DETAILED ACTION
1. This office action is in response to the communicated dated 24 December 2025 concerning application number 18/564,391 effectively filed on 27 November 2023
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Status of Claims
3. Claims 13-14, 32-33, 40-50, and 65-69 are pending, of which claim 13, 32, 42, 47-49 have been amended; claims 65-69 have been added; claims 1-12, 15-31, 34-39, and 51-64 have been canceled; and claims 13-14, 32-33, 40-50, and 65-69.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments dated 24 December 2025, referred to herein as “the Arguments”, have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
The Examiner has addressed the amended limitations within the 103 rejection section below.
The Examiner previously rejected claims 13-14, 21-23, and 40-50 under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, Applicant argues that 101 rejections should be withdrawn in response to the amendment that recites “wherein the skin-wearable printed sensor acquires signals of the animal to provide real-time, continuous monitoring of the electrophysiological monitoring of the electrophysiological parameter of the animal subject before and after administration of an agent of interest” (pages 6 and 8 of the Arguments). The Examiner respectfully disagrees, as skin-wearable printed sensor was previously indicated to be an electrical sensor, impedance sensor, infrared sensor, electroencephalogram sensor, electroencephalogram sensor, or electromyogram sensor. Specifically, these types of sensors are known to provide real-time feedback. Thus, the amendment reciting the skin-wearable printed sensor providing “real-time, continuous monitoring” does not provide significantly more to claim 13. Thus, the Examiner respectfully maintains the 101 rejection, as claims 13-14, 21-23, and 40-50 are drawn to an abstract idea (e.g., monitoring a subject with sensors) and mathematical algorithms (e.g., comparing data) without significantly more.
The Examiner previously rejected claims 32-33 under 35 U.S.C. 101. However, Applicant did not provide any arguments or amendments that would overcome the rejection of claims 32-33 under 35 U.S.C. 101. Thus, the Examiner has maintained the rejections of claims 32-33 under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Examiner further submits that the amended claims 47-49 and the new claims 66-69 are now rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, as claims 47-49 and 66-69 depend upon claim 32.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 13 and 49 are objected to because of the following informalities.
Claims 13 and 49 contain minor typographical errors.
- Claim 13, line 9: The Examiner suggests changing “an electroencephalogram (EEC) sensor” to “an electroencephalogram (EEG) sensor”.
- Claim 49, line 2: The Examiner suggests changing “an electroencephalogram (EEC) sensor” to “an electroencephalogram (EEG) sensor”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
7. Claim 65 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 65 recites “wherein the animal model is a craniofacial VML model”. Specifically, claim 65 depends upon claim 14 which recites the same limitation. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
8. 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.
9. Claims 13-14, 21-23, 32-33, 40-50, and 65-69 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea and mathematical algorithms without significantly more. Specifically, claims 13-14, 21-23, 32-33, 40-50, and 65-69 recite the comparison of physiological signals or parameters that are collected by a skin-wearable printed sensor. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to using sensors to monitor a subject (abstract idea) and comparing data (mathematical algorithms). Furthermore, the claimed sensors are considered to be routine and conventional elements that collect data, such as an electrocardiogram sensor, electroencephalogram sensor, infrared sensor, impedance sensor, or an electrical sensor. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the data collected from the sensors is not utilized to provide a substantial step (e.g., feedback loops, therapy adjustments, diagnosis, etc.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
11. Claims 13 and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brownhill et al. (US 2020/0297244 A1) in view of Brockway et al. (US 2016/0345850 A1) and Bhavaraju et al. (US 2011/0224912 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Brownhill teaches a system comprising (the embodiments of the invention comprise an apparatus having one or more sensors that are configured to monitor an injury of animal’s tissue or muscle [0035-0037, 0051, 0297]. For example, the compression apparatus 402 comprises one or more sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) that are configured to detect muscle activity at the injured or wounded location of the animal’s body [0035-0036, 0258, 0276, 0297]), comprising:
a skin-wearable printed sensor (the sensors 406 may be printed onto the fabric of the garment or compression apparatus 402 which is applied to animal’s body [0036-0037, 0249, 0276, FIG. 4A]);
electronics coupled to the skin-wearable printed sensor (the Examiner respectfully submits that it is inherent that that sensors 406 would include electronics or circuitry [0035-0037, 0249, 0276])
an animal subject ([0035-0036]) comprising the skin-wearable printed sensor over the animal subject's skin (the compression apparatus 402 comprises one or more sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) that are configured to detect muscle activity at the injured or wounded location of the animal’s body [0035-0036, 0258, 0276, 0297]. Specifically, the compression apparatus 402 may be positioned on the animal’s head, neck, chest, thigh, or calf [0036, 00249-0250, 0276]. Furthermore, the sensors 406 may be printed onto the fabric of the garment or compression apparatus 402 which is applied to animal’s body [0036-0037, 0249, 0276, FIG. 4A]), wherein the animal subject was subjected to an injury ([0035-0036]);
