database via respective communication channels, wherein the patient pill case platform comprises multiple pill case containers, and wherein the database comprises pill types and associated pill weights (col. 1, lines 48-col. 2, line 4; col. 4, lines 40-60);
receive a patient medication schedule from the communication device of the patient (col. 5, lines 42-60);
determine specified quantities of multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule, for each of the pill case containers, based on the patient medication schedule (col. 1, lines 24-26; col. 5, lines 42-60; col. 6, lines 42-62);
provide instructions to the communication device of the patient for loading the specified quantities of the multiple pill types into the pill case containers based on the patient medication schedule (col. 4, lines 40-60; col. 6, lines 42-62);
receive indications of container weights of the pill case containers from the patient pill case platform, subsequent to providing the instructions to the communication device of the patient (col. 4, lines 26-39; col. 6, lines 28-62);
compute a statistic for a pill type of the patient medication schedule for which the database includes multiple pill weights, wherein the statistic comprises one or more of a median and a standard deviation of the multiple pill weights; and
determine whether the pill case container contains specified quantities of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule based on the container weights, the database of pill types and associated pill weights, and the statistic (col. 2, lines 41-57; col. 4, lines 26-39).
Cizmarik does not specifically disclose
a database;
the database comprises pill types and associated pill weights;
multiple pill types;
compute a statistic for a pill type of the patient medication schedule for which the database includes multiple pill weights, wherein the statistic comprises one or more of a median and a standard deviation of the multiple pill weights.
However, Hoffman discloses
a database ([0066]);
the database comprises pill types and associated pill weights ([0066]);
multiple pill types ([0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik to include the above-noted disclosure of Hoffman. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Cizmarik and Hoffman do not specifically disclose
compute a statistic for a pill type of the patient medication schedule for which the database includes multiple pill weights, wherein the statistic comprises one or more of a median and a standard deviation of the multiple pill weights.
However, Chessa discloses
compute a statistic for a pill type of the patient medication schedule for which the database includes multiple pill weights, wherein the statistic comprises one or more of a median and a standard deviation of the multiple pill weights ([0042], [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik and Hoffman to include the above-noted disclosure of Chessa. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Regarding claim 2, Hoffman discloses wherein the host processor to determine a corrective quantity of one or more of the multiple pill types if the host processor determines that one or more of the pill case containers do not contain the specified quantities of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule ([0066], the use of “if” makes the limitation that proceeds “if” an optional limitation as it may not happen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik to include the above-noted disclosure of Hoffman. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Regarding claim 3, Hoffman discloses wherein the host processor to determine whether a pill case container of the patient pill case platform contains an incorrect pill type based on the corresponding container weight, the patient medication schedule, and the database of pill types and associated pill weights ([0066], type and quantity of the pills in the pod can also be verified using images captured).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik to include the above-noted disclosure of Hoffman. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Regarding claim 5, Cizmarik discloses wherein the host processor to populate the database based on one or more of:
prior container weights of the patient pill case platform and the patient medication schedule; and
container weights of other patient pill case platforms and patient medication schedules associated with the other patient pill case platforms (col. 1, lines 12-22; col. 2, lines 41-46).
