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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on November 21, 2025 has been considered. An initialed copy of the Form 1449 is enclosed herewith.
Status of Claims
This office action is in response to arguments and amendments entered on November 21, 2025 for the patent application 18/444,362 filed on February 16, 2024. Claims 1-95 and 106 are cancelled. Claims 96-105 and 107-115 are pending. The first office action of May 22, 2025 is fully incorporated by reference into this Final Office Action.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 96 and 109 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent 10,849,688 to Rios, et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claim requirements of claims 96 and 109 of the instant application 18/444,362 are disclosed in claim 1 of U.S. Patent 10,849,688 to Rios, et al.
Instant application
US 10,849,688 to Rios, et al.
96. An injection aid system configured to aid a simulated injection by providing visualization of a before-and-after contrast of a live patient's appearance, the system comprising:
a computing system comprising at least one processor and a memory device, the computing system configured to receive imaging data of the live patient and generate a three-dimensional virtual model based on the imaging data; and
a display device coupled to the computing system, the display device configured to display the three-dimensional virtual model;
wherein the at least one processor is configured to, in response to a user input indicative of the simulated injection:
distort the three-dimensional virtual model at a target location to reflect an effect of the simulated injection based on the user input, and
generate an updated three-dimensional virtual model configured for interactive playback of the simulated injection;
cause the display device to display the updated three-dimensional virtual model and an injection playback to visually show a progression of the effect of the simulated injection on the live patient’s appearance.
109. A method of aiding a simulated injection by providing visualization of a before-and-after contrast of a live patient's appearance, the method comprising:
using a computing system comprising at least one processor and a memory device, the using comprising:
receiving imaging data of the live patient;
generating a three-dimensional virtual model based on the imaging data;
causing a display device coupled to the computing system to display the three-dimensional virtual model;
receiving a user input indicative of the simulated injection;
distorting the three-dimensional virtual model at a target location to reflect an effect of the simulated injection based on the user input;
generating an updated three-dimensional virtual model configured for interactive playback of the simulated injection; and
causing the display device to display the updated three-dimensional virtual model and an injection playback to visually show a progression of the effect of the simulated injection on the live patient's appearance.
1. An injection aid system comprising:
a physical anatomic training model configured to receive at least a portion of an injection tool, the physical anatomic training model configured to simulate an anatomical structure; and
a computing system having at least one processor and a memory device, the computing system configured to generate at least one of a virtual environment or an augmented environment including the anatomical structure, the at least one of the virtual environment or the augmented environment being a stereoscopic representation; and
a display device coupled to the computing system, the processor configured to cause the display device to visually display the at least one of the virtual environment or the augmented environment,
wherein the processor is further configured to cause the display device to visually display mimicked changes of the anatomical structure during use of the injection tool on the physical anatomic training model.
In view of the table above, it is clear that most of the elements of claims 96 and 109 are to be found in claim 1 U.S. Patent 10,849,688 to Rios, et al.
While the limitations of are not identical limitations it remains clear that they are claiming the same structural component performing the same functions. It is the position of the office that these are two different ways to describe the same thing. Otherwise, the difference between claims 96 and 109 of the application and claim 1 of the patent lies in the fact that the patent claim includes many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of claim 1 of the patent is in effect a “species” of the “generic” invention of claims 96 and 109 of the application. It has been held that the generic invention is “anticipated” by the “species”. See In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Since claims 96 and 109 of the application are anticipated by claim 1 of the patent, it is not patentably distinct.
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 96-115 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Step 1 – “Statutory Category Identification”
Claim 96 is directed to “an injection aid system” (i.e. a machine) and claim 109 is directed to “a method” (i.e. “a process”), hence the claims are directed to one of the four statutory categories (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter). In other words, Step 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 1 “Abstract Idea Identification”
However, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea of “simulating injection,” either in the form of “certain methods of organizing human activity,” in terms of managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people (including social activities, teaching and following rules or instructions), or reasonably in the form of “mental processes,” in terms of processes that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement or opinion). Regardless, the claims are reasonably understood as either “certain methods of organizing human activity” or “mental processes,” which require the following limitations:
Per claim 96:
“receive imaging data of the live patient and generate a three-dimensional virtual model based on the imaging data; and
to display the three-dimensional virtual model;
in response to a user input indicative of the simulated injection:
distort the three-dimensional virtual model at a target location to reflect an
effect of the simulated injection based on the user input, and
generate updated three- dimensional virtual model configured for interactive playback of the simulated injection;
cause the display device to display the updated three-dimensional virtual model and an injection playback to visually show a progression of the effect of the simulated injection on the live patient's appearance.”
