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 .
Prosecution History Summary
Claims 2-3 and 6 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 14 are amended.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 7-15 are pending.
Claim 5 has identifier that it has been amended, but based on analysis and no amendment present, it is considered original identifier.
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, 4-5, and 7-15 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.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 1:
The claims recite subject matter within a statutory category as a machine (claims 1, 4-5, and 7-15). Accordingly, claims 1, 4-5, and 7-15 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong One:
Regarding Prong One of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, the claim limitations are to be analyzed to determine whether, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, they “recite” a judicial exception or in other words whether a judicial exception is “set forth” or “described” in the claims. MPEP 2106.04(II)(A)(1). An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) certain methods of organizing human activity, b) mental processes, and/or c) mathematical concepts. MPEP 2106.04(a).
Representative independent claim 1 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 1 recites:
A mobile telemetry system, comprising:
-a mobile telemetry unit (MTU) including:
-a sensor for detecting a physiological signal; and
-a first controller configured to:
-communicate with a mobile station (MS) to perform a clock synchronization with a clock of the MS;
-obtain the physiological signal from the sensor and form physiological information;
-determine whether a time stamped transmit information request (TS-XReq) including time stamp information (TS) was received from the MS; and
-generate and transmit physiological information which corresponds in time with the received TS when it is determined that the TS-XReq was received from the MS; and
-the MS, the MS comprising a second controller configured to:
-transmit the TS-XReq to the MTU and to control a voice recording mode (VRM) to obtain symptom information corresponding to the TS of the TS-XReq; and
-associate the TS with the URI to form corresponding time stamper user response information (TS-URI).
Representative independent claim 14 includes limitations that recite at least one abstract idea. Specifically, independent claim 14 recites:
A mobile cardiac telemetry unit (MCTU), comprising:
-a cardiac sensor for detecting cardiac signals; and
-a controller configured to:
-obtain cardiac information from the cardiac sensor and form electrocardiograph information (ECGI);
-determine whether a user request has been generated and form time stamp information (TS) when it is determined that the user request has been generated, the TS substantially corresponding with a time that the user request was determined to be generated;
-form an activate voice recording mode command (AVRM) configured to activate a voice recording mode (VRM) of a mobile station (MS) to capture user response information (URD);
-generate electrocardiograph information (ECGI), which corresponds in time with the TS; and
-transmit the TS, the AVRM and the ECGI; and
-receive symptom information via a voice recording mode (VRM) corresponding to the TS; and
-associate the TS with the ECGI to form corresponding time stamped ECGI (TS-ECGI).
Examiner states submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: a “mental process” because determining and generating physiological information can all be performed in the human mind.
Accordingly, the claim recites at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2A – Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A of the Alice/Mayo test, it must be determined whether
the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted at MPEP
§$2106.04(1D(A)(2), it must be determined whether any additional elements in the claim beyond
the abstract idea integrate the exception into a practical application in a manner that imposes a
meaningful limit on the judicial exception. The courts have indicated that additional elements
merely using a computer to implement an abstract idea, adding insignificant extra solution
activity, or generally linking use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment
or field of use do not integrate a judicial exception into a “practical application.” MPEP
§2106.05(1(A).
In the present case, the additional limitations beyond the above-noted at least one abstract
idea recited in the claim are as follows (where the bolded portions are the “additional
limitations” while the underlined portions continue to represent the at least one “abstract idea”):
Claim 1
A mobile telemetry system, comprising:
-a mobile telemetry unit (MTU) (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 6, body-worn device) including:
-a sensor for detecting a physiological signal (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 8, 19-21); and
-a first controller (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 7, 1-9) configured to:
-communicate with a mobile station (MS) (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 6, off-body device; pg. 7, 23-25) to perform a clock synchronization with a clock of the MS (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 6, wired and/or wireless over a network);
-obtain the physiological signal from the sensor (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 8, 19-21) and form physiological information;
-determine whether a time stamped transmit information request (TS-XReq) including time stamp information (TS) was received from the MS; and
-generate and transmit (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 6, wired and/or wireless over a network) physiological information which corresponds in time with the received TS when it is determined that the TS-XReq was received from the MS; and
-the MS, the MS comprising a second controller configured to (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 6, off-body device; pg. 7, 23-25):
-transmit the TS-XReq to the MTU and to control a voice recording mode (VRM) to obtain symptom information corresponding to the TS of the TS-XReq (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 6, wired and/or wireless over a network); and
-associate the TS with the URI to form corresponding time stamper user response information (TS-URI).
