DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9, filed 2 July 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 11 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The callout of claims 5 & 10-11 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 2 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the arguments pertaining to the rejection of claims 1 and 2, examiner respectfully disagrees tissue ablation does not affect the users ability to taste. Examiner asserts that resistive ablation reduces the ability of the user to taste food by destroying taste buds. This could aid those who cannot eat overly flavorful foods (i.e. spicy, sour, or sweet foods), consume them by dulling their ability to taste the flavor that hindered them before.
Applicant's arguments filed 2 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the arguments pertaining to the rejection of claims 1 and 2, examiner respectfully disagrees that Van Bruggen is non-analogous art due to being a permanent anchored implant. In response to applicant's argument that Van Bruggen is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Examiner points out that paragraph 68 of Van Bruggen also proposes a temporary implant design as well.
Applicant's arguments filed 2 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the arguments pertaining to the rejection of claims 3 and 4, examiner respectfully disagrees that adding Danilov to pine is an unreasonable combination and that Danilov is not relevant to the case at hand. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In response to applicant's argument that Danilov is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, paragraph 51 of Danilov specifically mentions the use of an electro tactile device to stimulate, by electric current, the taste of the user which is what this current application is attempting to claim.
Applicant's arguments filed 2 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. With regards to the arguments pertaining to the rejection of claims 10 & 11, examiner respectfully disagrees that Kim is merely the calculation algorithm internal to the device because it includes the sensory information inputter (paragraph 21) which is described to collect various pieces of sensory information such as tactile information. Therefore, Kim does mention of a physical structure configured to receive judgement input from the user.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 & 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0090864 hereinafter Pines in view of US 2017/0197075 hereinafter Van Bruggen in further view of US 2015/0283384 hereinafter Williams.
In regard to claim 1: Pines teaches of an electric taste adjustment device configured to adjust taste through electrical stimulation of a human body, comprising:
a first electrode (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A Item 72);
a second electrode (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A Item 72); and
an electrical signal generator (Pines, Paragraph 71), wherein
the first electrode is configured to come into contact with an oral cavity of the human body (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A),
the electrical signal generator is configured to apply an electrical signal between the first electrode and the second electrode (Pines, Paragraph 71; Examiner interprets the pair of electrodes 72 to include a first and second electrode.).
Pines does not teach the second electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a mandibular base and a front of a neck of the human body, and the electric taste adjustment device is configured to present taste to the human body by applying the electrical signal to a taste organ of the human body using the first electrode and the second electrode.
Van Bruggen teaches the second electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a mandibular base and a front of a neck of the human body (Van Bruggen, Paragraph 67; Figure 1 Item 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the location of the second electrode taught in Van Bruggen to the system for electrical stimulation taught in Pines, the motivation being to allow for uses like resistive ablation has the known outcome of affecting taste perception.
Williams teaches the electric taste adjustment device is configured to present taste to the human body by applying the electrical signal to a taste organ of the human body using the first electrode and the second electrode (Williams, Paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the configuration of the taste adjustment device taught by Williams to the system for electrical stimulation taught by a modified Pines, the motivation being to enhance or reduce the ability of the user to taste.
In regards to Claim 2: Pines teaches of an electric taste adjustment device configured to adjust taste through electrical stimulation of a human body, comprising:
a first electrode (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A Item 72);
a second electrode (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A Item 72); and
an electrical signal generator (Pines, Paragraph 71), wherein
the first electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a dentilabial sulcus and a cheek of an upper mandible of the human body (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A; Examiner interprets the device described in Pines to be contact with the inner cheek of the user and positioned around the molar of the lower jaw.),
the electrical signal generator is configured to apply an electrical signal between the first electrode and the second electrode (Pines, Paragraph 71; Examiner interprets the pair of electrodes 72 to include a first and second electrode.).
Pines does not teach the second electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a mandibular base and a front of a neck of the human body, and the electric taste adjustment device is configured to present taste to the human body by applying the electrical signal to a taste organ of the human body using the first electrode and the second electrode.
Van Bruggen teaches the second electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a mandibular base and a front of a neck of the human body (Van Bruggen, Paragraph 67; Figure 1 Item 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the location of the second electrode taught in Van Bruggen to the system for electrical stimulation taught in Pines, the motivation being to allow for uses like resistive ablation has the known outcome of affecting taste perception.
Williams teaches the electric taste adjustment device is configured to present taste to the human body by applying the electrical signal to a taste organ of the human body using the first electrode and the second electrode (Williams, Paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the configuration of the taste adjustment device taught by Williams to the system for electrical stimulation taught by a modified Pines, the motivation being to enhance or reduce the ability of the user to taste.