Regarding claim 7, Hoffman discloses wherein the host processor to:
compute expected weights of the pill case container based on the specified quantities of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule and corresponding pill weights of the database;
compare the container weights to the corresponding expected weights; and
determine that the pill case containers contain the specified quantities of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule if the container weights match the corresponding expected weights within a statistical measure of certainty ([0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik to include the above-noted disclosure of Hoffman. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Regarding claim 8, Hoffman discloses wherein the host processor to determine a corrective quantity of one or more of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule if the container weight of a pill case container of the patient pill case platform does not match the corresponding expected weight within the statistical measure of certainty, including to:
compute alternative expected weights of the pill case container based on various quantities of the multiple pill types of the patent medication schedule and the corresponding pill weights of the database;
compare the container weight to the alternative expected weights; and
determine that the pill case container contains an incorrect quantity of one or more of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule if the container weight matches one of the alternative expected weights within the statistical measure of certainty ([0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik to include the above-noted disclosure of Hoffman. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Regarding claim 9, Hoffman discloses wherein the host processor to:
determine the corrective quantity based on the alternative expected weight that matches the expected weight within the statistical measure of certainty ([0066], the use of “if” makes the limitation that proceeds “if” an optional limitation as it may not happen).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik to include the above-noted disclosure of Hoffman. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Regarding claim 10, Hoffman discloses wherein the host processor to:
determine that the pill case container contains an incorrect pill type if the container weight of the pill case container does not match any of the alternative expected weights within the statistical measure of certainty ([0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik to include the above-noted disclosure of Hoffman. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Regarding claim 12, Cizmarik discloses wherein the host processor to provide a corrective instruction to the communication device of the patient if the host processor determines that a pill case container of the patient pill case platform does not contain the specified quantities of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule, and wherein the corrective instruction comprises one or more of:
an instruction to add a corrective quantity of one or more of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule to the pill case container;
an instruction to remove a corrective quantity of one or more of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule from the pill case container; and
an instruction to remove a corrective quantity of an incorrect pill type from the pill case container (col. 1, lines 12-23).
Regarding claim 13, Hoffman discloses wherein the host processor to: provide an image of the one or more pill types identified in the corrective instruction, to the communication device of the patient ([0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik to include the above-noted disclosure of Hoffman. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Regarding claim 14, Hoffman discloses wherein the host processor to:
provide an instruction for loading the pill case container with the specified quantities of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule, to the communication device of the patient; and
provide images of the multiple pill types with the instruction ([0066]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik to include the above-noted disclosure of Hoffman. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Regarding claim 15, Cizmarik discloses wherein the instructions further cause the host processor to (abstract):
provide instructions for loading respective ones of the pill case containers based on the patient medication schedule, serially (abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Cizmarik discloses wherein the host processor to (abstract):
Hoffman discloses determine whether the pill case containers contain the specified quantities of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule based on one or more of ([0066]),
an indication from the patient pill case platform that lids of the patient pill case containers are closed (col. 2, lines 31-34); and
an indication from the communication device of the patient that the pill cases are loaded ([0066]).
Regarding claim 21, Hoffman discloses determine whether the pill case container contains an incorrect pill type based on the container weight, the patient medication schedule, and the database of pill types and associated pill weights ([0066], type and quantity of the pills in the pod can also be verified using images captured).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik to include the above-noted disclosure of Hoffman. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Regarding claim 22, Cizmarik discloses
provide the instructions for loading the specified quantities of the multiple pill types into the pill case containers based on a selectable one of multiple loading modes that comprise (col. 1, lines 31-42; col. 4, lines 26-39):
an aided loading mode in which the user is prompted to load subsets of the specified quantities of the multiple pill types, and the processor verifies that each subset is properly loaded based on an expected change in the container weights of the pill case containers (col. 1, lines 31-42; col. 4, lines 26-39); and
an unaided loading mode in which the user is provided with a list of the specified quantities of the multiple pill types pill types for each of the pill case containers, and the processor verifies that the specified quantities of the multiple pill types are properly loaded based on a net change in the container weights of the pill case containers and expected weights for various combinations of the multiple pill types, subsequent to receipt of an indication that the user has completed loading the specified quantities of the multiple pill types (col. 1, lines 31-42; col. 4, lines 26-39).
Regarding claim 23, Chessa discloses the host processor to compute the expected weights based further on a classification method that accounts for variations in the weight of a pill type due to one or more of ([0042], [0045]):
inherent variability in characteristics amongst hardware of pill case platform;
inherent variability in characteristics amongst the pill case containers of the pill case platform;
environmental factors of the pill case platform;
variability amongst manufacturers of the pill type ([0042], [0045]);
changes in a manufacturing process of the pill type;
variability in pill handling characteristics of pharmacists;
variability amongst pharmacies; and
variability in pill handling characteristics of a user when loading the pill cases.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik and Hoffman to include the above-noted disclosure of Chessa. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Regarding claim 24, Chessa discloses wherein the classification method comprises a self- reinforcing classification method ([0042], [0045]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik and Hoffman to include the above-noted disclosure of Chessa. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Claim 18 is substantially similar to claim 1 and hence rejected on similar grounds.