wherein the skin-wearable printed sensor comprises one or more sensors configured as a sensor selected from the group consisting of an electromyogram (EMG) sensor or an electrical sensor (the compression apparatus 402 comprises one or more sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) that are configured to measure the muscle activity at the injured or wounded location of the animal’s body [0035-0036, 0258, 0276, 0297]. Specifically, the processor 404 may monitor the electromyography (EMG) data from the sensors 406 to determine if the injured or wounded location is healing [0258, 0276, 0297]. Furthermore, the one or more sensors 406 may also include an electrical or complex conductivity sensor ([0251]);
a computer having instructions stored thereon ([0244, 0316]); and
a processor ([abstract, 0244, 0316]).
Brownhill does not explicitly teach the sensors to be composed of a stretchable graphene material.
Although Brownhill teaches the administration of an agent of interest and the sensing of physiological parameters ([0212]), Brownhill does not explicitly teach wherein skin-printed wearable sensor acquires signals of the animal subject to provide real-time, continuous monitoring of the electrophysiological parameter of the animal subject before and after administration of an agent of interest; and
wherein execution of the instructions by the processor of the computer causes the processor to:
compare the signals of the animal subject before and after administration of an agent of interest;
analyze a result from the comparison step to assess a physiological parameter of the subject; and
wherein the physiological parameter provides an indication that the agent of interest is a therapeutic agent.
The prior art by Brockway is analogous to Brownhill, as they both teach wearable physiological sensors or electrodes that are configured to monitor physiological signals from an animal ([0001]).
Brockway teaches the sensors to be composed of a stretchable graphene material (the sensing electrodes may be composed of a stretchable graphene material that is highly conductive [0001, 0012, 0037, 0052]).
The prior art by Bhavaraju is analogous to Brownhill, as they both teach the administration of an agent and monitoring physiological parameters ([abstract, 0040, 0042, 0051]).
Bhavaraju teaches wherein skin-printed wearable sensor acquires signals of the animal subject to provide real-time, continuous monitoring of the electrophysiological parameter of the animal subject before and after administration of an agent of interest (the monitoring sensor platform 330 (e.g., ECG, EMG, or EEG sensors) is configured to obtain physiological signals from the patient’s body 300 [0025-0026, 0029, 0040, 0046]. Furthermore, the monitoring sensor platform 330 comprises a comparator that is configured to compare the physiological signals which were obtain before and after the administration of the medication or agent [0026, 0040, 0050-0051, 0059]); and
wherein execution of the instructions by the processor of the computer causes the processor to:
compare the signals of the animal subject before and after administration of an agent of interest (the monitoring sensor platform 330 comprises a comparator that is configured to compare the physiological signals which were obtain before and after the administration of the medication or agent [0026, 0050-0051, 0059]);
analyze a result from the comparison step to assess a physiological parameter of the subject (the comparator is configured to compare the physiological signals which were obtain before and after the administration of the medication or agent [0026, 0051, 0059-0060]. Specifically, the comparator can determine if the medication or agent has produced a desired or non-desired physiological outcome (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, etc.) [0026, 0029, 0051, 0059]); and
wherein the physiological parameter provides an indication that the agent of interest is a therapeutic agent (the comparator is configured to compare the physiological signals which were obtain before and after the administration of the medication or agent [0026, 0051, 0059]. Specifically, the comparator can determine if the medication or agent has produced a desired or non-desired physiological outcome (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, etc.) [0026, 0029, 0051, 0059]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the medication or agent is determined to have a therapeutic effect if the desired physiological outcome is achieved [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the Brownhill’s wearable sensors to be composed of a stretchable graphene material, as taught by Brockway. The stretchable graphene material is beneficial, as the graphene material will enhance the flexibility of the sensor (e.g., electrode) such that it can conform easily to the contours of the body surface (see paragraphs [0001, 0012, 0037, 0045, 0052] by Brockway). Specifically, the stretchable graphene material will enhance the sensor’s (e.g., electrode) conductive properties (see paragraphs [0012, 0037, 0045, 0052] by Brockway). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Brownhill’s processor to compare the electrophysiological parameters before and after the administration of an agent of interest to determine if the agent of interest is a therapeutic agent, as taught by Bhavaraju. The advantage of such modification will help determine physiological effects or events resulting from administering the agent or medication (see paragraphs [0026, 0040, 0050-0051, 0059] by Bhavaraju).
