Detailed Action
This is the final office action for US application number 18/538,527. Claims are evaluated as filed on December 16, 2025.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claims 1, 6, 9, 10, and 15 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection. Examiner directs Applicant to the rejection below for a more in-depth description of the limitations.
Priority
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63/432871, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Application No. 63/432871 fails to provide adequate support for “an average frequency shift versus time slope of 0.04562 Hz/sec +1-0.00624 Hz/sec” of claim 15 lines 20-21.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
As to claim 15, the specification appears to lack proper antecedent basis for “an average frequency shift versus time slope of 0.04562 Hz/sec +1-0.00624 Hz/sec”. That is, such was not originally disclosed. Instead, paragraph 45 discloses “data from 19 separate tests all plotted on the same graph and the average frequency shift versus time slope has been calculated and shown as having a value of 0.0462 Hz/sec +/-0.00624 Hz/sec”. Thus, the specification fails to provide proper antecedent basis for “an average frequency shift versus time slope of 0.04562 Hz/sec +1-0.00624 Hz/sec”.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 11-12 should read “”acts as a signal receiver, and wherein.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
As to claim 15, “an average frequency shift versus time slope of 0.04562 Hz/sec +1-0.00624 Hz/sec” appears to be new matter. That is, such was not originally disclosed. Instead, paragraph 45 discloses “data from 19 separate tests all plotted on the same graph and the average frequency shift versus time slope has been calculated and shown as having a value of 0.0462 Hz/sec +/-0.00624 Hz/sec”. Thus, “an average frequency shift versus time slope of 0.04562 Hz/sec +1-0.00624 Hz/sec” constitutes new matter.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 9, 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “configured in series, comprising a first electromechanical transducer” in lines 7-8 and what is comprising the first transducer, if this is intended to refer the plurality of transducers or the series, if there is a missing noun, or if the comma is erroneous. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “configured in series, the plurality of electromechanical transducers comprising a first electromechanical transducer”.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “the transducer” in line 12 and if such is intended to refer to the first electromechanical transducer, the second electromechanical transducer, or another of the plurality of electromechanical transducers. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein the mechanical vibrations of the first electromechanical transducer have a characteristic resonant acoustic frequency spectrum”.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “the state of cure of the quantity of the cement” in lines 13-14 and the mismatch of terminology based upon the antecedent basis in the claim and inconsistent reliance upon the preamble for antecedent basis support. That is, the only antecedent basis support for “the state of cure” in is line 1 for “PMMA cement” in line 2, the only antecedent basis support for “the quantity” is in line 4 for “a cement”, and the only antecedent basis support for “the cement” is unclear as to if such is intended to refer to the “PMMA cement” of line 2 or “a cement” of line 4. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “modified or changed by [[the]]a state of cure of the quantity of the cement in contact with the sensor probe,” in lines 13-14 and is interpreting references to “the cement” as referring to the “a cement” of line 4 and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “wherein the mechanical vibrations of the first electromechanical transducer have a characteristic resonant acoustic frequency spectrum that is modified or changed by a state of cure of the quantity of the cement in contact with the sensor probe” in line 12-14 and how it is that the vibrations of the transducer would be reasonably changed by the cement and how a subsequent comparison with that detected by the receiver would then be of any use or where such is supported by the original disclosure. Review of specification paragraph 42 shows that it is disclosed that “voice coil actuator 101 that transmits mechanical oscillations through a piezoelectric transducer 102, through a probe shaft 103 that penetrates a syringe piston seal 104” and “The signal processing system 115 comprises an amplifier 111, which provides the excitation for the voice coil actuator 101, and the amplifier 111 is driven by a digital to analog converter (DAC) 110, that is controlled by a computer 109, which is also connected to an analog to digital converter (ADC) which receives the signal from the piezoelectric transducer 102. The ADC signal is captured and analyzed by software in the computer 109 where FFT’s are performed on the data streams to generate a binary representation of the frequency spectrum so that the peak frequency position can be extracted”. Thus, it appears that voice coil actuator 101 is claimed as the “first electromechanical transducer” and is the transmitter as labeled on Fig. 1 and that piezoelectric transducer 102 is claimed as the “second electromechanical transducer” and is the receiver as labeled on Fig. 1. Yet review of specification paragraph 44 provides that “FIG. 3 shows a series of frequency spectra collected by excitation of the voice coil transducer and measuring the signal generated by the piezoelectric transducer.” That is, the disclosure of how the system operates or is configured to operate appears to be inconsistent and is thus unclear. Examiner is interpreting this functioning as: the transmitter transmits a signal/vibration and the receiver receives a signal/vibration, where the received signal/vibration is a modified/changed version of that transmitted, where the change is a result of a state of cure of the cement. Examiner suggests amending to clarify in a manner supported by the original disclosure. Examiner suggests that it appears that it may be necessary to file a CIP with a substantially revised disclosure/detailed description that consistently explains Applicant’s system in terms of the structures, the connections of the structures, and how it functions.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “the change in frequency spectrum” in lines 14-15 and how one can have antecedent basis support for the change while introducing another frequency spectrum. That is, line13 provides a characteristic resonant acoustic frequency spectrum that is changed by the state of the cement, but it is unclear how that change could be of a differently claimed frequency spectrum. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to a difference in between the transmitted signal’s frequency spectrum and the received signal’s frequency spectrum, where the difference is indicative to the state of cure of the cement, and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “the state of cure of the quantity of the cement” in line 22 and if such is intended to refer to that of line 19 or that of lines 13-14. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to that of lines 13-14, and suggests amending line 19 to refer to that of lines 13-14, i.e. as “communicate [[a]]the state of the cure of the cement”.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to “frequency peaks of the sensor probe” in line 21 and is unclear as to the probe having frequency peaks relative to the signals transmitted and received by the transmitter 101 and receiver 102 of Fig. 1. Examiner is interpreting this broadly and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 1 recites/recite the limitations "the interface of the cement and sensor probe” and “the interface of the cement and the container " in lines 22-23. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “[[the]]an interface of the cement and sensor probe or at [[the]] an interface of the cement and the container”.
Claim(s) 1 is/are unclear with regards to the scope of lines 12-15 compared to lines 22-28 as such appears to be referring to the same actual function but using different/distinct functions that do not appear to be supported by the original disclosure or such are confusingly redundant. For example, as claimed there is a characteristic resonant acoustic frequency spectrum, a frequency spectrum, one or more resonant acoustic frequency spectrum or frequency peaks of the sensor probe, distinctly new frequency peak or shift in existing resonant frequency while the structure of Fig. 1 appears to support transmitter 101 and receiver 102 and would thus appear to have a transmitted signal and a received signal, where each could be analyzed to consider the frequency content. Examiner is interpreting this a broadly summarized above and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 6 is/are unclear with regards to “the state of cure” in line 3 and to which previously recited state such is intended to refer, e.g. that of claim 1 line 1, claim 1 line 19, or claim 1 line 27. Examiner is interpreting these as referring to the same state and suggests amending claim 1 line 19 and claim 1 line 27 to clarify.
Claim(s) 6 recites/recite the limitation "the natural resonance of spectra " in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “[[the]]a natural resonance of spectra”.
Claim(s) 6 is/are unclear with regards to “computer-based algorithms” in line 6 and to what algorithms such is intended to refer or where support can be found for this limitation and its scope. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “and are analyzed
Claim(s) 6 is/are unclear with regards to “to determine the state of cure of the quantity of the cement, independent of absolute temperature and extraneous environmental noise” and if there is a missing word or phrase prior to “independent” or if the comma is erroneous in lines 6-8. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “to determine the state of cure of the quantity of the cement[[,]] independent of absolute temperature and extraneous environmental noise”.
Claim(s) 9 is/are unclear with regards to “the first electromechanical transducer that actuates vibrations on the sensor probe comprises a voice coil actuator.” in lines 2-4 as such appears to be a method step recitation in a product claim as well as “on the sensor probe” relative to the claim 1 line 10 recitation of “to actuate or impart mechanical vibrations into the sensor probe” and the intended difference in scope or the purpose of repeating the intended function. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “the first electromechanical transducer
Claim(s) 10 is/are unclear with regards to “the second electromechanical transducer that receives the vibrations actuated on the probe comprises a piezoelectric transducer.” in lines 2-5 as such appears to be a method step recitation in a product claim as well as “vibrations actuated on the probe” relative to the claim 1 line 10 recitation of “to actuate or impart mechanical vibrations into the sensor probe” and the intended difference in scope or the purpose of repeating the intended function. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “the second electromechanical transducer
Claim(s) 15 recites/recite the limitation “surgical method, comprising the steps of:" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear as to the missing noun prior to “comprising” or what “comprising” is intended to modify. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “surgical method[[,]] comprising [[the]] steps of:” or “surgical method[[,]] comprising:”.
Claim(s) 15 recites/recite the limitation "the state of cure" in line ***. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “[[the]]a state of cure”.
Claim(s) 15 recites/recite the limitation "the frequency or frequencies" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “signals a change in [[the]] frequency or frequencies of the received vibrations as an indication”.
Claim(s) 15 is/are unclear with regards to “wherein the first electromechanical transducer acts as a signal transmitter…..an indication of the cure of the quantity of the cement, and a signal processing system in communication with” in lines 12-15 and what preceding the “and” the signal processing system is recited therewith. That is, the phrase prior to this comma is very long and difficult to follow, but as written it appears that this currently reads “wherein the first electromechanical transducer acts as …, and a signal processing system in…”. Instead, it appears that this may be intended to recite a step, but it is not written as such. Examiner is interpreting this as written and suggests amending to clarify.
Claim(s) 15 recites/recite the limitation "wherein the progress” in line 20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is unclear how this wherein clause can be reasonably interpreted as a method step as such does not appear to have any active tense verbs but is listed as such in the method claim. Examiner is interpreting this as referring to, and suggests amending as, “wherein [[the]] progress” and either including the wherein clause in a method step or amending the wherein clause to recited a method step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 6, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sherman et al. (US 2006/0000284, hereinafter “Sherman284”).
As to claim 1, Sherman284 discloses a system (Figs. 1-3) capable of sensing and monitoring a state of cure progress of PMMA cement (¶s 10, 22, 39, 40, and 42), the system comprising: a. an applicator (10, Figs. 1-3) capable of use during a surgery (¶s 22 and 23), said applicator having a reservoir (12) that contains a quantity of a cement (20, Figs. 1 and 2, ¶22), b. a sensor probe (25) having a distal tip in mechanical contact with the quantity of the cement (via the 12/14, Fig. 2); c. a plurality of electromechanical transducers (30, 32) configured in series (Fig. 3), the plurality of electromechanical transducers comprising a first electromechanical transducer (30, 38, Fig. 3, ¶25) in series with a second electromechanical transducer (32, Fig. 3, ¶s 25 and 30) in contact with the sensor probe (Fig. 3), wherein the first transducer acts as a signal transmitter (¶25 discloses that 30 is the emitter) capable of actuating or imparting mechanical vibrations into the sensor probe in contact with the quantity of the cement (Figs. 1-3, ¶25) and the second electromechanical transducer acts as a signal receiver (¶25 discloses that 32 is an acoustic sensor), and wherein the mechanical vibrations of the first electromechanical transducer have a characteristic resonant acoustic frequency spectrum that is modified or changed by a state of cure of the quantity of the cement in contact with the sensor probe (¶s 25 and 29, where ¶25 discloses 30 generating an ultrasonic signal of a fixed or variable frequency, ¶29 discloses that the received signal provides a measure of the operating condition of the cement), the change in frequency spectrum indicating the state of cure of the quantity of the cement (¶s 29, 43, and 47, where ¶43 discloses that applying an ultrasonic signal across a frequency spectrum can be used to increase the accuracy of the operating point evaluation, ¶47 discloses that acoustic properties that can be evaluated include frequency shift through the composition, attenuation of a frequency metric over time, etc.); and d. a signal processing system (36, 40, 42, 44, 71, 72, Fig. 3) in communication with the sensor probe (via 34, Figs. 3, ¶30) capable of determining and communicating the state of the cure of the cement as represented by one or more resonant acoustic frequency spectrum or frequency peaks of the sensor probe (¶s 29 and 47, ¶29 discloses that the received signal provides a measure of the operating condition of the cement, ¶47 discloses that acoustic properties that can be evaluated include frequency shift through the composition, attenuation of a frequency metric over time, etc.), wherein changes in the state of cure of the quantity of the cement at an interface of the cement and the container in which it is contained (52, 54, Fig. 2, ¶27) produce a distinctly new frequency peak or a shift in existing resonant frequency (Figs. 2 and 3, ¶s 27, 31, 33, and 34) capable of determining when the cement has reached a desired cured state (¶s 39 and 40), and wherein the signal processing system is capable of determining and communicating the state of cure of the cement based on an analysis of output from the sensor probe in mechanical contact with the quantity of the cement (¶s 29 and 47, ¶29 discloses that the received signal provides a measure of the operating condition of the cement, ¶47 discloses that acoustic properties that can be evaluated include frequency shift through the composition, attenuation of a frequency metric over time, etc.).
As to claim 6, Sherman284 discloses that a hardness of the quantity of cement represents the state of cure (¶s 14, 39, and 40), wherein changes in the hardness of the quantity of the cement in contact with the distal tip of the sensor probe modifies a natural resonance of spectra of the sensor probe (¶s 29 and 47, ¶29 discloses that the received signal provides a measure of the operating condition of the cement, ¶47 discloses that acoustic properties that can be evaluated include frequency shift through the composition, attenuation of a frequency metric over time, etc.), and wherein changes in hardness register as changes in resonant frequency peak shifts (¶s 29 and 47, ¶29 discloses that the received signal provides a measure of the operating condition of the cement, ¶47 discloses that acoustic properties that can be evaluated include frequency shift through the composition, attenuation of a frequency metric over time, etc.) and are analyzed capable of determining the state of cure of the quantity of the cement (¶14, 29, and 47) independent of absolute temperature and extraneous environmental noise (¶14).
As to claim 10, Sherman284 discloses that the second electromechanical transducer comprises a piezoelectric transducer (¶36 discloses that emitter and receiver can be piezo-electric transducers or other devices capable of sending and receiving ultrasonic signals).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman et al. (US 2006/0000284, hereinafter “Sherman284”) in view of Aharonson et al. (US 2022/0172639, hereinafter “Aharonson”).
As to claim 9, Sherman284 discloses the invention of claim 1 as well as the first electromechanical transducer comprises a piezo-electric transducer capable of generating an ultrasound signal, i.e. in the range of 100 kHz-20 MHz, of a fixed or variable frequency (¶25) that is electrically activated via an amplifier (¶30).
Sherman284 is silent to the first electromechanical transducer comprises a voice coil actuator.
Aharonson teaches that transducers convert one form of energy into another (¶122); e.g. a sound pressure wave to or from an electric signal, and the most widely used transduction principles are electromagnetism, electrostatics and piezoelectricity (¶122). The transducers in most common speakers are electromagnetic devices that generate waves using a suspended diaphragm driven by an electromagnetic voice coil, sending off pressure waves (¶122). The ultrasonic systems used in medical ultrasonography employ piezoelectric transducers, which are made from special ceramics in which mechanical vibrations and electrical fields are interlinked through a property of the material itself (¶122).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify/specify that the first electromechanical transducer as disclosed by Sherman284 includes a voice coil actuator as taught by Aharonson in order to provide a known driver for a transducer (Aharonson ¶122).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sherman et al. (US 2006/0000284, hereinafter “Sherman284”).
As to claim 15, Sherman284 discloses a surgical method (Figs. 1-3, ¶s 13, 14, and 22-47) comprising: mixing components of a bone cement (20, ¶s 2, 10, 11, 13, and 22); containing a quantity of the mixed cement within a surgical applicator (10, Fig. 1); and monitoring a state of cure of the contained bone cement (¶s 10, 22, 39, 40, and 42) using electromechanical transducers (30, 32) configured in series comprising a first electromechanical acoustic transducer (30, 38, Fig. 3, ¶25) in contact with a second electromechanical acoustic transducer (32, Fig. 3, ¶s 25 and 30) in contact with a sensor probe (25, Fig. 3) in contact with the quantity of the contained cement (via the 12/14, Fig. 2), wherein the first electromechanical transducer acts as a signal transmitter (¶25 discloses that 30 is the emitter) capable of actuating mechanical vibrations on the sensor probe (Figs. 1-3, ¶25) and the second electromechanical transducer acts as a receiver of the vibrations (¶25 discloses that 32 is an acoustic sensor) and signals a change in frequency or frequencies of the received vibrations as an indication of the cure of the quantity of the cement (¶s 22, 25, 29, and 39), and a signal processing system (36, 40, 42, 44, 71, 72, Fig. 3) in communication with the sensor probe (via 34, Figs. 3, ¶30) capable of determining and communicating a state of cure of the cement based on a frequency analysis of output from the sensor probe in mechanical contact with the quantity of the contained cement (¶s 29 and 47, ¶29 discloses that the received signal provides a measure of the operating condition of the cement, ¶47 discloses that acoustic properties that can be evaluated include frequency shift through the composition, attenuation of a frequency metric over time, etc.).
Sherman284 is silent to progress of the cement cure can be tracked using an average frequency shift versus time slope of 0.04562 Hz/sec +1-0.00624 Hz/sec, and wherein a change of frequency of about 16 Hz indicates that the cement must be discarded.
However, Sherman284 does disclose using polymethylmethacrylate bone cement (¶22) and ultrasonic signals such as in the range of 100 kHz-20 MHz (¶25).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to cause the device of bone cement to be able to be tracked using an average frequency shift versus time slope of 0.04562 Hz/sec +1-0.00624 Hz/sec and a change of frequency of about 16 Hz indicates that the cement must be discarded since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the bone cement of Sherman284 would not operate differently with the claimed tracking and discard values and such similar materials disclosed to be tracked to monitor dough time, working time, and setting time (¶42) such would function appropriately with the claimed values. Further, Applicant places no criticality on the claimed ability to be tracked using an average frequency shift versus time slope of 0.04562 Hz/sec +1-0.00624 Hz/sec and a change of frequency of about 16 Hz indicates that the cement must be discarded, indicating simply that the value “can” be tracked using this slope and a sample was non-usable when such a frequency change had occurred (paragraph 45).
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 AMY SIPP whose telephone number is (313)446-6553. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Thursday, 6:30am-4pm EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kevin Truong can be reached on 571-272-4705. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AMY R SIPP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3775