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cizmarik, US Patent No. 10,055,552 in view of Hoffman, US Patent Application No. 2024/0197569 in view of Chessa et al., US Patent Application No. 2018/0125760 in view of Long, US Patent Application No. 2022/0105008.
Regarding claim 11, Long discloses wherein the host processor to send an alert to the patient pill case platform if the host processor determines that a pill case container of the patient pill case platform does not contain the specified quantities of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule ([0061], [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik, Hoffman, and Chessa to include the above-noted disclosure of Lang. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Regarding claim 19, Cizmarik discloses
send a confirmation to one or more of the user device and the pill case platform if the pill case containers contain the specified quantities of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule; and
determine a determine a corrective quantity of one or more of the multiple pill types for one or more of the pill case containers and provide a corrective instruction to the user device if one or more of the pill case containers do not contain the specified quantities of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule (col. 1, lines 12-23).
Lang discloses
send a confirmation to one or more of the user device and the pill case platform if the pill case containers contain the specified quantities of the multiple pill types of the patient medication schedule ([0061], [0069]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik, Hoffman, and Chessa to include the above-noted disclosure of Lang. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cizmarik, US Patent No. 10,055,552 in view of Hoffman, US Patent Application No. 2024/0197569 in view of Chessa et al., US Patent Application No. 2018/0125760 in view of Cangoz, US Patent Application No. 2020/0062471.
Regarding claim 4, Cizmarik discloses
a load cell configured to output a sensed load signal for each of the pill case containers (col. 1, lines 48-57; col. 2, lines 18-24; lines 51-57);
processing circuitry configured to detect weight detection events of the load cells based on the sensed load signals of the respective load cells and a detection threshold, and determine container weights of the pill case containers for the weight detection events based on the sensed load signals of the respective load cells (col. 4, lines 26-39; col. 6, lines 28-62); and
communication circuitry configured to transmit the container weights of the weight detection events to a host (col. 4, lines 26-60).
Cangoz discloses
a detection threshold ([0073], detection of the number of pills 306 reaching a predetermined threshold value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik, Hoffman, and Chessa to include the above-noted disclosure of Cangoz. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Regarding claim 6, Cizmarik discloses
wherein the load cell comprises a load cell for each of the pill case containers (col. 4, lines 26-39).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cizmarik, US Patent No. 10,055,552 in view of Cangoz, US Patent Application No. 2020/0062471.
Regarding claim 25, Cizmarik discloses a patient pill case platform, comprising:
multiple pill case containers (col. 1, lines 48-57);
one or more load cells configured to output a sensed load signal for each of the pill case containers (col. 1, lines 48-57; col. 2, lines 18-24; lines 51-57);
processing circuitry configured to detect weight detection events of the load cells based on the sensed load signals of the respective load cells and a detection threshold, and determine container weights of the pill case containers for the weight detection events based on the sensed load signals of the respective load cells (col. 4, lines 26-39; col. 6, lines 28-62); and
communication circuitry configured to transmit the container weights of the weight detection events to a host (col. 4, lines 26-60).
Cizmarik does not specifically disclose
a detection threshold.
However, Cangoz discloses
a detection threshold ([0073], detection of the number of pills 306 reaching a predetermined threshold value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the above-noted disclosure of Cizmarik to include the above-noted disclosure of Cangoz. The motivation for combining these references would have been to manage inventory of different pill types for a patient.
Response to Arguments
Examiner withdraws 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claims 1-21 in view of the amendment/argument.
Applicant's arguments filed dated 11/7/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive due to the following reasons:
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 101, Applicant states that independent claims 1 and 18 are further amended to recite various communications between the host and the patient communication device, and between the host and the patient pill case platform. As agreed in the Office Action, these additional features overcome the rejection.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that various communication devices are recited at a high level of generality in that it simply applies the abstract idea. Communication between devices is an abstract idea and there is no technical improvement as a result of it. Thus, these arguments are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 103, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented above in this office action.
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 RAJESH KHATTAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7981. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, Shahid Merchant can be reached at 571-270-1360. 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.
RAJESH KHATTAR
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3684
/RAJESH KHATTAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684