Claim 14
A mobile cardiac telemetry unit (MCTU), comprising:
-a cardiac sensor for detecting cardiac signals (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 8, 19-21); and
-a controller configured to (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 7, 1-9):
-obtain cardiac information from the cardiac sensor (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 8, 19-21) and form electrocardiograph information (ECGI);
-determine whether a user request has been generated and form time stamp information (TS) when it is determined that the user request has been generated, the TS substantially corresponding with a time that the user request was determined to be generated;
-form an activate voice recording mode command (AVRM) configured to activate a voice recording mode (VRM) (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 7, 31 to pg. 8, 15) of a mobile station (MS) (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 7, 23-25) to capture user response information (URD);
-generate electrocardiograph information (ECGI), which corresponds in time with the TS; and
-transmit the TS, the AVRM and the ECGI (using computers as mere tools to perform the abstract idea, see MPEP 2106.05(f); pg. 6, wired and/or wireless over a network); and
-receive symptom information via a voice recording mode (VRM) corresponding to the TS; and
-associate the TS with the ECGI to form corresponding time stamped ECGI (TS-ECGI).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not integrate the at least one abstract idea into a practical application.
Looking at the additional limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. For instance, there is no indication that the additional elements, when considered as a whole with the limitations reciting the at least one abstract idea, reflect an improvement in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or use the above-noted judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, implement/use the above-noted judicial exception with a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, or apply or use 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 does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application of the abstract idea. MPEP §2106.05(I)(A) and §2106.04(IID(A)(2).
The remaining dependent claim limitations not addressed above fail to integrate the
abstract idea into a practical application as set forth below:
Claim 2: The claim specifies a second controller to transmit information, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 3: The claim specifies the second controller to associate URI with time stamp, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 4: The claim specifies a second controller configured to generate the time stamp to user interaction and to transmit, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 5: The claim specifies the second controller configured to control VRM, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 6: The claim specifies the second controller configured to associate TS with URI, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 7: The claim specifies second controller configured to associate information, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 8, 12: The claim specifies first and second controllers to transmit, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 9: The claim specifies the second controller configured to control VRM and form corresponding UI with TS, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 10: The claim specifies second controller configured to receive and third controller and a second sensor for detecting user interaction, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 11: The claim specifies the second controller configured to associate information, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 13: The claim specifies second sensor for detecting interaction and a TS-VRM command to activate VRM of a mobile station, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim 15: The claim specifies determine user interaction detected and transmit information, which uses the computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Thus, when the above additional limitations are considered as a whole along with the limitations directed to the at least one abstract idea, the at least one abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application. Therefore, the claims are directed to at least one abstract idea.
Subject Matter Eligibility Criteria – Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B of the Alice/Mayo test, representative independent claims 1 and 14 do not include additional elements (considered both individually and as an ordered combination) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons the same as those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to discussion of integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply an exception, add insignificant extra-solution activity to the abstract idea, and generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. Additionally, the additional limitations, other than the abstract idea per se, amount to no more than limitations which:
Claim 1
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as communicate with a mobile station, obtain physiological information, transmit physiological information, transmit the TS-XReq, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); determine whether TS-XReq was received from MS, e.g., storing and retrieving information in memory, Versata Dev. Group, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iv); associate the TS with the URI, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii))
Claim 14
amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields (such as obtain cardiac information, form AVRM, transmit information, receive symptom information, e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); form timestamp information, associate the TS with the ECGI, e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii))
Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, amount to invoking computers as a tool to perform the abstract idea. Dependent claims recite additional subject matter which amount to limitations consistent with the additional elements in the independent claims (such as claims 4-5, 7-13, and 15, additional limitations which amount to elements that have been recognized as well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in particular fields, claims 4 (transmit), 5, 9 (obtain), 8 (transmit), 10 ( receive, transmit), 12-13 (transmit), 13 (capture), 15 (transmit), e.g., receiving or transmitting data over a network, Symantec, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(i); 7, 9, 11 (associate), e.g., electronic recordkeeping, Alice Corp., MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)(iii)). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or improves any other technology. Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
Therefore, whether taken individually or as an ordered combination, claims 1-15
are nonetheless rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 1, 4-5, and 6-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Reddy (WO 2023/062468) in view of Trapero et al. (U.S. Patent No. 11,116448).
As per claim 1, Reddy teaches a mobile telemetry system, comprising:
-a mobile telemetry unit (MTU) including:
-a sensor for detecting a physiological signal (Reddy: para. 26); and
-a first controller configured to:
-obtain the physiological signal from the sensor and form physiological information (Reddy: para. 19; Collect physiological data.);
-determine whether a time stamped transmit information request (TS-XReq) including time stamp information (TS) was received from the MS (Reddy: para. 39; Request for physiological data collected on a periodic basis.); and
-generate and transmit physiological information which corresponds in time with the received TS when it is determined that the TS-XReq was received from the MS (Reddy: para. 27; para. 40-41; para. 44; Transmit based on bookmark that indicates the date and time of the last successful transmission of physiological data occurred. Physiological parameter indicative of patient condition is stored in the memory.).
Reddy does not explicitly teach the following, however, Trapero teaches:
-a first controller configured to:
-communicate with a mobile station (MS) to perform a clock synchronization with a clock of the MS (Trapero: col. 29, 41-47; Synchronization clock is incorporated to support timing for sensors.); and
-the MS, the MS comprising a second controller configured to:
-transmit the TS- XReq to the MTU (Trapero: col. 45, 55 to col. 46, 5; Transmit to cloud healthcare server time stamped health metrics.) and to control a voice recording mode (VRM) to obtain symptom information corresponding to the TS of the TS-XReq (Trapero: col. 31, 8-13; Receive voice commands and perform speech analytics to monitor mental and physical health.); and
-associate the TS with the URI to form time stamped user response information (TS-URI) (Trapero: col. 31, 8-22).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying the known technique of Trapero would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system. It would have been recognized that applying the technique of Trapero to the teachings of Reddy would have yielded predictable results because the level of ordinary skill in the art demonstrated by the references applied shows the ability to incorporate such features into similar systems. Further, applying clock synchronization to Reddy teaching transmission of information would have been recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art as resulting in an improved system that would provide a system that accurately stores patient information.
As per claim 4, the system of claim 1 is as described. Reddy teaches the second controller further configured to generate the time stamp information (TS) and the TS-XReq in response to a user interaction at the MS and to transmit the TS-XReq to the MTU (Reddy: para. 28; Patient control of certain operations).
As per claim 5, the system of claim 4 is as described. Reddy does not explicitly teach the following, however, Trapero teaches wherein the second controller is configured to control a voice recording mode (VRM) to obtain symptom information corresponding to the TS of the TS-XReq and form corresponding user response information (URI) (Trapero: col. 31, 8-13; Receive voice commands and perform speech analytics to monitor mental and physical health.).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 2.
As per claim 7, the system of claim 6 is as described. Reddy teaches wherein the second controller is further configured to associate corresponding patient identification information (ID) with the generated TS-URI to form ID-TS-URI (Reddy: para. 37; para. 47; Send physiological data associated with the patient.).
As per claim 8, the system of claim 7 is as described. Reddy teaches wherein the first controller is configured to transmit the physiological information to the MS (Reddy: para. 47), and wherein the second controller is further configured to transmit the ID-TS-URI and the physiological information to a clinical service center (CSC) (Reddy: para. 81; para. 84-85; Second set of communication circuitry.).
As per claim 9, the system of claim 1 is as described. Reddy does not explicitly teach the following, however, Trapero teaches wherein the controller is a first controller, the system further comprising a second controller configured to control a voice recording mode (VRM) to obtain symptom information corresponding to the TS of the TS-XReq and form corresponding user response information (URI) associated with the TS as time stamped user response information (TS-URI) (Trapero: col. 31, 8-22).
The motivation to combine the teachings is same as claim 2.
As per claim 10, the system of claim 9 is as described. Reddy teaches further comprising the MS, wherein the MS is a first MS and the sensor is a first sensor (Reddy: para. 19; para. 26), the system further comprising a second MS, the second MS having the second controller, wherein the second controller is further configured to receive the TS- XREQ (Reddy: para. 81; para. 84-85; Second set of communication circuitry.), the first MS having a third controller and a second sensor for detecting a user interaction, wherein the third controller is configured to determine whether a user interaction is detected by the second sensor and transmit the TS-XREQ to the second MS and to the MTU when the user interaction is detected (Reddy: para. 33; para. 94).
As per claim 11, the system of claim 10 is as described. Reddy teaches wherein the second controller is further configured to associate corresponding patient identification information (ID) with the generated TS-URI to form ID-TS-URI (Reddy: para. 37; para. 47; Send physiological data associated with the patient.).
As per claim 12, the system of claim 11 is as described. Reddy teaches wherein the first controller is configured to transmit the physiological information to the MS (Reddy: para. 19; para. 26), and wherein the second controller is further configured to transmit the ID-TS-URI and the physiological information to a clinical service center (CSC) (Reddy: para. 81; para. 84-85; Second set of communication circuitry.).
As per claim 13, the system of claim 1 is as described. Reddy teaches wherein the sensor is a first sensor (Reddy: para. 19; para. 26), the MTU further comprising a second sensor for detecting a user interaction, wherein the controller is configured to generate and transmit, when it is determined that the second sensor has detected the user interaction (Reddy: para. 33; para. 94): physiological information which corresponds in time with when the user interaction was detected by the second sensor (Reddy: para. 26; para. 33; para. 94); a TS which corresponds in time with when the user interaction was detected by the second sensor (Reddy: para. 33; para. 94); and a TS activate voice recording mode (TS-VRM) command configured to activate a voice recording mode (VRM) of a mobile station to capture user response information (URI) (Reddy: para. 94; Voice commands from patient.).
As per claim 14, Reddy teaches a mobile cardiac telemetry unit (MCTU), comprising:
-a cardiac sensor for detecting cardiac signals (Reddy: para. 26); and
-a controller configured to:
-obtain cardiac information from the cardiac sensor and form electrocardiograph information (ECGI) (Reddy: para. 26; Gather physiological sensors from ECG or EGM );
-determine whether a user request has been generated and form time stamp information (TS) (Reddy: para. 39; Request for physiological data collected on a periodic basis.) when it is determined that the user request has been generated, the TS substantially corresponding with a time that the user request was determined to be generated (Reddy: para. 27; para. 40-41; para. 44; Transmit based on bookmark that indicates the date and time of the last successful transmission of physiological data occurred. Physiological parameter indicative of patient condition is stored in the memory.);
-form an activate voice recording mode command (AVRM) configured to activate a voice recording mode (VRM) of a mobile station (MS) to capture user response information (URI) (Reddy: para. 94; Voice commands from patient.);
-generate electrocardiograph information (ECGI), which corresponds in time with the TS (Reddy: para. 26); and
-transmit the TS, the AVRM and the ECGI (Reddy: para. 27; para. 40-41; para. 44; Transmit based on bookmark that indicates the date and time of the last successful transmission of physiological data occurred. Physiological parameter indicative of patient condition is stored in the memory.); and
-receive symptom information via a voice recording mode (VRM) corresponding to the TS (Trapero: col. 31, 8-13; Receive voice commands and perform speech analytics to monitor mental and physical health.); and
-associate the TS with the ECGI to form corresponding time stamped ECGI (TS-ECGI) (Trapero: col. 31, 8-22).
As per claim 15, the MCTU of claim 14 is as described. Reddy further teaches wherein the cardiac sensor is a first sensor (Reddy: para. 26), the system further comprising a second sensor for detecting a user interaction, wherein the controller is configured to: determine whether the user interaction is detected by the second sensor, the user interaction indicating the user request (Reddy: para. 94); and transmit the TS, the AVRM and the ECGI when it is determined that the second sensor has detected the user interaction (Reddy: para. 27; para. 40-41; para. 44).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed for claims 1, 4-5, and 6-15 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea similar to Enfish. Specifically stating that the system provides a real-world technological improvement in portable telemetry system. The Federal Circuit in Enfish stated that certain claims directed to improvements in computer related technology. The Federal Circuit stated that the Enfish claims were not ones in which general-purpose computer components are added after the fact to a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation, but were directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts, and concluded that the Enfish claims were thus not directed to an abstract idea (configuring a computer memory in accordance with a self-referential table). Furthermore, Enfish specification also supported the benefits it held over conventional databases, such as increased flexibility, faster search times, and smaller memory requirements. Here, the focus of the claims is not any improved computer or network, and indeed, the specification makes clear that off-the-shelf computer technology is usable to carry out the analysis. There is a fundamental difference between computer functionality improvements, on the one hand, and uses of existing computers as tools to perform a particular task, on the other. Indeed, the Federal Circuit applied this very distinction in rejecting the § 101 challenge in Enfish because the claims at issue there focused on a specific type of data structure, i.e., a self-referential table for a computer database, designed to improve the way a computer carries out its basic functions of storing and retrieving data, and not merely on asserted advances in uses to which existing computer capabilities could be put. Enfish, 822 F.3d at 1335—36. The alleged improvement that Applicants tout does not concern an improvement to computer capabilities but instead relates to an alleged improvement in receiving and processing information for which a computer is used as a tool in its ordinary capacity.
Applicant's arguments filed for claims 1, 4-5, and 6-15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Reddy nor Trapero teach TS with the information to form corresponding time stamped information that can be transmitted. Examiner disagrees. While Reddy teaches transmitting TS-XReq, Trapero does not fail to teach that limitation either, therefore Examiner has provided citation of time-stamped information being transmitted to be viewed on a healthcare application on a device, therefore, teaching the limitation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tran – U.S. Publication No. 2009-0227877 – Teaches a health monitoring system with timestamp.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SHEETAL R. PAULSON whose telephone number is (571)270-1368. 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, Marc Jimenez can be reached at (571) 272-4530. 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.
/SHEETAL R PAULSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3681