Regarding claim 50, Brownhill teaches wherein the skin-wearable printed sensor comprises a skin-wearable printed EMG sensor (as stated previously in claim 13, the sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) may be printed onto the fabric of the garment or compression apparatus 402 which is applied to animal’s body [0036-0037, 0249, 0276, FIG. 4A]).
12. Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brownhill et al. in view of Brockway et al. and Bhavaraju et al., further in view of Cheng et al. (US 2017/0367654 A1).
Regarding claim 40, Brownhill in view of Brockway and Bhavaraju suggests the system of claim 13. Brownhill teaches wherein the skin-wearable printed sensor comprises at least two electrodes (as stated previously in claim 13, the one or more sensors 406 may be printed onto the fabric of the garment or compression apparatus 402 which is applied to animal’s body [0037, 0249, 0276, FIG. 4A]. Specifically, the one or more sensors 406 may include conductivity sensors and/or EMG sensors [0251]. Furthermore, the conductivity sensors may include electrodes [0230, 0251]).
Meanwhile, Brockway teaches wherein skin-wearable printed sensor comprises a conductive flexible film (the electrode sensing surface is constructed of a thin flexible sheet or film 200 with a conductive surface [0045]).
Brownhill, Brockway, and Bhavaraju do not explicitly teach wherein the skin-wearable printed sensor comprises:
an elastomeric substrate.
The prior art by Cheng is analogous to Brownhill, as they both teach sensing electrodes that are coupled to a patient’s body ([0049, 0075]).
Cheng teaches wherein the skin-wearable printed sensor comprises:
An elastomeric (the sensor patch 200 may comprise a plurality of sensing electrodes 204 that are printed on an elastic substrate 202 [0044, 0049, 0059, 0075]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the skin-wearable printed sensor suggested by Brownhill in view of Brockway and Bhavaraju to comprise an elastomeric substrate, as taught by Cheng. This modification is beneficial, as elastomeric substrate can conform to various contours and/or swelling (e.g., bumps) of the skin surface (see paragraphs [0044, 0059, 0111]).
13. Claim 41-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brownhill et al. in view of Brockway et al., Bhavaraju et al., Cheng et al., and further in view of Gao et al. (US 2020/0359942 A1).
Regarding claim 41, Brownhill in view of Brockway, Bhavaraju, and Cheng suggests the system of claim 40. Specifically, Brockway teaches wherein the electrodes comprise a graphene layer ([0011-0012, 0052]). Meanwhile, Cheng teaches a polyimide (PI) layer (the elastomeric substrate 202 may include a polyimide layer [0044, 0061]).
Brownhill, Brockway, Bhavaraju, and Cheng do not explicitly teach wherein the graphene layer of the electrodes is in contact with the polyimide layer.
The prior art by Gao is analogous to Brownhill, as they both teach sensing electrodes that are configured to monitor a biological signal from a patient ([abstract, 0052, 0066]).
Gao teaches wherein the graphene layer of electrodes is in contact with polyimide layer (the multimodal sensing layer 120 includes a polyimide film or substrate [0006, 0055]. Meanwhile, the graphene electrode 130 is laser scribed or engraved onto the polyimide film of the multimodal sensing layer 120 [0006, 0055, 0086]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the graphene layer and the polyimide layer suggested by Brownhill, Brockway, Bhavaraju, and Cheng to contact each other, as taught by Gao. This modification is beneficial, as it may enhance the sensor’s detection of vital signals from the patient (see paragraphs [0006, 0052, 0055, 0086] by Gao).
