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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “wherein the transducer array and amplifier electronics and cabling and wiring connecting the transducer array and amplifier electronics weigh less than 10kg together or weigh less than 1 gram per square millimeter of acoustic emission surface area of the transducer array.” Claim 9, the parent of claim 11, additionally recites “wherein the ultrasonic system has a mass of 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array.” While the wording differs slightly, it is unclear whether “…weigh less than 1 gram per square millimeter of acoustic emission surface area of the transducer array” is meant to be a repetition of “wherein the ultrasonic system has a mass of 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array” from claim 9, or if there is some distinction between the two. It is also unclear whether the system of claim 11 must fulfill both criteria, i.e. must weigh less than 10kg together and also have a mass of 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array. For the purposes of further examination, this claim will be interpreted to mean that the claimed system must weigh less than 10kg together and also have a mass of 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mallay, Matthew G., Thomas G. Landry, and Jeremy A. Brown. "An 8 mm endoscopic histotripsy array with integrated high-resolution ultrasound imaging." Ultrasonics 139 (2024): 107275 (hereinafter “Mallay”).
Regarding claim 1: Mallay discloses a miniature device comprising: a transducer array for performing histotripsy comprising transducer elements, wherein the transducer elements are disposed on the transducer array such that the separation between neighboring transducer elements of the transducer elements in both elevation and azimuth is no more than one wavelength of the ultrasonic center frequency of the transducer array (Abstract; 2.1. Transducer design and fabrication; 20 um kerfs for a 5 Mhz array where annular array elements are spaced apart in both elevation and azimuth). While Mallay is silent on the weight (“mass”) of the device, Mallay does disclose that the goal is to provide a miniaturized transducer with a small form-factor to reduce craniotomy size, produce small ablation margins, and avoid over-resection of tissue (Introduction).
It is noted that the instant disclosure provides no evidence of criticality, unexpected result, nor even a description of how the particular mass of 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array is achieved (i.e. no disclosure of the materials or construction that would lead to the claimed mass). It is further noted that the given ratio of a mass of 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array is generally know and conventional in the field of ultrasound transducers as evidenced by Zonare Zs3 (pdf.medicalexpo.com/pdf/mindray-north-america/zs3-spec-sheet/70629-156177.html; where the Zs3 was released in Oct. 2012), Hologic (www.hologic.com/sites/default/files/2020_11/PM-EC-094-RevA-SuperSonic-MACH-30-sw-V2-System-Specifications-USA.pdf; Sep. 2020), and VScan (vscan.rocks/data/pdf/Vscan_Air_Product_Datasheet.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOopJN0YOVorafOHZmz07XFnCIkuHbWosqDCv7rHmY4cYWQc75wmd; Jan. 2021) which all disclose a range of ultrasound devices having a mass (weight) of 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array (footprint).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to optimize the size and weight (“mass”) of the device of Mallay in order to reduce craniotomy size, produce small ablation margins, and avoid over-resection of tissue, including the use of a conventionally known mass (weight) to surface area ratio such as 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 3: Mallay discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the separation between neighboring transducer elements of the transducer elements in both elevation and azimuth is no more than half of the wavelength of the ultrasonic center frequency of the transducer array (20 um kerfs for a 5 Mhz array where annular array elements are spaced apart in both elevation and azimuth).
Regarding claim 6: Mallay discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the transducer array uses the transducer elements to generate a steered acoustic beam for histotripsy (Abstract; Conclusion).
Claim(s) 1-4, 7, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2024/0225602 A1, Jul. 11, 2024) (hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding claim 1: Zhang discloses a device comprising: a transducer array comprising transducer elements, wherein the transducer elements are disposed on the transducer array such that the separation between neighboring transducer elements of the transducer elements in both elevation and azimuth is no more than one wavelength of the ultrasonic center frequency of the transducer array ([0061]). Zhang is silent on the specific the device has a mass (it is noted that the instant disclosure only uses the term “weight” and does not use the term “mass”) of 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array.
However, Zhang discloses that the device should be “ultraportable”, meaning that it can be handheld and easily transported by a single user ([0032]). To this end, Zhang discloses that the device should be optimized for light weight and a small form-factor so that it be used for its intended purpose of ultra-portability ([0040]). Based on these teachings of Zhang, weight and form-factor are considered to be results-effective variables. Additionally, ultrasound probes (devices comprising transducers) which are similar to that disclosed by Zhang are commonly known in the art to have a mass (weight) of 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array (footprint) as evidenced by Zonare Zs3 (pdf.medicalexpo.com/pdf/mindray-north-america/zs3-spec-sheet/70629-156177.html; where the Zs3 was released in Oct. 2012), Hologic (www.hologic.com/sites/default/files/2020_11/PM-EC-094-RevA-SuperSonic-MACH-30-sw-V2-System-Specifications-USA.pdf; Sep. 2020), and VScan (vscan.rocks/data/pdf/Vscan_Air_Product_Datasheet.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOopJN0YOVorafOHZmz07XFnCIkuHbWosqDCv7rHmY4cYWQc75wmd; Jan. 2021) which all disclose a range of ultrasound devices having a mass (weight) of 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array (footprint).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the device of Zhang with a mass (weight) of 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array (footprint) in order to optimize the weight and form-factor such that it is “ultra-portable” as disclosed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Additionally, the limitation “for performing histotripsy” is the intended use of the device. Applicant is reminded that a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, an imaging transducer as disclosed by Zhang can be used for monitoring as part of a histotripsy procedure (“for performing histotripsy”), or for directly applying histotripsy energy (as evidenced by Lin, Kuang-Wei, et al. "Histotripsy lesion formation using an ultrasound imaging probe enabled by a low-frequency pump transducer." Ultrasound in medicine & biology 41.8 (2015): 2148-2160).
Regarding claims 2 and 4: It is noted that “uses translation steering” and “uses translation and rotation steering” are not structural limitations of the claimed array. The array of Zhang includes both a phased section and a linear section ([0028], [0046], [0058]-[0059]), and is capable of “us[ing] translation steering” and “us[ing] translation and rotation steering” as evidenced by at least fig. 4 of Lee et al. (Lee, Wonseok, and Yongrae Roh. "Ultrasonic transducers for medical diagnostic imaging." Biomedical engineering letters 7.2 (2017): 91-97).
Regarding claim 3: Zhang discloses the device of claim 1, wherein the separation between neighboring transducer elements of the transducer elements in both elevation and azimuth is no more than half of the wavelength of the ultrasonic center frequency of the transducer array (fig. 15, [0150]-[0151] – at least one embodiment has same-sized/width elements, [0061] – elements may have the same pitch regardless which is λ/2, where pitch is the center-to-center distance between elements and same-sized elements with the same pitch would therefore have the same separation).
Regarding claim 7: Zhang discloses the device of claim 1, wherein an imager of the transducer array comprises at least one group of the transducer elements arranged in a M:N form, wherein N is a number of transducer elements across either the width or the height of the transducer array and wherein M is at least 1 (figs. 3, 4, and 15).
Regarding claim 8: Zhang discloses the device of claim 1, further comprising at least one micro-lens ([0046], lenses 350 and 351).
Claim(s) 5 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2024/0225602 A1, Jul. 11, 2024) (hereinafter “Zhang”) as applied to claims 1 and 9 above and further in view of Hutchinson et al. (US 6,135,971, Oct. 24, 2000) (hereinafter “Hutchinson”).
Regarding claims 5 and 18: Zhang discloses the device of claim 1 and system of claim 9, wherein the pitch between neighboring transducer elements of the transducer elements is different in elevation than in azimuth (figs. 3 and 4 – pitch of the elements is different in elevation and azimuth due to the different element sizes). While Zhang discloses that a variety of element pitches may be used based on the operation frequencies ([0061]-[0062]), where pitch (center-to-center spacing) includes kerf (gap or separation between elements), Zhang does not explicitly disclose that the separation between neighboring elements is no more than two thirds of a wavelength of the ultrasonic center frequency of the transducer array.
Hutchinson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a 2D matrix array (fig. 2) with spacing that may be aperiodic in one dimension or two (i.e. elevation and/or azimuth; figs. 2 and 2a) where the separation between the elements may be non-uniform (column 3, lines 12-18; column 7, line 65 – column 8, line 8), where the spacings/element separation (pitch and kerf) are adjusted in order to optimize the array to reduce grating lobes (column 8, lines 40-51) because the spacings/element separation (pitch and kerf) are results-effective variables for preventing/reducing grating lobes (column 6, line 65 – column 7, line 25).
In the absence of any evidence of criticality or unexpected result, it would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the spacing/separation (pitch and kerf) of the array of Zhang, including a separation of no more than two-thirds of the wavelength, as taught by Hutchinson in order to reduce grating lobes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12, 14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duryea et al. (US 2024/0139552 A1, May 2, 2024) (hereinafter “Duryea”) in view of Hutchinson et al. (US 6,135,971, Oct. 24, 2000) (hereinafter “Hutchinson”).
Regarding claim 9: Duryea discloses an ultrasonic system comprising: a transducer array comprising transducer elements ([0174]); and amplifier electronics for driving the transducer array ([0173]-[0179], [0225]).
Duryea is silent on the elements being disposed such that the separation between neighboring transducer elements of the transducer elements in both elevation and azimuth is no more than one wavelength of the ultrasonic center frequency of the transducer array.
Hutchinson, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that transducer element spacings/element separation (pitch and kerf) may be adjusted in order to optimize the array to reduce grating lobes (column 8, lines 40-51) because the spacings/element separation (pitch and kerf) are results-effective variables for preventing/reducing grating lobes (column 6, line 65 – column 7, line 25).
In the absence of any evidence of criticality or unexpected result, it would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the spacing/separation (pitch and kerf) of the array of Duryea, including a separation of no more than one wavelength, as taught by Hutchinson in order to reduce grating lobes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Duryea and Hutchinson are silent on the mass of the system.
It is noted that the instant disclosure provides no evidence of criticality, unexpected result, nor even a description of how the particular mass of 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array is achieved (i.e. no disclosure of the materials or construction that would lead to the claimed mass). It is further noted that the given ratio of a mass of 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array is generally know and conventional in the field of ultrasound transducers as evidenced by Zonare Zs3 (pdf.medicalexpo.com/pdf/mindray-north-america/zs3-spec-sheet/70629-156177.html; where the Zs3 was released in Oct. 2012), Hologic (www.hologic.com/sites/default/files/2020_11/PM-EC-094-RevA-SuperSonic-MACH-30-sw-V2-System-Specifications-USA.pdf; Sep. 2020), and VScan (vscan.rocks/data/pdf/Vscan_Air_Product_Datasheet.pdf?srsltid=AfmBOopJN0YOVorafOHZmz07XFnCIkuHbWosqDCv7rHmY4cYWQc75wmd; Jan. 2021) which all disclose a range of ultrasound devices having a mass (weight) of 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array (footprint).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to optimize the size and weight (“mass”) of the system of Duryea and Hutchinson in order to reduce the weight of the system to provide easier handling to a user, including the use of a conventionally known mass (weight) to surface area ratio such as 1 gram or less per square millimeter of surface area of the transducer array, since it has been held by the courts that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device, and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984).
Regarding claim 10: Duryea as modified by Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 9, further comprising an imaging device, wherein the imaging device is a magnetic resonance imager or an ultrasound imager ([0100], [0184]).
Regarding claim 12: Duryea as modified by Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 9, wherein gel pad coupling, water bath, or direct surface contact with gel is used to couple the transducer array to a surface ([0248]-[0249]).
Regarding claim 14: Duryea as modified by Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the transducer array is used to generate an acoustic beam for histotripsy ([0037], [0078]).
Regarding claim 16: Duryea as modified by Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 9. Hutchinson further teaches that transducer element spacings/element separation (pitch and kerf) may be adjusted in order to optimize the array to reduce grating lobes (column 8, lines 40-51) because the spacings/element separation (pitch and kerf) are results-effective variables for preventing/reducing grating lobes (column 6, line 65 – column 7, line 25).
In the absence of any evidence of criticality or unexpected result, it would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the spacing/separation (pitch and kerf) of the array of Duryea and Hutchinson, including a separation of no more than half of the wavelength, as taught by Hutchinson in order to reduce grating lobes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 17: Duryea as modified by Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the transducer array uses translation and rotation steering (figs. 6-8).
Regarding claim 18: Duryea as modified by Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 9. Hutchinson further teaches a 2D matrix array (fig. 2) with spacing that may be aperiodic in one dimension or two (i.e. elevation and/or azimuth; figs. 2 and 2a) where the separation between the elements may be non-uniform (column 3, lines 12-18; column 7, line 65 – column 8, line 8), where the spacings/element separation (pitch and kerf) are adjusted in order to optimize the array to reduce grating lobes (column 8, lines 40-51) because the spacings/element separation (pitch and kerf) are results-effective variables for preventing/reducing grating lobes (column 6, line 65 – column 7, line 25).
In the absence of any evidence of criticality or unexpected result, it would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to optimize the spacing/separation (pitch and kerf) of the array of Duryea and Hutchinson, including a separation of no more than two-thirds of the wavelength, as taught by Hutchinson in order to reduce grating lobes, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Regarding claim 19: Duryea as modified by Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 9. The limitation “wherein the transducer array of the ultrasonic system generates an acoustic beam that causes generation of a bubble cloud behind or in back of a target area” is not a structural limitation of the system and is therefore considered to be the intended use of the system. The system of Duryea is capable of generating a bubble cloud in multiple locations of a target region ([0023], [0050]). Therefore, Duryea would be capable of performing the claimed function.
Regarding claim 20: Duryea as modified by Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 9, wherein the transducer array is positioned through robotic manipulation ([0037], [0086]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duryea and Hutchinson as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Rakic et al. (US 2023/0240792 A1, Aug. 3, 2023) (hereinafter “Rakic”).
Regarding claim 11: Duryea as modified by Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 9, but is silent on wherein the transducer array and amplifier electronics and cabling and wiring connecting the transducer array and amplifier electronics (i.e. treatment subsystem – [0225]) weigh less than 10kg together.
Rakic, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a histotripsy system comprising a treatment head and electronics ([0025]) which, together, can weigh approximately ([0026], [0030]; where 15lbs is less than 10kg). Rakic teaches that even 15lbs may be difficult for the user to manipulate ([0030]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the transducer array and amplifier electronics and cabling and wiring connecting the transducer array and amplifier electronics to weigh less than 10kg together as taught by Rakic in order to allow the user to manage the weight of the treatment sub-system, in view of the teachings of Rakic that 15lbs may be difficult to manipulate and where 10kg is significantly heavier (22lbs), such that anything heavier than 10kg may be unmanageable to the user.
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Duryea and Hutchinson as applied to claims 9 and 14 above, and further in view of Taffler (US 2020/0055085 A1, Feb. 20, 2020) (hereinafter “Taffler”).
Regarding claim 13: Duryea as modified by Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 9, including a transducer array both therapy and imaging elements ([0098]) but is silent on a sub-system that adjusts the drive amplitude on individual ones of the transducer elements or sub-groups of the transducer elements and turns off completely individual ones of the transducer elements or sub-groups of the transducer elements.
Taffler, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an integrated imaging and therapy transducer array (fig. 3) where the drive amplitude (power level) to individual ones of the transducer elements or sub-groups of the transducer elements ([0080] - transmit elements 312 are individual elements are sub-groups of the total transducer elements, [0094], [0100] – power is transmitted at different levels to the transmit elements in order to apply therapy or perform imaging) where the controller also has the ability to vary, modulate or turn off the power to each individual element in order to correct for manufacturing variability, coupling inhomogeneity or underlying structure occlusions ([0105]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Duryea and Hutchinson by including a sub-system that adjusts the drive amplitude on individual ones of the transducer elements or sub-groups of the transducer elements and turns off completely individual ones of the transducer elements or sub-groups of the transducer elements as taught by Taffler in order to achieve the benefits of imaging and therapy using the same transducer array without causing harm to the patient, as well as the ability to correct for manufacturing variability, coupling inhomogeneity or underlying structure occlusions in order to provide consistent and correct results.
Regarding claim 15: Duryea as modified by Hutchinson discloses the system of claim 14, including a transducer array both therapy and imaging elements ([0098]) but is silent on how imaging and therapy are performed using the single transducer array, such as wherein the transducer array is used as an imager during histotripsy by alternating the mode of operation of the ultrasonic system between therapy and imaging modes.
Taffler, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an integrated imaging and therapy transducer array (fig. 3) where imaging and therapy are performed by alternating a mode of operation between therapy and imaging modes ([0080], [0092], [0094], [0100]). Taffler further teaches that this approach improves transducer frame rate ([0100])
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the system of Duryea and Hutchinson in the manner taught by Taffler by performing alternating imaging and therapy modes in order to achieve an improved frame rate in view of the further teachings of Taffler.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejections of all pending claims, filed 10/14/2025, have been fully considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment.
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 CAROLYN A PEHLKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3484. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm (Central Time), Monday - Friday.
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, Chris Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/CAROLYN A PEHLKE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799