DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This action is in reply to the amendment filed on 10/31/2025.
Claims 1, 6-7, 9, 11-12 and 15 have been amended.
Claim 10 has been cancelled.
Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are currently pending and have been examined.
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 .
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 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1:
Claims 1-8 are directed to a method (i.e., a process) and claims 9, 11-16 are directed to a system (i.e., a machine). Accordingly, claims 1-9 and 11-16 are all within at least one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A - Prong One:
An “abstract idea” judicial exception is subject matter that falls within at least one of the following groupings: a) mathematical concepts, b) certain methods of organizing human activity, and/or c) mental processes.
Representative independent claim 9 includes limitations that recite an abstract idea. Note that independent claim 9 is the system claim, while claim 1 covers a method claim.
Specifically, independent claim 9 recites:
A system for patient history analysis and time-line segmentation, the system comprising a processor configured to:
store a plurality of health records of a patient acquired over a duration of a treatment, wherein health records comprise at least one action or an event related to the patient and the health records are represented as structured or unstructured data in multiple formats, wherein the structured data comprises at least one medical imaging scan and the unstructured data comprises non-digital prescription data;
retrieve the health records of the patient, wherein the begin-end marker detection module is configured to identify a beginning and an end of at least one action or the event related to the patient and mark the beginning and end boundary of the at least one action or the event based on accessed text and metadata from the multiple formats of the structured data or the unstructured data;
segment the at least one action or the event related to the patient by generating ambiguous timeline boundaries of the at least one action or the event based on overlapping data representing two or more medical conditions;
demarcate the segment boundaries by resolving a gap or an overlap in the timeline;
arrange the segments in order of timeline; and
generate a visual graph of the segmented actions or events of the timeline.
The Examiner submits that the foregoing underlined limitations constitute: (a) “certain methods of organizing human activity” because identifying and marking a beginning and end of an action or event related to a patient and arranging a hierarchy of timeline segments are a part of a medical workflow process and are ways of evaluating the patient’s health, formatting medical image scan and non-digital prescription data which are managing human behavior/interactions between people. Furthermore, these limitations constitute (b) “a mental process” because analyzing a patient’s medical history according to a timeline, demarcating or setting timeline boundaries and formatting medical image scan and non-digital prescription data are observations/evaluations/analysis that can be performed in the human mind or with a pen and paper. The foregoing underlined limitations also relate to claim 1 (similarly to claim 9).
Accordingly, the claim describes at least one abstract idea.
In relation to claims 5 and 14, these claims merely recite specific kinds of action data, such as: claims 5 and 14 - at least one action comprises beginning or end of a treatment, a therapy and a medication, and the event comprises admission or discharge of the patient from the hospital, medical imaging, and testing of patient body parameters.
In relation to claims 3-4, 6-8, 12-13 and 15-16, these claims merely recite determining steps such as: claims 3 and 12 - demarcating the segment boundaries and arranging the segments in order of timeline further comprises displaying the segmented health records, claims 4 and 13 - displaying the segmented health records over the display device further comprises highlighting at least one of the clinically important action or the event related to the patient from the segmented health records, claims 6 and 15- to read text information and convert text information into a user viewable graph, claim 7 - to demarcate the segments and a hierarchy module configured arrange the demarcated boundaries, and claims 8 and 16 - identifying the timeline boundaries of the at least one action or the events and arranging the at least one segmented action or the event according to the timeline of the at least one action or the event.
Step 2A - Prong Two:
Regarding Prong Two of Step 2A, it must be determined whether the claim as a whole integrates the abstract idea into a practical application. As noted, 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.”
The limitations of claims 1-2, 9 and 11, as drafted is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the minds of humans but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting a system, a health record system, a computing memory, a server, other electronic media, a display device, and a computer-readable media, nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the minds of humans. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation within a health care environment in the minds of humans but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” and “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the system, health record system, computing memory, server, other electronic media, display device, and computer-readable media are recited at high levels of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of receiving data/inputs, determining and providing data) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components.
Regarding the additional limitations “a begin-end marker detection module”, “a segment begin-end detection module”, “a gap handling”, and “hierarchy module” the Examiner submits that this additional limitation amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Regarding the additional limitation “to retrieve healthcare records of the patient ……” the Examiner submits that this additional limitation merely adds insignificant pre-solution activity (data gathering; selecting data to be manipulated) to the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)).
Thus, taken alone, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above identified judicial exception (the abstract idea). Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination add 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, reflect an improvements in the functioning of a computer or an improvement to another technology or technical field, apply or us the above-noted implement/use to 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 meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is not more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception (see MPEP §2106.05). Their collective functions merely provide conventional computer implementation.
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 the integration of the abstract idea into practical application, the additional elements amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer component provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B:
Regarding Step 2B, in representative independent claim 9, regarding the additional limitations of the system, health record system, computing memory, server, other electronic media, display device, and computer-readable media, the Examiner submits that these limitations amount to merely using a computer to perform the at least one abstract idea (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)).
Thus, representative independent claim 9 and analogous independent claim 1 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 the same reasons to those discussed above with respect to determining that the claim does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The dependent claims no 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 the same reason discussed above with respect to determining that the dependent claims do not integrate the at least abstract idea into a practical application.
Therefore, claims 1-9 and 11-16 are ineligible under 35 USC §101.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-9 and 11-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freeman (US 2020/0121199 A1) in view of Ginsburg (US 2020/0294640 A1).
Claim 1:
Freeman discloses a method for patient history analysis and time-line segmentation (See Fig. 6A-6B, where a playback interval allows a user to review and/or analyze medical data leading up to events associated with a selected visual event indicator mentioned in P0161.) the method comprising:
acquiring health records of a patient from a plurality of medical devices or computer memory over a duration of a treatment, wherein the health records comprise at least one action or an event related to the patient (See Fig. 11 first 110 and second 210, medical devices, intravenous, compression, ventilation and electrotherapy devices and sensors mentioned in P0216-P0217. See Fig. 6A-6B items 623, 625 where the playback interval represents drug administration events mentioned in P0146-P0148.);
identifying beginning and an end of the at least one action or the event related to the patient and marking a beginning and an end boundary of the at least one action or the event (See Fig. 6A-6B items 622a, 622b as start and end times of the drug administration events mentioned in P0155-P0156. Also, see P0147 where action or events include shock and activity of a bronchodilator.);
segmenting the at least one action or the events related to the patient by generating ambiguous timeline boundaries of the at least one action or the event (See P0158 where the playback interval as a segment is ambiguous until a user sets times as the boundaries along a timeline.);
demarcating the segment boundaries and arranging the segments in order of timeline (See P0158 where the user’s touchscreen gesture sets the boundaries along the timeline.); and
generating a visual graph of the segmented actions or events (See Fig. 5, Fig. 6, P0008, page 6, lines 17-30, P0147, P0173.).
Although Freeman discloses a method and system for patient history analysis and time-line segmentation generating a visual graph of the segmented actions or events mentioned above, Freeman does not teach health care data as structured data comprising medical imaging scan, unstructured data comprising non-digital prescription data, overlapping data representing two or more medical conditions, and resolving a gap or an overlap in the time-line. Ginsburg teaches:
the health records are represented as structured data or unstructured data in multiple formats, wherein the structured data comprises at least one medical imaging scan and the unstructured data comprises non-digital prescription data (See Fig. 59B, P0200, P0312, P0372 exemplary standard DICOM for medical image formatting and manipulation. See Fig. 7, P0198, P0279 scanned MRI, report or order. See print button in Fig. 44, [P0317] Saved prescriptions are listed 3192 and they may be printed 3194.).
event based on accessed text and metadata from the multiple formats of the structured data or the unstructured data (See Fig. 25A, [P0277] A Cataract Flowsheet 2530a (purpose optimized dynamic panel) is presented with structured data elements designed to facilitate the identified procedure as conducted by multiple care givers.),
event based on overlapping data representing two or more medical conditions (See [P0303] permit the physician to see everything that was ordered, look for a trend of improvement or decline, and help guide the physician establish what really is medically indicated to now order to help diagnose, manage and treat a patient's condition. Also, see Fig. 40, P0310 prioritized alerts driven by conditions and [P0313] The Patient List tab 3132 options are categorized into three lists 3135: conditions, medications, and procedures.), and
by resolving a gap or an overlap in the timeline (See P0344, P0455 automatically resolve tasks by appropriate staff. Also, see overlay portion of display screen in P0025, P0316 overlays of prescribed medications and lab orders in P0284-P0285 and overlay of performed operations in P0496. Also, see Fig. 17, P0265 screen view of control panel along a timeline.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of managing EMR systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Freeman to include health care data as structured data comprising medical imaging scan, unstructured data comprising non-digital prescription data overlapping data representing two or more medical conditions, and resolving a gap or an overlap in the time-line as taught by Ginsburg in avoiding medical errors, missed diagnoses and increase compliance with insurance billing rules and regulations mentioned in Ginsburg’s P0003-P0004.
Regarding claim 2, Freeman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein acquiring health records of the patient using the plurality of medical devices over a period of time further comprises storing the health records in a computer readable media (See Fig. 11 first 110 and second 210, medical devices, intravenous, compression, ventilation and electrotherapy devices and sensors mentioned in P0216-P0217. See Fig. 6A-6B items 623, 625 where the playback interval represents drug administration events mentioned in P0146-P0148. Fig. 4B, P0221-P0222 forms of computer storage medium include portable storage media.).
Regarding claim 3, Freeman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein demarcating the segment boundaries and arranging the segments in order of timeline further comprises displaying the segmented health records over a display device (See P0158 where the user’s touchscreen gesture sets the boundaries along the timeline.).
Regarding claim 4, Freeman discloses the method as claimed in claim 3, wherein displaying the segmented health records over the display device further comprises highlighting at least one of the clinically important action or the event related to the patient from the segmented health records (See Fig. 5, Fig. 8 and [P0010] The playback interface may be configured to highlight visual indicators on the interactive timeline in response to a user selection of an event from the user-selectable list of events. Also, see alert and notification in P0149.).
Regarding claim 5, Freeman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the at least one action comprises beginning or end of a treatment, a therapy and a medication, and the event comprises admission or discharge of the patient from the hospital, medical imaging, and testing of patient body parameters (See Fig. 6A-6B items 622a, 622b as start and end times of the drug administration events mentioned in P0155-P0156. Also, see P0147 where action or events include shock and activity of a bronchodilator.).
Regarding claim 6, Freeman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising reading text information stored in the electronic storage medium and converting text information into a user viewable graph for displaying over the display device (See and [P0151] the user may select a time and/or a time interval on the interactive timeline 190 and playback interface 125 may display the code markers associated with the patient data for the selected time and/or time interval, and [P0202] the playback interface 125 may implement voice recognition software to convert the audio recording into text.).
Regarding claim 7, Freeman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein demarcating the segment boundaries and arranging the segments in order of timeline comprises demarcating the segments and arranging the demarcated boundaries (See P0158 where the user’s touchscreen gesture sets the boundaries along the timeline. Also, taught as sequencing in P0181, P0183 where controls may enable the user to review data according to a user-selected sequence and skip between medical events, chapters, and/or visual event indicators.).
Regarding claim 8, Freeman discloses the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein segmenting comprises identifying the timeline boundaries of the at least one action or the events and arranging the at least one segmented action or the event according to the timeline of the at least one action or the event (See Fig. 6A-6B items 622a, 622b as start and end times of the drug administration events mentioned in P0155-P0156. Also, see P0147 where action or events include shock and activity of a bronchodilator.).
Claim 9:
Freeman discloses a system for patient history analysis and time-line segmentation (See Fig. 6A-6B, where a playback interval allows a user to review and/or analyze medical data leading up to events associated with a selected visual event indicator mentioned in P0161.) the system comprising a processor configured to:
store a plurality of health records of a patient acquired over a duration of a treatment, wherein health records comprise at least one action or an event related to the patient (See Fig. 11 and [P0040] the patient data may include patient demographic …, diagnostic data, stored event markers of clinical interventions and/or other types of event markers, historical patient health information, medication, drug use, and/or prescription information, clinical performance information (e.g., chest compression measurements, chest impedance measurements), etc. Also, see P0061.);
retrieve the health records of the patient, wherein the begin-end marker detection module is configured to identify beginning and end of at least one action or the event related to the patient and mark the beginning and end boundary of the at least one action or the event (See Fig. 6A-6B, where a playback interval allows a user to review and/or analyze historical patient health information, medication, drug use, and/or prescription information, clinical performance information in P0040 and [P0151] the user may select a time and/or a time interval on the interactive timeline 190 and playback interface 125 may display the code markers associated with the patient data for the selected time and/or time interval.);
segment the at least one action or the event related to the patient by generating ambiguous timeline boundaries of the at least one action or the event (See P0158 where the playback interval as a segment is ambiguous until a user sets times as the boundaries along a timeline.);
demarcate the segment boundaries (Taught as sequencing in P0181, P0183 where controls may enable the user to review data according to a user-selected sequence and skip between medical events, chapters, and/or visual event indicators.);
arrange the segments in order of timeline (Taught as prioritizing in [P0175] the playback interface 125 may prioritize the patient data according to predetermined criteria. The playback interface 125 may display the patient data at the pop-up window 860 according to the determined priority and a current size of the preview pop-up window.); and
generate a visual graph of the segmented actions or events of the timeline (See Fig. 5, Fig. 6, P0008, page 6, lines 17-30, P0147, P0173.).
Although Freeman discloses a method and system for patient history analysis and time-line segmentation generating a visual graph of the segmented actions or events mentioned above, Freeman does not teach health care data as structured data comprising medical imaging scan, unstructured data comprising non-digital prescription data overlapping data representing two or more medical conditions, and resolving a gap or an overlap in the time-line. Ginsburg teaches:
the health records are represented as structured or unstructured data in multiple formats, wherein the structured data comprises at least one medical imaging scan and the unstructured data comprises non-digital prescription data (See Fig. 59B, P0200, P0312, P0372 exemplary standard DICOM for medical image formatting and manipulation. See Fig. 7, P0198, P0279 scanned MRI, report or order. See print button in Fig. 44, [P0317] Saved prescriptions are listed 3192 and they may be printed 3194.).
event based on accessed text and metadata from the multiple formats of the structured data or the unstructured data (See Fig. 25A, [P0277] A Cataract Flowsheet 2530a (purpose optimized dynamic panel) is presented with structured data elements designed to facilitate the identified procedure as conducted by multiple care givers.),
event based on overlapping data representing two or more medical conditions (See [P0303] permit the physician to see everything that was ordered, look for a trend of improvement or decline, and help guide the physician establish what really is medically indicated to now order to help diagnose, manage and treat a patient's condition. Also, see Fig. 40, P0310 prioritized alerts driven by conditions and [P0313] The Patient List tab 3132 options are categorized into three lists 3135: conditions, medications, and procedures.), and
by resolving a gap or an overlap in the timeline (See P0344, P0455 automatically resolve tasks by appropriate staff. Also, see overlay portion of display screen in P0025, P0316 overlays of prescribed medications and lab orders in P0284-P0285 and overlay of performed operations in P0496. Also, see Fig. 17, P0265 screen view of control panel along a timeline.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of managing EMR systems before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method and system of Freeman to include health care data as structured data comprising medical imaging scan, unstructured data comprising non-digital prescription data overlapping data representing two or more medical conditions, and resolving a gap or an overlap in the time-line as taught by Ginsburg in avoiding medical errors, missed diagnoses and increase compliance with insurance billing rules and regulations mentioned in Ginsburg’s P0003-P0004.
Regarding claim 11, Freeman teaches the system as claimed in claim 9, a computer memory, a sever or any other electronic media configured to store the health records (See Fig. 6A-6B items 623, 625 where the playback interval represents drug administration events mentioned in P0146-P0148. See Fig. 4A, P0120 the computing device associated with a hospital and doctor’s office, and servers associated with a medical provider in P0224 serve as being a part of an electronic health record system. Fig. 4B, P0221-P0222 forms of computer storage medium include portable storage media.).
Regarding claim 12, Freeman discloses the system as claimed in claim 9, further comprising a display device configured to display the demarcated segment boundaries arranged in order of timeline (See P0158 where the user’s touchscreen gesture sets the boundaries along the timeline.).
Regarding claim 13, Freeman discloses system as claimed in claim 12, wherein displaying demarcated segment boundaries arranged in order of timeline over the display device further comprises highlighting at least one of the clinically important action or the event related to the patient from the segmented health records (See Fig. 5, Fig. 8 and [P0010] The playback interface may be configured to highlight visual indicators on the interactive timeline in response to a user selection of an event from the user-selectable list of events. Also, see alert and notification in P0149.).
Regarding claim 14, Freeman discloses system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the at least one action comprises beginning or end of a treatment, a therapy or a medication and the event comprises admission or discharge of the patient from the hospital, medical imaging, and testing of patient body parameters (See Fig. 6A-6B items 622a, 622b as start and end times of the drug administration events mentioned in P0155-P0156. Also, see P0147 where action or events include shock and activity of a bronchodilator.).
Regarding claim 15, Freeman discloses system as claimed in claim 9, wherein the processor configured to read text information stored in the electronic storage medium and convert text information into a user viewable graph for displaying over the display device (See and [P0151] the user may select a time and/or a time interval on the interactive timeline 190 and playback interface 125 may display the code markers associated with the patient data for the selected time and/or time interval, and [P0202] the playback interface 125 may implement voice recognition software to convert the audio recording into text.).
Regarding claim 16, Freeman discloses system as claimed in claim 9, wherein segmenting comprises identifying the timeline boundaries of the at least one action or the event and arranging the at least one segmented action or the event according to the timeline of the at least one action or the event (See Fig. 6A-6B items 622a, 622b as start and end times of the drug administration events mentioned in P0155-P0156. Also, see P0147 where action or events include shock and activity of a bronchodilator.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and amendments, see pages 7-8, filed 10/31/2025, with respect to the 112 rejects have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112 (a, (b) & (f) rejections of claims 6-7 and 9-16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant argues that amended claims 1 and 9 amount to significantly more than an abstract idea, directed to techniques for a computing device to manage and interpret heterogeneous electronic health record formats, see pgs. 8-9 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
The specific features and components of the claimed invention are not explained and are not solving a technological problem with a technological solution, but rather solves an already solved healthcare administrative problem in a non-technical manner. Furthermore, the imitation step of: acquiring health records of a patient from a plurality of medical devices or computer memory over a duration of a treatment, wherein the health records comprise at least one action or an event related to the patient and the health records are represented as structured data or unstructured data in multiple formats, wherein the structured data comprises at least one medical imaging scan and the unstructured data comprises non-digital prescription data is also well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, evidenced by at least paragraphs 3, 25, 34, 38, 73-74, 88, 113 and figures 7A-8B of Zhao et al. (US 2015/0331995 A1), paragraphs 26-27, 31-33, 40, 55-56, 90-91, 135 and figures 4-6 of Umlauft et al. (US 2024/0290448 A1) and at least 198, 200, 277, 279, 312, 317, 372 and figures 25A, 59B of Ginsburg et al. (US 2020/0294640 A1).
The imitation step of: segmenting the at least one action or the events related to the patient by generating ambiguous timeline boundaries of the at least one action or the event based on overlapping data representing two or more medical conditions is also well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, evidenced by at least paragraphs 37, 73-74, 109, 147 and figures 7A-8B of Zhao et al. (US 2015/0331995 A1), paragraphs 40, 54, 71, 124-125 and figure 13 of Umlauft et al. (US 2024/0290448 A1) and at least 303, 310, 313 and figures 40, 40A of Ginsburg et al. (US 2020/0294640 A1).
The imitation step of: generating a visual graph of the segmented actions or events is also well-understood, routine and conventional in the art, evidenced by at least paragraphs 37, 73-74, 109, 147 and figures 7A-8B of Zhao et al. (US 2015/0331995 A1), paragraphs 40, 54, 71, 124-125 and figure 13 of Umlauft et al. (US 2024/0290448 A1) and at least P0008, page 6, lines 17-30, P0147, P0173 and figures 5-6 of Freeman et al. (US 2020/0121199 A1).
Applicant argues that that the present claims are integrated into a practical application based on similar analysis described in relation to Example 42 of the "Subject Matter Eligibility Examples”, see pgs. 10-11 of Remarks – Examiner disagrees.
With respect to Example 42, the claimed invention does not use technology to do any converting non-standardized data into a standardized format and automatically generating and transmitting notifications in real time, but rather solves an already solved healthcare administrative problem in a non-technical manner. No technological improvements have been placed within the electronic health record field, formatting medical data, transmission of medical data using standards, building graphical timelines, textual recognition software and the functionality of a computing device itself, outside of improving the computer specifically for implementing the abstract idea.
Regarding the prior art rejection, Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are now moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The Examiner has entered a new rejection under 35 USC § 103(a) and applied new art and art already of record.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (See Zhao (US 2015/0331995 A1) and Umlauft (US 2024/0290448 A1).).
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 TERESA S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-5509. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:30 am -6:30 pm.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at (571) 270-1813. 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.
/T.S.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3687 02/17/2026
/ALAAELDIN M. ELSHAER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687