Claim(s) 3 & 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0090864 hereinafter Pines in view of US 2017/0197075 hereinafter Van Bruggen in further view of US 2015/0283384 hereinafter Williams in furthest view of US 2006/0161218 hereinafter Danilov.
In regards to Claim 3: Pines teaches of an electric taste adjustment device configured to adjust taste through electrical stimulation of a human body, comprising:
a first electrode (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A Item 72);
a second electrode (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A Item 72);
an electrical signal generator (Pines, Paragraph 71); and
the first electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a mentolabial sulcus and a cheek of an upper mandible of the human body (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A; Examiner interprets the device described in Pines to be contact with the inner cheek of the user and positioned around the molar of the lower jaw.),
the electrical signal generator is configured to apply an electrical signal between the first electrode and the second electrode (Pines, Paragraph 71; Examiner interprets the pair of electrodes 72 to include a first and second electrode.),
Pines does not teach of a food container holding unit, the second electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a mandibular base and a front of a neck of the human body, the electric taste adjustment device is configured to present taste to the human body by applying the electrical signal to a taste organ of the human body using the first electrode and the second electrode, and the food container holding unit is configured to hold a food container.
Van Bruggen teaches the second electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a mandibular base and a front of a neck of the human body (Van Bruggen, Paragraph 67; Figure 1 Item 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the location of the second electrode taught in Van Bruggen to the system for electrical stimulation taught in Pines, the motivation being to allow for uses like resistive ablation which stimulates saliva and has the known outcome of affecting taste perception by facilitating salivary dilution and delivery of food particles to the taste buds.
Williams teaches the electric taste adjustment device is configured to present taste to the human body by applying the electrical signal to a taste organ of the human body using the first electrode and the second electrode (Williams, Paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the configuration of the taste adjustment device taught by Williams to the system for electrical stimulation taught by a modified Pines, the motivation being to enhance or reduce the ability of the user to taste.
Danilov teaches a food container holding unit and the food container holding unit is configured to hold a food container (Danilov, Paragraph 182; Examiner interprets the housing to be the food bottle and the food containing holding unit to be the cap and nipple).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the food container holding unit taught in Danilov to the system for electrical stimulation taught in Pines, the motivation being to provide a relatively compact and lightweight device that can easily be held in one hand.
In regards to Claim 4: Pines teaches of an electric taste adjustment device configured to adjust taste through electrical stimulation of a human body, comprising:
a first electrode (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A Item 72);
a second electrode (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A Item 72);
an electrical signal generator (Pines, Paragraph 71); and
the first electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a mentolabial sulcus and a cheek of an upper mandible of the human body (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A; Examiner interprets the device described in Pines to be contact with the inner cheek of the user and positioned around the molar of the lower jaw.),
the electrical signal generator is configured to apply an electrical signal between the first electrode and the second electrode (Pines, Paragraph 71; Examiner interprets the pair of electrodes 72 to include a first and second electrode),
Pines does not teach of a food container holding unit, the second electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a mandibular base and a front of a neck of the human body, the electric taste adjustment device is configured to present taste to the human body by applying the electrical signal to a taste organ of the human body using the first electrode and the second electrode, the food container holding unit is configured to hold a food container, and the food container holding unit are integrally configured.
Van Bruggen teaches the second electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a mandibular base and a front of a neck of the human body (Van Bruggen, Paragraph 67; Figure 1 Item 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the location of the second electrode taught in Van Bruggen to the system for electrical stimulation taught in Pines, the motivation being to allow for uses like resistive ablation which stimulates saliva and has the known outcome of affecting taste perception by facilitating salivary dilution and delivery of food particles to the taste buds.
Williams teaches the electric taste adjustment device is configured to present taste to the human body by applying the electrical signal to a taste organ of the human body using the first electrode and the second electrode (Williams, Paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the configuration of the taste adjustment device taught by Williams to the system for electrical stimulation taught by a modified Pines, the motivation being to enhance or reduce the ability of the user to taste.
Danilov teaches a food container holding unit the food container holding unit is configured to hold a food container (Danilov, Paragraph 182; Examiner interprets the housing to be the food bottle and the food containing holding unit to be the cap and nipple)., and the food container holding unit are integrally configured (Danilov, Paragraph 182; Examiner interprets the cap, nipple, and food bottle to be integrally linked together).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the food container holding unit taught in Danilov to the system for electrical stimulation taught in Pines, the motivation being to provide a relatively compact and lightweight device that can easily be held in one hand.
Claim(s) 5 & 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0090864 hereinafter Pines in view of US 2017/0197075 hereinafter Van Bruggen in further view of US 2015/0283384 hereinafter Williams in further view of US 2017/0021172 hereinafter Perez.
In regards to Claim 5: A modified Pines teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the electric taste adjustment device includes an approach detection device including a proximity sensor or contact sensor, the approach detection device is configured to detecting approach to the human body, and the electric signal generator is configured to adjust the electric signal by the approach detection device.
Perez teaches wherein the electric taste adjustment device includes an approach detection device including a proximity sensor or contact sensor (Perez, Paragraph 398; Examiner interprets the sensor described as a detection unit due to its ability to monitor the contact integrity), the approach detection device is configured to detecting approach to the human body (Perez, Paragraph 398),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the approach detection sensor taught in Perez to the system for electrical stimulation taught in Pines, the motivation being to make sure the electrodes are in proper contact with the skin prior to sending and receiving electrical signals.
Another embodiment of Perez teaches and the electric signal generator is configured to adjust the electric signal by the approach detection device (Perez, Paragraph 602; Examiner interprets a device that can be adjusted in relation to the intensity of the stimulation is capable of said adjustment in response to contact made by the electrode.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the adjustment of the electrical signal taught in Perez to the system for electrical stimulation taught in Pines, the motivation being to make sure the electrodes are in proper contact with the skin prior to sending and receiving electrical signals.
In regards to Claim 6: A modified Pines teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the electrical signal is adjustable in either or all of amplitude, frequency, waveform, intermittent time.
Perez teaches wherein the electrical signal is adjustable in either or all of amplitude, frequency, waveform, intermittent time (Perez, Paragraph 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the pulse amplitude adjustment taught in Perez to the system for electrical stimulation taught in Pines, the motivation being to provide a way to maintain constant current.
Claim(s) 7 & 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0090864 hereinafter Pines in view of US 2017/0197075 hereinafter Van Bruggen in further view of US 2015/0283384 hereinafter Williams in further view of US 2020/0121924 hereinafter Sama.
In regards to Claim 7: A modified Pines teaches all of Claim 1, but does not teach wherein the first electrode is an anode, and the second electrode is a cathode.
Sama teaches wherein the first electrode is an anode, and the second electrode is a cathode (Sama, Paragraphs 61 & 152; Figure 3A Item 132 & 133; Figure 3E Item 152A & 152B; Examiner interprets an electrode that has both an anode and cathode exists in both locations specified by 132-133 & 152A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the anode and cathode locations of Sama to the system for electrical stimulation taught in Pines, the motivation being to provide a proper reading of the taste experienced by the user.
In regards to Claim 8: A modified Pines teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the first electrode is a cathode, and the second electrode is an anode.
Sama teaches wherein the first electrode is a cathode, and the second electrode is an anode (Sama, Paragraphs 61 & 152; Figure 3A Item 132 & 133; Figure 3E Item 152A & 152B; Examiner interprets an electrode that has both an anode and cathode exists in both locations specified by 132-133 & 152A-B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the anode and cathode locations of Sama to the system for electrical stimulation taught in Pines, the motivation being to provide a proper reading of the taste experienced by the user.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0090864 hereinafter Pines in view of US 2017/0197075 hereinafter Van Bruggen in further view of US 2015/0283384 hereinafter Williams in further view of US 2020/0121924 hereinafter Sama in furthest view of US 2017/0021172 hereinafter Perez.
In regards to Claim 9: a modified Pines teaches all of claim 1, but does not teach wherein the electrical signal is adjustable in either or all of amplitude, frequency, waveform, intermittent time, and the electrical signal is switchable between an anodic electrical stimulation state where the first electrode is an anode and the second electrode is a cathode, and a cathodic electrical stimulation state where the first electrode is a cathode and the second electrode is an anode.
Perez teaches the electrical signal is adjustable in either or all of amplitude, frequency, waveform, intermittent time (Perez, Paragraph 140).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the pulse amplitude adjustment taught in Perez to the system for electrical stimulation taught in Pines, the motivation being to provide a way to maintain constant current.
Sama teaches the electrical signal is switchable between an anodic electrical stimulation state where the first electrode is an anode and the second electrode is a cathode, and a cathodic electrical stimulation state where the first electrode is a cathode and the second electrode is an anode (Sama, Paragraphs 61 & 152; Figure 3A Item 132 & 133; Figure 3E Item 152A & 152B; Examiner interprets an electrode that has both an anode and cathode exists in both locations specified by 132-133 & 152A-B. Therefore the signal between the anode and the cathode can travel in both directions).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the anode and cathode locations of Sama to the system for electrical stimulation taught in Pines, the motivation being to provide a proper reading of the taste experienced by the user.