Per claim 109:
“receiving imaging data of the live patient;
generating a three-dimensional virtual model based on the imaging data;
display the three-dimensional virtual model;
receiving a user input indicative of the simulated injection;
distorting the three-dimensional virtual model at a target location to reflect an effect of the simulated injection based on the user input;
generating an updated three-dimensional virtual model configured for interactive playback of the simulated injection; and
causing the display device to display the updated three-dimensional virtual model and an injection playback to visually show a progression of the effect of the simulated injection on the live patient's appearance.”
These limitations simply describe a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)). Hence, these limitations are akin to an abstract idea which has been identified among non-limiting examples to be an abstract idea. In other words, Step 2A, Prong 1 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “Yes.”
Step 2A, Prong 2 – “Practical Application”
Furthermore, the applicants claimed element of “a computing system comprising at least one processor and a memory device,” and “a display device coupled to the computing system,” are merely claimed to generally link the use of a judicial exception (e.g., pre-solution activity of data gathering and post-solution activity of presenting data) to (1) a particular technological environment or (2) field of use, per MPEP §2106.05(h); and are applying 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, per MPEP §2106.05(f). In other words, the claimed “simulating injection,” is not providing a practical application, thus Step 2A, Prong 2 of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
Step 2B – “Significantly More”
Likewise, the claims do not include additional elements that either alone or in combination are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because to the extent that, e.g. “a computing system comprising at least one processor and a memory device,” and “a display device coupled to the computing system,” are claimed, these are generic, well-known, and conventional data gather computing elements. As evidence that these are generic, well-known, and a conventional data gathering computing elements (or an equivalent term), as a commercially available product, or in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known, the Applicant’s specification discloses these in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a), per MPEP § 2106.07(a) III (a). As such, this satisfies the Examiner’s evidentiary burden requirement per the Berkheimer memo.
Specifically, the Applicant’s claimed “a computing system comprising at least one processor and a memory device,” as described in paras. [0098]-[0099] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed provides the following:
“[0098] In some embodiments the disclosed injection aid system 100, 400 comprises a computing system. FIG. 10 is a functional block diagram of an embodiment of a general purpose computing system suitable for use in implementing the disclosed systems and in executing the disclosed methods and the executable instructions stored on the non-transitory, computer-readable media for injection training in accordance with various embodiments of the present disclosure. By way of illustration, the computing system includes a computing device 1000. The computing device 1000 can take one or more of different forms, including, by way of non-limiting examples, a laptop computer, a stand-alone personal computer, a server, a tablet, a workstation, a handheld device, a mobile device (such as a smartphone), and a consumer electronic device (such as a video game console), to name a few. The computing device 1000 can be a stand-alone device, or it can be configured to be part of a computing network, a computing cluster, a cloud-based computing infrastructure, or the like.”
“[0099] In a basic configuration, the computing device 1000 can include one or more processors 1004 and one or more memory devices 1008. The one or more processors 1004 can be configured to execute instructions and to process data to perform one or more functions, such as the methods and the executable instructions stored on computer-readable media disclosed herein. Illustratively, the one or more processors 1004 may include, without limitation, two or more processing cores on a single processing chip, two or more separate processor chips, or both. In some embodiments, the computing device 1000 can also include one or more additional or specialized processors such as, for example, a graphics processor (not shown), to perform graphics processing functions that can be diverted from the one or more processors 1004 to improve performance and/or to relieve their workload. The memory 1008 can be arranged in a hierarchy and can include one or more levels of cache. The memory 1008 may include one or more memory devices that store data, including without limitation, volatile memory such as random access memory (RAM), non-volatile memory, such as and read-only memory (ROM), flash memory, etc., or a combination of volatile and non-volatile memory.” These elements are reasonably interpreted as a generic computer having generic computer components which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment.
Likewise, the Applicant’s claimed “a display device coupled to the computing system,” as described in para. [0051] of the Applicant’s written description as originally filed provides the following:
“[0051] As illustrated in FIG. 1, the display device 108 comprises a remote screen display configured to provide images of the generated virtual environment. The injection aid system may provide information and training results of injections to a user through, for example, a patient's face shown on the display device 108, such as on a tablet, mobile device, laptop or standalone display. The display device 108 may include wearable glasses or as otherwise described herein.”
Again, this element is reasonably interpreted as a generic computer component which provides no details of anything beyond ubiquitous standard equipment. As such, the Applicant’s own specification discloses ubiquitous standard equipment within modern computers and does not provide anything significantly more. Therefore, Step 2B, of the subject-matter eligibility analysis is “No.”
In addition, dependent claims 97-108 and 110-115 do not provide a practical application and are insufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As such, dependent claims 97-108 and 110-115 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101, based on their respective dependencies to claim 96 or 109. Therefore, claims 96-115 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject-matter.
Response to Arguments
The Applicant’s remarks filed on November 21, 2025 related to claims 96-105 and 107-115 are fully considered, but are not persuasive.
Discussion of Double Patenting Rejections
The Applicant respectfully argues “Namely, the Office Action claims that "the invention of claim 1 of [the '688 patent] is in effect a 'species' of the 'generic' invention of claims 96 and 109 of the application." Office Action at p.4. However, Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 1 of the '688 is not a species of the pending claims. For example, Claim 1 of the '688 patent is directed to a "physical anatomical training model," which is not recited in the pending claims in the present application. Moreover, the pending claims recite terms that are different from or not present in Claim 1 of the '688 patent, including but not limited to "live patient's appearance" (which is different from "anatomical structure" simulated by "a physical anatomic training model" recited in Claim 1 of the '688 patent), "generate a three-dimensional virtual model based on the imaging data [of the live patient]," and "distort the three-dimensional virtual model at a target location." Nevertheless, solely to facilitate prosecution, Applicant has amended Claims 96 and 109 as indicated above. Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,849,688 has not been shown to recite "generat[ing] an updated three-dimensional virtual model configured for interactive playback of the simulated injection," as recited in Claims 96 and 109 of the present application. For at least these reasons, Applicant respectfully requests that the double patenting rejections be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s distinction. As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the double patenting rejection is not withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 101
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection and respectfully requests reconsideration in view of the amendments presented herein and the 2024 Guidance Update on Patent Subject Matter Eligibility, Including on Artificial Intelligence (July 17, 2024), 89 FR 58128, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2024-15377 (hereinafter the "Guidance") and the Memorandum re: Reminders on evaluating subject matter eligibility of claims under 35 U.S.C. 101 (August 4, 2025), available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/memo-101-20250804.pdf (hereinafter the "Memo").”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims. Specifically, the Applicant’s claims fail to claim any form of “Artificial Intelligence.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant submits that although the claimed systems and methods for simulating injection involves a broad array of techniques and/or activities that may involve or rely upon methods of organizing human activity or mental processes, the claims do not recite an abstract idea, as discussed below.
Applicant respectfully submits that Claim 96 and 109 do not recite an abstract idea. The Guidance states that claims "do not recite a mental process when they contain limitations that cannot practically be performed in the human mind." Guidance at p. 58136; Memo at p. 2. The limitations do not fall into the grouping of mental process because the processor "distort[ing] the three-dimensional virtual model at a target location to reflect an effect of the simulated injection generat[ing] an updated three-dimensional virtual model configured for interactive playback of the simulated injection; and caus[ing] the display device to display the updated three-dimensional virtual model and an injection playback to visually show a progression of the effect of the simulated injection on the live patient's appearance" cannot be performed in the human mind.
This is also not a situation where a computer can simply automate what was previously done by a human. Rather, specific algorithms had to be developed to generate a three-dimensional virtual model from imaging data of a live patient, distort the three-dimensional virtual model to reflect an effect of the simulated injection based on the user input, and generate an updated three-dimensional virtual model allowing for interactive playback of the simulated injection. The specification discloses details of how to generate the virtual anatomical model. See, e.g., Application as filed, at paragraphs [0076]-[0084]. The specification also discloses, for example, "a model mesh" and "fluid flow modeling methods" to aid the distorting of the three-dimensional virtual model to reflect an effect of the simulated injection, and an interactive "injection playback" to aid in a progressive visualization of the simulated injection. See, e.g., id. at paragraphs [0096]-[0097]. These are steps that, "as a practical matter," cannot be performed entirely in a human's mind. See, e.g., Research Corp. Techs., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 627 F.3d 859, 868 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (a method for rendering a halftone image of a digital image by comparing, pixel by pixel, the digital image against a blue noise mask was found to recite patent-eligible subject matter because the method could not, as a practical matter, be performed entirely in a human's mind).”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Actual mental performance of the abstract idea is not required. Specifically, the MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) states that “claims can recite a mental process even if they are claimed as being performed on a computer” and that “examiners should review the specification to determine if the claimed invention is described as a concept that is performed in the human mind and Applicant is merely claiming that concept performed 1) on a generic computer, or 2) in a computer environment, or 3) is merely using a computer as a tool to perform the concept. In these situations, the claim is considered to recite a mental process.” In the present case, the claim limitations perform steps that are performed on a generic computer and/or computer environment, and merely uses a computer as a tool to perform the concept. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant also submits that the claimed invention recites much more than "a process of data gathering and manipulation, which is partially analogous to collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis," Office Action, at pp. 5-6, at least because the claims are directed to a "three-dimensional virtual model configured for interactive playback of the simulated injection." See, e.g., Application as filed, at paragraph [0096] (playback can be "paused, replayed, or changed in speed"). As such, the claims require a specific way of generating a three-dimensional virtual model that can be distorted to reflect an effect of a simulated injection and interactively playback the injection to show a progression of the effect of the simulated injection on the live patient's appearance. Therefore, the claimed invention is distinguishable from the claims at issue in Electric Power Group. Therefore, Claims 96 and 109 do not recite an abstract idea under Prong One of Step 2A.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claimed steps clearly read on “collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection analysis” (i.e. Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom, 830 F.3d 1350, 119 U.S.P.Q.2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), as previously indicated in the rejection. Specifically, the Applicant’s “receive imaging data” step clearly reads on “collecting information.” The Applicant’s “in response to a user input indicative of the simulated injection: distort the three-dimensional virtual model at a target location to reflect an effect of the simulated injection based on the user input, and generate updated three- dimensional virtual model configured for interactive playback of the simulated injection” steps read on “analyzing it.” Finally, the Applicant’s “cause the display device to display the updated three-dimensional virtual model and an injection playback to visually show a progression of the effect of the simulated injection on the live patient's appearance” step clearly reads on “displaying certain results of the collection analysis.” As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Applicant also submits that the claims, as a whole, are well integrated into a practical application of visualization of a simulated injection on a live patient's appearance under Prong Two of Step 2A. The claimed invention has meaningful limitations that are tied to the visualization of the simulated injection, and the computer displaying a three-dimensional virtual model that is "configured for interactive playback the simulated injection." The claimed invention improves visualization of an effect of the simulated injection on a live patient's appearance at least because the user can interactively playback the simulated injection on a three-dimensional virtual model. See, e.g., id., at paragraph [0096]. For at least these reasons, Applicant submits that Claims 96 and 109 are eligible under Step 2A. A Step 2B analysis is therefore not required.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant’s claims are not considered a “Practical Application,” because the claims do not provide any of the following:
Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a);
Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b);
Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c); or
Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e).
Furthermore, there are also several factors that reasonably explain that the Appellant’s claims are not indicative of integration into a practical application, which include:
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);
Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g); and
Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h).
Here, the Applicant’s claims are not providing any technological advancement as described in the first four bulleted factors, but instead are merely claimed to use a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and to generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. As such, the argument is not persuasive.
The Applicant respectfully argues “Nevertheless, even if the claims were found to be directed to an abstract idea, they are directed to significantly more than the abstract idea identified in the Office Action. The Step 2B analysis may be understood as a "search for an 'inventive concept." The inventive concept may arise in one or more of the individual claim limitations or in the ordered combination of the limitations. Bascom Global Internet Services V. AT& Mobility LLC, 827 F.3d 1341, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2016). In Bascom, claims for filtering content on the Internet satisfied Alice's step 2 because they "recite[d] a specific, discrete implementation of the abstract idea of filtering content." Id. At 1350. Further, Bascom's claims "improve[d] an existing technological process" and were therefore eligible. Id. at 1351.
Here, as discussed above, Claims 96 and 109 recite a specific, discrete implementation of the solution to a problem in providing visualization of simulated injections on a specific live patient's appearance. The claimed invention also improves existing injection aid technology in an unconventional way, as no prior art has been cited against the previously pending claims in the Office Action, and the claims now additionally recite an injection playback, as discussed above. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 101 be withdrawn.”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. First, arguments with regard to being “no prior art has been cited” are best suited for arguing rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. The test for 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject-matter eligibility requires claims to be examined using the “two-part Mayo test” for determining subject-matter eligibility, as previously performed above. As such, the argument is not proper for facilitating a 35 U.S.C. § 101 subject-matter eligibility discussion.
Second, the Applicant is misconstruing the proper analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The lack of prior art, clearing the claims of any 35 U.S.C. §§102 or 103 rejections, is not evidence of subject-matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. §101.
Third, a prior art search is not necessary to resolve whether the additional element is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity because lack of novelty (i.e., not finding the element in the prior art) does not necessarily show that an element is well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously engaged in by those in the relevant field. In the present case, Applicant’s claims merely recite a generic computer performing generic computer functions at a high level of generality which do not meaningfully limit the claims to amount to anything “significantly more.”
Finally, there are many cases where prior art was not present yet an abstract idea in and of itself was still at issue (i.e. Ultramercial, Inc. v Hulu, LLC (2014); buySAFE, Inc. v Google, Inc. (2014); and Planet Bingo, LLC v VKGS LLC (2014)). As such, the argument is not persuasive. Therefore, the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is not withdrawn.
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 ROBERT P BULLINGTON whose telephone number is (313)446-4841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8:00-4:00.
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, Peter Vasat can be reached on (571) 270-7625. 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.
/Robert P Bullington, Esq./
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3715