Regarding claim 42, Cheng teaches wherein a polyimide layer is in contact with the elastomeric substrate (the elastomeric substrate 202 may include a polyimide layer [0044, 0061]).
14. Claims 43-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brownhill et al. in view of Brockway et al. Bhavaraju et al., Cheng et al, and further in view of Davis et al. (US 2013/0110415 A1).
Regarding claim 43, Brownhill in view of Brockway, Bhavaraju, and Cheng suggests the system of claim 40. Brownhill, Brockway, Bhavaraju, and Cheng do not explicitly teach wherein the conductive flexible film connects the device with electronics.
The prior art by Davis is analogous to Brownhill, as they both teach wearable sensing devices ([0069-0071]).
Davis teaches wherein the conductive flexible film connects the device with electronics (the flexible strip 315 (e.g., conductive film) comprises electronic components that are connected with the wearable sensing components (e.g., sensor 210 or 310) [0069-0071]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was effectively filed to modify the conductive flexible film suggested by Brownhill in view of Brockway, Bhavaraju, and Cheng to connect the device with electronics, as taught by Davis. This modification is beneficial, as the conductive flexible film (e.g., flexible strip 315) has an encapsulation layer to protect the electronic components on the film which allows for maintaining a reliable connection to the wearable sensors (see paragraphs [0069-0071] by Davis).
Regarding claim 44, Davis teaches wherein the electronics comprise thin-film components (the electrical components are integrated on the flexible strip 315 (e.g., conductive film) [0070-0071]).
Regarding claim 45, Brownhill in view of Brockway, Bhavaraju, Cheng, and Davis suggests the system of claim 43. Davis teaches an alternate embodiment, wherein the electronics comprise wireless components (the electronics of the flexible strip 715 (e.g., conductive film) may be in wireless communication with a display 730 and/or the body sensors 750 [0095]).
The Examiner respectfully submits that each of the embodiments are drawn to conductive flexible films comprising electronics (the electronics of the flexible strip 315 and the electronics of the flexible strip 715 [0070-0071, 0095]). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine each of the embodiments to arrive at an overall device similar to the one claimed. Specifically, the combination of the embodiments will result in the electronics having wireless components (the electronics of the flexible strip 715 (e.g., conductive film) may be in wireless communication with a display 730 and/or the body sensors 750 [0095]). The advantage of such modification will provide the conductive flexible film with electronics that can wirelessly communicate with a display and/or body sensors (see paragraph [0095] by Davis).
Regarding claim 46, Davis teaches wherein the thin film components comprises antenna or Bluetooth (the electronics of the flexible strip 715 (e.g., conductive film) may be in wireless communication with a display 730 and/or the body sensors 750 [0095]. The Examiner respectfully submits that that the wireless communication would inherently require the use of antennas or Bluetooth technology [0095]).
Allowable Subject Matter
15. Claims 14 and 65 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the 101 and 112 rejections noted above was overcome.
16. Although claims 32-33, 47-49, and 66-69 contain allowable subject matter, claims 32-33, 47-49, and 66-69 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The Examiner has provided an explanation below that describes how the prior art of record fails to suggest the corresponding claims.
Regarding claim 14, Brownhill in view of Brockway suggests the animal model system of claim 13. Brownhill teaches wherein the injury comprises a muscle injury (the compression apparatus 402 comprises one or more sensors 406 (e.g., electromyography sensors) that are configured to detect muscle activity at the injured or wounded site of the animal’s body [0035-0036, 0258, 0276, 0297]. Specifically, the processor 404 may monitor the electromyography (EMG) data from the sensors 406 to determine if the injured or wounded location is healing [0258, 0276, 0297]).
However, Brownhill and Brockway do not explicitly teach wherein the injury comprises biopsy punch-induced masseter muscle injury, wherein the animal model is a craniofacial VML model.
The Examiner further concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitations. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements.
Claim 65 is considered to contain allowable subject matter, as claim 65 depends upon claim 14.
Regarding claim 32, Bhavaraju teaches a method of identifying therapeutic agent ([abstract]), the method comprising:
contacting a skin-wearable sensor with a subject's skin (the monitoring sensor platform 330 may be adhered or coupled to the patient’s body 300 [0023, 0025, 0046]);
acquiring signals from the skin-wearable sensor on the subject's skin (the monitoring sensor platform 330 is configured to obtain physiological signals (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, etc.) from the patient’s body 300 [0025-0026, 0029, 0046]);
administering an agent of interest to the subject (a medication or agent is administered to the patient [0051, 0059]);
acquiring signals from the skin-wearable sensor on the subject's skin following administration of the agent of interest (the monitoring sensor platform 330 is configured to obtain physiological signals (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, etc.) after the administration of the medication or agent [0026, 0029, 0046, 0059]);
comparing the signals of the subject before and after administration of the agent of interest (the comparator is configured to compare the physiological signals which were obtain before and after the administration of the medication or agent [0026, 0051, 0059]); and
analyze a result from the comparison step to assess a physiological parameter of the subject (the comparator is configured to compare the physiological signals which were obtain before and after the administration of the medication or agent [0026, 0051, 0059-0060]. Specifically, the comparator can determine if the medication or agent has produced a desired or non-desired physiological outcome (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, etc.) [0026, 0029, 0051, 0059]);
wherein the physiological parameter provides an indication that the agent of interest is a therapeutic agent (the comparator is configured to compare the physiological signals which were obtain before and after the administration of the medication or agent [0026, 0051, 0059]. Specifically, the comparator can determine if the medication or agent has produced a desired or non-desired physiological outcome (e.g., heart rate, blood pressure, etc.) [0026, 0029, 0051, 0059]. The Examiner respectfully submits that the medication or agent is determined to have a therapeutic effect if the desired physiological outcome is achieved [0059]).
Bhavaraju does not explicitly teach the skin-wearable sensor to be a skin-wearable printed sensor;
and wherein the skin-wearable printed sensor is applied to an animal subject’s skin; and
wherein the animal subject is a craniofacial VML animal model.
The prior art by Brownhill is analogous to Bhavaraju, as they both teach the administration of agents and the sensing of physiological parameters ([0035-0037, 0212])
Brownhill teaches the skin-wearable sensor to be a skin-wearable printed sensor (the sensors 406 may be printed onto the fabric of the garment or compression apparatus 402 which is applied to animal’s body [0036-0037, 0249, 0276, FIG. 4A]);
and wherein the skin-wearable printed sensor is applied to an animal subject’s skin (the sensors 406 may be printed onto the fabric of the garment or compression apparatus 402 which is applied to animal’s body [0036-0037, 0249, 0276, FIG. 4A]).
However, Bhavaraju and Brownhill do not explicitly teach wherein the animal subject is a craniofacial VML animal model.
The Examiner further concludes that the prior art does not provide the requisite teaching, suggestion, and motivation to suggest the recited claim limitations. Therefore, the inventive features recited in the pending claims are not disclosed by the prior art and are not suggested by an obvious combination of the most analogous prior art elements.
Claims 33, 47-49, and 66-69 are considered to contain allowable subject matter, as claims 33, 47-49, and 66-69 depend upon claim 32.
Statement on Communication via Internet
17. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of the applicant. All Internet communications between USPTO employees and applicants must be made using USPTO tools.
Without a written authorization by applicant in place, the USPTO will not respond via Internet email to any Internet correspondence which contains information subject to the confidentiality requirement as set forth in 35 U.S.C. 122. A paper copy of such correspondence and response will be placed in the appropriate patent application. Except for correspondence that only sets up an interview time, all correspondence between the Office and the applicant including applicant's representative must be placed in the appropriate patent application. If an email contains any information beyond scheduling an interview such as an interview agenda or authorization, it must be placed in the application.
For those applications where applicant wishes to communicate with the examiner via Internet communications, e.g., email or video conferencing tools, the following is a sample authorization form which may be used by applicant:
"Recognizing that Internet communications are not secure, I hereby authorize the USPTO to communicate with the undersigned and practitioners in accordance with 37 CFR 1.33 and 37 CFR 1.34 concerning any subject matter of this application by video conferencing, instant messaging, or electronic mail. I understand that a copy of these communications will be made of record in the application file."
Please refer to MPEP 502.03 for guidance on Communications via Internet.
Conclusion
18. 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 JOSHUA BRENDON SOLOMON whose telephone number is (571)270-7208. The examiner can normally be reached on 7:30am -4:30pm.
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, Niketa Patel can be reached on (571)272-4156. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/J.B.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3792
/William J Levicky/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights