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 .
Formal Matters
Applicant’s response, filed 10/23/2025 has been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, and 10-11 are currently pending and have been examined.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, and 10-11 have been amended.
Claims 3-5, 7, 9, and 12 have been canceled.
Claims 1-2, 6, 8, and 10-11 have been rejected.
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 1-2, 6, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-2, 6, 8, and 10-11are directed to a system, method, or product which are one of the statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
Independent Claim 1 discloses a system comprising: an acquiring device configured to acquire examination data of a person, the acquiring device comprising: a sensor disposed within a seat of a motor vehicle and configured to determine a heart rate and a respiration rate of the person sitting in the seat, an infrared camera configured to determine a temperature of the person, and a microphone configured to receive responses provided orally by the person, wherein the examination data comprises the heart rate, the respiration rate, the temperature, and the responses; and a data processing device configured to: receive, from the acquiring device, the examination data; determine a reliability of at least one of the heart rate, the respiration rate, or the temperature by comparing the at least one of the heart rate, the respiration rate, or the temperature to the responses, and determine a probability that the person has COVID-19 using the examination data and the reliability
Independent Claim 11 discloses a method comprising: determining, using a sensor disposed within a seat of a motor vehicle, a heart rate and a respiration rate of a person sitting in the seat; determining, using an infrared camera, a temperature of the person; receiving, using a microphone, responses provided orally by the person, wherein examination data comprises the heart rate, the respiration rate, the temperature, and the responses; determining, using a data processing device, a reliability of at least one of the heart rate, the respiration rate, or the temperature by comparing the at least one of the heart rate, the respiration rate, or the temperature to the responses; and determining, using the data processing device, a probability that the person has COVID-19 using the examination data and the reliability
The examiner is interpreting the above bolded limitations as additional elements as further discussed below. The remaining un-bolded limitations are merely directed to analyzing patient data to determine if a patient has COVID-19. The series of steps recited above describe managing personal behavior or relationships or interactions between people and thus are grouped as certain methods of organizing human activity which is an abstract idea. (Step 2A- Prong 1: YES. The claims are abstract).
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application include: (1) Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea (MPEP 2106.05.f), (2) Adding insignificant extra- solution activity to the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05.g), (3) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (MPEP 2106.05.h).
Independent claim 1 discloses the following additional elements:
An acquiring device comprising a sensor disposed within a seat of a motor vehicle, an infrared camera, and a microphone
A data processing device
Independent claim 11 discloses the following additional elements:
A sensor disposed within a seat of a motor vehicle
An infrared camera
A microphone
A data processing device
In particular, the acquiring device comprising a sensor [disposed within a seat of a motor vehicle[, an infrared camera, and a microphone (of claim 1), a sensor disposed within a seat of a motor vehicle, an infrared camera, and a microphone (of claim 11), and a data processing device (of claim 1 and 11) are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Applicant’s specification states - According to one aspect of the invention, the data processing device and the display device are part of the same apparatus, for example a computer, in particular a laptop computer.
Further, the sensor specifically disposed within a seat of a motor vehicle merely generally links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use of operating within a motor vehicle. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide a practical application. Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, the computer is performing as expected. Thus, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, these additional elements, even in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, claim(s) 1 and 11 are directed to an abstract idea(s) without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO: the additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the acquiring device comprising a sensor disposed within a seat of a motor vehicle, an infrared camera, and a microphone (of claim 1), a sensor [disposed within a seat of a motor vehicle], an infrared camera, and a microphone (of claim 11), and a data processing device (of claim 1 and 11) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more’). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying "apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more").
Also, as discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of the sensor specifically disposed within a seat of a motor vehicle was further considered to generally link the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. This has been re-evaluated under the ‘significantly more' analysis and has been found insufficient to provide significantly more. MPEP2106.05 (A) indicates that generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use cannot provide an inventive concept (‘significantly more"). Accordingly, even in combination, this additional element does not provide significantly more. As such the independent claims 1 and 11 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more).
Dependent claim(s) 2, 6, 8, and 10 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination. Dependent claims 2 does further disclose the additional element(s) of an artificial intelligence unit (claim 2).
In particular, the artificial intelligence unit (of claim 2) is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea by adding the words ‘apply it’ (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do 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. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the artificial intelligence unit (claim 2) amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more’). MPEP2106.05(I)(A) indicates that merely saying "apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide an inventive concept ("significantly more"). Accordingly, this additional element does not provide significantly more.
Therefore, the dependent claims are also directed to an abstract idea.
Thus, Claims 1-2, 6, 8, and 10-11 are 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jain (US Patent 11,342,051 B1), in view of Gallagher (US PG Pub 10,034,631 B1), Rajkumar (IN 2020/041052847 A), Kim (KR 101577068 B1), and Joyce (US PG Pub 2001/0053984 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, ---Jain teaches:
A system
the examination data comprises the heart rate, the respiration rate, the temperatures, and the responses; and configured from the acquiring device, the examination body temperature, a respiration rate, and a resting heart rate, and potentially others. See a specific example regarding body temperature, respiration rate, and heart rate in column 20, lines 24-42.)
determine a probability that the person has COVID-19 using the examination data and the reliability (Column 10, lines 51-62 discloses a system can collect and analyze data regarding physiological, behavioral, and cognitive patterns indicative of the onset of COVID-19 and risk of COVID-19 infection. The system obtains user-reported data (e.g., survey responses, reported symptoms, etc.) and sensor measurements (e.g., heart rate, movement, location, etc.) and compares these to baseline measurements for the user. From the variance of collected data and differences from the a user's baseline levels, the system makes predictions of a user's risk of contracting COVID-19, the user's likelihood of being currently infected with COVID-19, the current disease state, predicted disease progression, and so on.
While Jain discloses, “if a user gets on a bus, the specific bus may be tagged based on the user's presence” and thus monitoring public transportation vehicles, it does not specifically disclose a sensor within a seat of a motor vehicle as Gallagher discloses:
an acquiring device configured to acquire of a [[on the]] person, the acquiring device comprising: a sensor disposed within a seat of a motor vehicle and configured to determine a heart rate and a respiration rate of the person sitting in the seat, (Columns 5-6, lines 65-67 and 1-14 respectively disclose piezoelectric sensors 22 are components of vehicle seating system 10. Vehicle seating system 10 employs sensors 22 to monitor or sense physiological or psychological attributes, conditions, and/or states (collectively “physiological state”) of a person sitting in seat 14 of vehicle 12. That is, vehicle seating system 10 is a vital sign monitoring system for vehicle seating. As described, sensors 22 are part of an array of piezoelectric sensors which generate electrical signals in response to being mechanical stressed by biologically motivated force inputs such as respiratory and cardiac spatial displacements. Sensors 22 are integrated in seat bottom 16 and seat back 18 and function independently or in conjunction with one another to emphasize different force inputs. Sensors 22 are geometrically arranged within the structure of seat 14 to gather the force inputs from biological processes transmitted to the seat from the person sitting in the seat. Column 6, lines 50-63 disclose ADC 26 is in communication with sensors 22 to receive the electrical signals generated by the sensors. For instance, ADC 26 is connected to sensors 22 via electrical wires and the like. ADC 26 converts the electrical signals, which are in analog format, into digital format. SPU 28 receives the digitized electrical signals from ADC 26… SPU 28 provides the digitized electrical signals as further processed to analyzer 30… Analyzer 30 analyzes the digitized electrical signals for biomedical assessment, identification, medical condition assessment, medical emergency assessment, etc., of the person sitting in seat 14 as described herein. Column 7, lines 23-37 disclose analyzer 30 analyzes biological signals 34 for various bio-marker information and statistical analysis as indicated by functional block 36. As described, biological signals 34 are indicative of biologically motivated force inputs of the person on sensors 22. That is, each biological signal 34 obtained from the electrical signal generated by a sensor 22 is indicative of biologically motivated force inputs on that sensor. The periodic nature of such biological vital inputs and the correlation between force applied and electrical signal response aid in the positive identification of these inputs. Accordingly, biological signals 34 are indicative, for instance, of “clean” respiratory and heart signatures. Analyzer 30 can thus analyze biological signals 34 to extract various vital criteria including heart rate, breathing rate, heart rate variability, etc.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infectious disease monitoring as taught by Jain with the vehicle seating system with seat occupant vital sign monitoring as taught by Gallagher in order to more accurately determine vital signs of a patient within a mobile vehicle for determining a patient condition.
While the combination of Jain and Gallagher disclose the above limitations, it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Rajkumar discloses:
an infrared camera configured to determine a temperature of the person, and (Paras 18-25 disclose a more productive and non-actual interactable method of checking whether a specific individual or a gathering of individuals going in a car has been influenced by COVID-19 or not… In like manner, as part of the present disclosure relates to an motor vehicle corona detector to identify the people affected by COVID-19 and to establish a safe way to deal with them without even having the risk of them getting out of their vehicle… The thermal scanners are put at the inner roof of the vehicle before the seats for the individual traveler which is fundamental to gauge the temperature of that specific traveler… To produce more accurate information the thermal scanner can be replaced by a highly accurate Infrared camera.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the infectious disease monitoring as taught by Jain and the vehicle seating system with seat occupant vital sign monitoring as taught by Gallagher with the infrared camera in a motor vehicle to identify people affected by COVID-19 as taught by Rajkumar in order to identify a COVID-19 status without the patient having to exit the vehicle and potentially infect other people and by using the infrared camera in order to produce more accurate information when identifying people affected by COVID-19.
While the combination of Jain, Gallagher, and Rajkumar disclose the above limitations, it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Kim discloses:
a microphone configured to receive responses provided orally by the person, wherein (Para 38 discloses the microphone 650 receives a voice response to the questionnaire for the health questionnaire self-check.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the infectious disease monitoring as taught by Jain, the vehicle seating system with seat occupant vital sign monitoring as taught by Gallagher and the infrared camera in a motor vehicle to identify people affected by COVID-19 as taught by Rajkumar with the microphone of the smart health check kiosk system and method for using thereof as taught by Kim in order to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of a patient and “measure and accumulate their own health data at regular intervals anytime and anywhere, and observe the trends to find and treat problems early” (Kim Para 3).
While the combination of Jain, Gallagher, Rajkumar, and Kim disclose the above limitations, it does not fully disclose the following limitation that Joyce discloses:
determine a reliability of at least one of the heart rate, the respiration rate, or the temperature by comparing the at least one of the heart rate, the respiration rate, or the temperature to the responses, and (Para 8 discloses In specific embodiments, the step of determining the patient's subjective medical condition comprises assessment of the severity and frequency of injury symptoms by the patient. The subjective data may comprise a patient's determination of their injury symptoms. Para 12 discloses a further situation of particular relevance is a condition in which the subjective evaluation by the patient or health care provider (or both) is not supported by the objective indications. Therefore, certain implementations of the invention determine whether or not the objective findings support the level of subjective complaints. Similarly, certain implementations of the invention determine whether or not the objective findings are disproportionately high when compared to the level of subjective complaints. Para 42 and Fig. 1 disclose a simplified flow chart is depicted showing progression from establishing 20 patient data through analysis 22 of patient data to evaluate the treatment protocol, and output 24 of information about the treatment protocol review. In the first step of establishing 20 patient data, one or more examinations of a patient are made. This examination(s) determines the subjective and objective characteristics of the patient's medical condition. In the second step of analysis of patient data 22 the subjective and objective data are analyzed to evaluate the condition of the patient and determine a proper treatment procedure and to evaluate ongoing treatment procedures. In the third step of output 24 of information about the treatment protocol review, the results of the analysis 22 are provided. This output 24 may include, for example, one or more reports relating to the examination, to the analysis, to problems with the diagnosis or treatment plan, a diary, a summary of treatment, etc.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the infectious disease monitoring as taught by Jain, the vehicle seating system with seat occupant vital sign monitoring as taught by Gallagher, the infrared camera in a motor vehicle to identify people affected by COVID-19 as taught by Rajkumar and the microphone of the smart health check kiosk system and method for using thereof as taught by Kim with the comparison of the subjective data [such as responses from a patient] to the objective data [such as sensor data] as taught by Joyce in order to identify a more accurate representation of the patient’s condition.
Regarding Claim 2, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Jain, Gallagher, Rajkumar, Kim and Joyce discloses the following limitation that Jain further discloses:
The system according to claim 1 wherein the data processing device comprises an artificial intelligence unit (Column 15, lines 5-8 disclose the techniques discussed herein can use artificial intelligence, machine learning, and natural language processing, whether through established methods or new methodology.)
Regarding Claim 6, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Jain, Gallagher, Rajkumar, Kim and Joyce discloses the following limitation that Kim further discloses:
The system according to claim 1 wherein the system is configured to the person microphone is configured the responses provided orally by the person to the questionnaire(Para 36-38 discloses the touch screen 630 displays a questionnaire for the health questionnaire self-check, and accepts a touch input of a person (resident) with respect to the displayed questionnaire… The speaker 640 outputs a voice item of the questionnaire for the health questionnaire self-check… The microphone 650 receives a voice response to the questionnaire for the health questionnaire self-check.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the infectious disease monitoring as taught by Jain, the vehicle seating system with seat occupant vital sign monitoring as taught by Gallagher, the infrared camera in a motor vehicle to identify people affected by COVID-19 as taught by Rajkumar and the comparison of the subjective data [such as responses from a patient] to the objective data [such as sensor data] as taught by Joyce with the microphone and questionnaire of the smart health check kiosk system and method for using thereof as taught by Kim in order to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of a patient and “measure and accumulate their own health data at regular intervals anytime and anywhere, and observe the trends to find and treat problems early” (Kim Para 3).
Regarding Claim 8, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 6 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Jain, Gallagher, Rajkumar, Kim and Joyce discloses the following limitation that Jain further discloses:
The system according to claim 6 the examination [[vital]] data further comprises at least one of or [[and]] an arrhythmia, (Column 53, lines 8-30 disclose as an example, the system can provide instructions and media to prompt a user to perform, and guide a user through, a diaphragmatic breathing exercise… The individual breathes through the nose, expanding their chest and abdomen while positioning their hands on or above the chest and abdomen to monitor the ascent. The user then exhales through their mouth while monitoring with their hands the descent. This process is usually timed [inhalation and exhalation time] and continues to repeat, sometimes for a minute or longer… For example, for an individual that had difficulty at first, the sensor data can be used to determine if the user is later able to breath deeper breaths and hold breath for longer times.)
Regarding Claim 10, this claim recites the limitations of Claim 1 and as to those limitations is
rejected for the same basis and reasons as disclosed above. The combination of Jain, Gallagher, Rajkumar, Kim and Joyce discloses the following limitation that Kim further discloses:
The system according to claim 1 wherein the system is configured to receive an [[the]] examination, acquire person, the characterization data comprising at least one of a gender, an age, a height, or [[and]] data representative of a [[the]] background[[,]] (Para 36-38 discloses the touch screen 630 displays a questionnaire for the health questionnaire self-check, and accepts a touch input of a person (resident) with respect to the displayed questionnaire… The speaker 640 outputs a voice item of the questionnaire for the health questionnaire self-check… The microphone 650 receives a voice response to the questionnaire for the health questionnaire self-check [response to questions]. Para 71 discloses the questionnaire items are displayed as shown in FIG. 26, and when all the surveys are completed, the result view screen as shown in FIG. 27 is displayed. Is displayed. Subsequently, as shown in FIG. 28, when the user consents to the collection of personal information and inputs a contact information, the diagnosis result according to the check as shown in FIG. 29 is displayed. Para 78 discloses if a detailed questionnaire is selected (S120), a common questionnaire is performed (S130). Such commonalities may include gender, age and geography [characterization data of the person].)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the infectious disease monitoring as taught by Jain, the vehicle seating system with seat occupant vital sign monitoring as taught by Gallagher, the infrared camera in a motor vehicle to identify people affected by COVID-19 as taught by Rajkumar and the comparison of the subjective data [such as responses from a patient] to the objective data [such as sensor data] as taught by Joyce with the microphone and questionnaire of the smart health check kiosk system and method for using thereof as taught by Kim in order to increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of a patient and “measure and accumulate their own health data at regular intervals anytime and anywhere, and observe the trends to find and treat problems early” (Kim Para 3).
Regarding Claim 11, this claim is directed to the method of the system of claim 1 and is similarly rejected.
Prior Art Not Cited
K. Grifantini, "Self Driving and Self Diagnosing: With Emerging Technology, Your Car May Soon Serve Not Only as Personal Chauffeur and Entertainment Center but as a Health Advisor Too," in IEEE Pulse, vol. 9, no. 4, pp. 4-7, July-Aug. 2018, doi: 10.1109/MPUL.2018.2833066 discloses a self-diagnosing car system.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/23/2025 with respect to the Double Patenting rejection have been fully considered, and are persuasive in light of the amendments to the instant application. The claims of the instant application are no longer substantially similar to those of co-pending application 18/580155. As such, the previous double patenting rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/23/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in light of the removal of the limitation that was previously rejected of claim 10 and the canceling of claim 12. As such, all previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/23/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) have been fully considered, but are rendered moot in light of the removal of the limitation that was previously rejected of claim 10, the canceling of claim 12, and the removal of the limitation that was previously rejected of claim 11. As such, all previous 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/23/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 101 have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application as the claims are directed to an improvement in COVID-detection technology because current systems and methods acquire and analyze a sample provided by the person. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) indicates that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the technological environment to which the claims are confined, a data processing device. The problem of needing to acquire and analyze a sample provided by a person is not a problem caused by the data processing device that is involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a business problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application. As such, the previous 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection is sustained.
Applicant’s arguments filed 10/23/2025 with respect to 35 U.S.C. § 103 have been fully considered, but are moot because the current ground for rejection does not rely on the combinations of references applied in the prior rejection in light of removal of previous limitations and the newly added amendments. See current application of prior art above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARA J MORICE DE VARGAS whose telephone number is (703)756-4608. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:30 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, Peter H. Choi can be reached on (469)295-9171. 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.
/SARA JESSICA MORICE DE VARGAS/Examiner, Art Unit 3681
/PETER H CHOI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3681