Claim(s) 10 & 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2005/0090864 hereinafter Pines in view of US 2017/0197075 hereinafter Van Bruggen in further view of US 2015/0283384 hereinafter Williams in further view of US 2021/0121656 hereinafter Kim.
In regards to Claim 10: Pines teaches of an electric taste adjustment device configured to adjust taste through electrical stimulation of a human body, comprising:
a first electrode (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A Item 72);
a second electrode (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A Item 72); and
an electrical signal generator (Pines, Paragraph 71), wherein
the first electrode is configured to come into contact with an oral cavity of the human body (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A; Examiner interprets the device described in Pines to be contact with the inner cheek of the user and positioned around the molar of the lower jaw.),
the electrical signal generator is configured to apply an electrical signal between the first electrode and the second electrode (Pines, Paragraph 71; Examiner interprets the pair of electrodes 72 to include a first and second electrode.).
Pines does not teach the second electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a mandibular base and a front of a neck of the human body, the electric taste adjustment device is configured to present taste to the human body by applying the electrical signal to a taste organ of the human body using the first electrode and the second electrode, a taste judgement device including a push button switch or slider bar, and the taste judgement device is configured to receive an input for judging the taste presented.
Van Bruggen teaches the second electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a mandibular base and a front of a neck of the human body (Van Bruggen, Paragraph 67; Figure 1 Item 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the location of the second electrode taught in Van Bruggen to the system for electrical stimulation taught in Pines, the motivation being to allow for uses like resistive ablation which stimulates saliva and has the known outcome of affecting taste perception by facilitating salivary dilution and delivery of food particles to the taste buds.
Williams teaches the electric taste adjustment device is configured to present taste to the human body by applying the electrical signal to a taste organ of the human body using the first electrode and the second electrode (Williams, Paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the configuration of the taste adjustment device taught by Williams to the system for electrical stimulation taught by a modified Pines, the motivation being to enhance or reduce the ability of the user to taste.
Kim teaches of the taste judgement device including a push button switch or a slider bar (Kim, Paragraphs 21 & 31; Figure 1 Item 100; Examiner interprets the sensory information inputter to be a button) and the taste judgement device being configured to receive an input for judging the taste presented (Kim, Paragraph 11, 12, & 21; Figure 1 Item 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add taste judgement device taught by Kim to the system for electrical stimulation taught by a modified Pines, the motivation being to provide feedback on whether or not the device is having the effect it should be.
In regards to Claim 11: Pines teaches of an electric taste adjustment device configured to adjust taste through electrical stimulation of a human body, comprising:
a first electrode (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A Item 72);
a second electrode (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A Item 72); and
an electrical signal generator (Pines, Paragraph 71), wherein
the first electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a dentilabial sulcus and a cheek of an upper mandible of the human body (Pines, Paragraph 78; Figure 6A; Examiner interprets the device described in Pines to be contact with the inner cheek of the user and positioned around the molar of the lower jaw.),
the electrical signal generator is configured to apply an electrical signal between the first electrode and the second electrode (Pines, Paragraph 71; Examiner interprets the pair of electrodes 72 to include a first and second electrode.).
Pines does not teach the second electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a mandibular base and a front of a neck of the human body, the electric taste adjustment device is configured to present taste to the human body by applying the electrical signal to a taste organ of the human body using the first electrode and the second electrode, a taste judgement device, and the taste judgement device is configured to receive an input for judging the taste presented.
Van Bruggen teaches the second electrode is configured to come into contact with either or all of a mandibular base and a front of a neck of the human body (Van Bruggen, Paragraph 67; Figure 1 Item 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the location of the second electrode taught in Van Bruggen to the system for electrical stimulation taught in Pines, the motivation being to allow for uses like resistive ablation which stimulates saliva and has the known outcome of affecting taste perception by facilitating salivary dilution and delivery of food particles to the taste buds.
Williams teaches the electric taste adjustment device is configured to present taste to the human body by applying the electrical signal to a taste organ of the human body using the first electrode and the second electrode (Williams, Paragraph 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the configuration of the taste adjustment device taught by Williams to the system for electrical stimulation taught by a modified Pines, the motivation being to enhance or reduce the ability of the user to taste.
Kim teaches of the taste judgement device and the taste judgement device being configured to receive an input for judging the taste presented (Kim, Paragraph 11, 12, & 21; Figure 1 Item 100).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add taste judgement device taught by Kim to the system for electrical stimulation taught by a modified Pines, the motivation being to provide feedback on whether or not the device is having the effect it should be.
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 NOE R DIETZ whose telephone number is (571)272-1135. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alexander Valvis can be reached at (571)-272-4233. 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.
/N.R.D./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791 /ALEX M VALVIS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights