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 Amendment
The amendment filed 07/10/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 have been amended, and new claims 18-20 have been added. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application, with claims 6-17 having been withdrawn from consideration. Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/23/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Gomez does not qualify as valid prior art according to 35 USC 102(b) because the inventor, Guillermo Rus Carlborg, is one of the authors of Gomez and applicant has submitted a Declaration of Guillermo Rus Calborg under 37 C.F.R. § 1.130 affirming this position. Applicant argues Gomez represents a disclosure made one year or less before the effective filing date of the present disclosure.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. While the Declaration is sufficient in establishing that the inventor invented the subject matter of the disclosure (reference Gomez) which is relied upon for the rejection of the claims and in providing an explanation of the other authors in Gomez, Applicant has not provided a translation of the certified copy of the foreign application. Because the Applicant has not provided us a translation of the foreign application, ESP202130760 filed 08/04/2021 to which the application claims priority to, Applicant cannot rely on the 08/04/2021 date. Therefore, the current effective filing date is 08/03/2022, claiming domestic benefit from 371 application PCT/ES2022/070521 filed 08/03/2022.
Accordingly, because reference Gomez was published 04/02/2021, it qualifies as prior art as it was published more than one year before the effective filing date of 08/03/2022. To rely on the earlier 08/04/2021 date, a translation of the certified copy of the foreign application is required. See MPEP § 213.04, 35 U.S.C. 119(b)(3), 37 CFR 1.55(g)(3) and (4), and MPEP § 215 and 216.
Priority
Applicant cannot rely upon the certified copy of the foreign priority application to overcome this rejection (i.e., Rus Calborg in view of Gomez) because a translation of said application has not been made of record in accordance with 37 CFR 1.55. When an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, the translation must be that of the certified copy (of the foreign application as filed) submitted together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate. See MPEP §§ 215 and 216.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rus Calborg (US20180214913) in view of Gomez (“Experimental Evidence of Generation and Reception…”). Gomez is cited in the IDS filed 03/27/2026.
Regarding claim 1, Rus Calborg teaches an ultrasonic receiver (4, 5) adapted to receive torsional waves coming from a specimen (Fig. 3, [0027], [0050-0051], [0061-0067]), characterized in that said ultrasonic receiver (4, 5) comprises:
a receiving ring (4a) manufactured from an acoustically conductive material (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0020], [0050-0051], wherein being configured to receive ultrasound waves implies the ring 4a is acoustically conductive, invention would otherwise be inoperable, [0081], “A first ring made from a plastic material, preferably PLA”, wherein plastic such as PLA is acoustically conductive);
a plurality of transducer elements (5) (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0027], [0051]); and
a support (4b) that supports the receiving ring (4a) (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0051], wherein figures 3, 5, and 7 show ring 4b acts as a support for receiving ring 4a).
However, Rus Calborg fails to teach wherein said receiving ring comprises a plurality of ring sections separated from one another and arranged around an axis of rotation of the ultrasonic receiver along a circumference; and each of the transducer elements acoustically connected to one of the ring sections.
In an analogous ultrasonic receiver field of endeavor, Gomez teaches such a feature. Gomez teaches an ultrasound receiver including four piezoelectric elements and each of them connected to a sectorized-anglewise ring (Pages 2-3, Section 2.1, Fig 1). As shown in figure 1 as reproduced below, Gomez teaches a receiving ring comprising a plurality of ring sections separated from one another and arranged around an axis of rotation of the receiver along a circumference, and each of the transducer elements (piezoelectric elements) acoustically connected to one of the ring sections.
PNG
media_image1.png
394
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rus Calborg to sectorize the receiving ring structure into a plurality of ring sections separated from one another, arranged around an axis of rotation of the receiver along a circumference, and each of the transducer elements acoustically connected to one of the ring sections as taught by Gomez (Fig. 1, Pages 2-3, Section 2.1). This configuration allows for the receiver to gather spatial information and to discriminate the origin of a received signal since the orientation of each receiver differs as recognized by Gomez (Page 2, Section 2.1). Gathering of spatial information and discriminating of an origin of the signal predictably facilitates a measure of anisotropy.
Regarding claim 2, Rus Calborg in view of Gomez teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 1.
Rus Calborg further teaches wherein the support (4b) comprises an annular base (4b) adapted to support the plurality of ring sections of the receiving ring (4a) and the plurality of transducer elements (5) (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0051] [0081-0082], [0084], wherein the receiving ring 4a comprises a plurality of ring sections as modified by Gomez earlier), and wherein:
the annular base (4b), the plurality of ring sections and the plurality of transducer elements (5) are arranged coaxially regarding the axis of rotation (e’) of the ultrasonic receiver (4, 5) (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0051-0052]);
the plurality of ring sections and the plurality of transducer elements (5) are arranged around the axis of rotation (e’) of the ultrasonic receiver (4, 5), along a circumference, said circumference being defined by the annular base (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0051], “the receiver of the transducer of the invention comprises two or more piezoelectric elements (5) located equidistant from one another and placed between two rings (4a and 4b)”); and
the plurality of transducer elements (5) is attached to the annular base (4b) and to the plurality of ring sections (4a), and arranged therebetween along the circumference defined by the annular base (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0084], “the electrodes are located in the attachment between the piezoelectric elements and the inner face of the rings”); such that the arrangement of the plurality of ring sections of the receiving ring (4a), the plurality of transducer elements and the annular base define a housing space substantially cylindrical and adapted to house an ultrasonic emitter (2) (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0041], “In the defined context, a first aspect of the invention consists of an emitter device (“emitter of the invention”) for emitting torsional ultrasonic waves”, [0052], “the emitter being located inside the rings”, [0058], [0069], “A casing which allows the emitter to remain located inside the receiver”).
Regarding claim 5, Rus Calborg in view of Gomez teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 2.
Rus Calborg further teaches wherein the annular base (4b) comprises non-electrically conductive material, and wherein at least one side (4a) of the plurality of ring sections is manufactured from biocompatible material and is suited for receiving torsional waves coming from the specimen when in contact with said specimen ([0050], [0051], “The rings are preferably made from a non-conducting material, more preferably a biocompatible material”, [0061-0069], [0073], [0081], “A first ring made from a plastic material, preferably PLA”, [0082], “A second ring made from a plastic material, preferably PLA”).
ALTERNATIVELY
Claims 1-2, 5, and 20 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rus Calborg ‘913 (US20180214913) in view of Rus Calborg ‘591 (WO2018172591; translation provided).
Regarding claim 1, Rus Calborg ‘913 teaches an ultrasonic receiver (4, 5) adapted to receive torsional waves coming from a specimen (Fig. 3, [0027], [0050-0051], [0061-0067]), characterized in that said ultrasonic receiver (4, 5) comprises:
a receiving ring (4a) manufactured from an acoustically conductive material (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0020], [0050-0051], wherein being configured to receive ultrasound waves implies the ring 4a is acoustically conductive, invention would otherwise be inoperable, [0081], “A first ring made from a plastic material, preferably PLA”, wherein plastic such as PLA is acoustically conductive);
a plurality of transducer elements (5) (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0027], [0051]); and
a support (4b) that supports the receiving ring (4a) (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0051], wherein figures 3, 5, and 7 show ring 4b acts as a support for receiving ring 4a).
However, Rus Calborg ‘913 fails to teach wherein said receiving ring comprises a plurality of ring sections separated from one another and arranged around an axis of rotation of the ultrasonic receiver along a circumference; and each of the transducer elements acoustically connected to one of the ring sections.
In an analogous ultrasonic receiver field of endeavor, Rus Calborg ‘591 teaches such a feature. Rus Calborg ‘591 teaches an ultrasonic device comprising a wave emitter and receiver (Figs. 1-4, [0084-0088]). Rus Calborg ‘591 teaches wherein a receiving ring may be sectorized or split into segments comprising a plurality of ring sections separated from one another and arranged around an axis of rotation of the receiver along a circumference (Fig. 4, [0087]). Moreover, Rus Calborg ‘591 teaches wherein each of the ring sections (C) comprises at least one piezoelectric element (Pz) connected thereto (Fig. 4, [0087]). Figure 4 of Rus Calborg ‘591 is reproduced below.
PNG
media_image2.png
174
348
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rus Calborg ‘913 to sectorize the receiving ring structure into a plurality of ring sections separated from one another, arranged around an axis of rotation of the receiver along a circumference, and each of the piezoelectric transducer elements acoustically connected to one of the ring sections as taught by Rus Calborg ‘591 (Fig. 4, [0087]). This configuration allows for the receiver or probe be more sensitive to three-dimensional heterogeneity of a specimen it is measuring as recognized by Rus Calborg ‘591 ([0087]).
Regarding claim 2, Rus Calborg ‘913 in view of Rus Calborg ‘591 teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 1.
Rus Calborg ‘913 further teaches wherein the support (4b) comprises an annular base (4b) adapted to support the plurality of ring sections of the receiving ring (4a) and the plurality of transducer elements (5) (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0051] [0081-0082], [0084], wherein the receiving ring 4a comprises a plurality of ring sections as modified by Gomez earlier), and wherein:
the annular base (4b), the plurality of ring sections and the plurality of transducer elements (5) are arranged coaxially regarding the axis of rotation (e’) of the ultrasonic receiver (4, 5) (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0051-0052]);
the plurality of ring sections and the plurality of transducer elements (5) are arranged around the axis of rotation (e’) of the ultrasonic receiver (4, 5), along a circumference, said circumference being defined by the annular base (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0051], “the receiver of the transducer of the invention comprises two or more piezoelectric elements (5) located equidistant from one another and placed between two rings (4a and 4b)”); and
the plurality of transducer elements (5) is attached to the annular base (4b) and to the plurality of ring sections (4a), and arranged therebetween along the circumference defined by the annular base (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0084], “the electrodes are located in the attachment between the piezoelectric elements and the inner face of the rings”); such that the arrangement of the plurality of ring sections of the receiving ring (4a), the plurality of transducer elements and the annular base define a housing space substantially cylindrical and adapted to house an ultrasonic emitter (2) (Figs. 3, 5, & 7, [0041], “In the defined context, a first aspect of the invention consists of an emitter device (“emitter of the invention”) for emitting torsional ultrasonic waves”, [0052], “the emitter being located inside the rings”, [0058], [0069], “A casing which allows the emitter to remain located inside the receiver”).
Regarding claim 5, Rus Calborg ‘913 in view of Rus Calborg ‘591 teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 2.
Rus Calborg ‘913 further teaches wherein the annular base (4b) comprises non-electrically conductive material, and wherein at least one side (4a) of the plurality of ring sections is manufactured from biocompatible material and is suited for receiving torsional waves coming from the specimen when in contact with said specimen ([0050], [0051], “The rings are preferably made from a non-conducting material, more preferably a biocompatible material”, [0061-0069], [0073], [0081], “A first ring made from a plastic material, preferably PLA”, [0082], “A second ring made from a plastic material, preferably PLA”).
Regarding claim 20, Rus Calborg ‘913 in view of Rus Calborg ‘591 teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 1.
However, Rus Calborg ‘913 fails to teach the invention comprising three ring sections and three transducer elements oriented respectively with respect to the longitudinal axis of the ultrasonic receiver at 0°, 90°, and one of the following angles: 45° or 225°.
In an analogous ultrasonic receiver field of endeavor, Rus Calborg ‘591 teaches such a feature. Rus Calborg ‘591 teaches an ultrasonic device comprising a wave emitter and receiver (Figs. 1-4, [0084-0088]). Rus Calborg ‘591 teaches wherein a receiving ring may be sectorized or split into segments comprising a plurality of ring sections separated from one another and arranged around an axis of rotation of the receiver along a circumference (Fig. 4, [0087]). Rus Calborg ‘591 shows in figure 4 that the three piezoelectric transducer elements (Pz) may be oriented substantially at 0°, 90°, and 225°. An annotated figure 4 is reproduced below for clarity.
PNG
media_image3.png
295
399
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rus Calborg ‘913 to orient the transducer elements and ring sectors in such a manner as taught by Rus Calborg ‘591 (Fig. 4, [0087]). The sectors and transducer elements angled or oriented in such a manner may allow measurement in three substantially different directions.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rus Calborg (US20180214913) in view of Gomez (“Experimental Evidence of Generation and Reception…”) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Sato (US20220257215).
Regarding claim 3, Rus Calborg in view of Gomez teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 2.
However, Rus Calborg fails to explicitly teach wherein each transducer element further comprises one or more connections suited for receiving electrical signals and for connection thereof to a measuring instrument, with said connection being direct or after amplification of the electrical signal received in connections with an amplifier.
In an analogous ultrasound transducer field of endeavor, Sato teaches such a feature. Sato teaches an ultrasound transducer (221) including a plurality of piezoelectric elements ([0025]). Sato teaches wherein the piezoelectric elements receive reflected ultrasound waves from a subject [e.g. a specimen], and convert the ultrasound into an electrical signal (echo signal) ([0025]). Sato teaches an ultrasound cable (31) [i.e. connection] receives the electrical signal and transmits it to an ultrasound imaging apparatus (3) [i.e. measuring instrument] ([0025]). Moreover, Sato teaches wherein the connection (31) is a direct connection to the ultrasound imaging apparatus (3) (Fig. 1, [0018]). Sato therefore teaches wherein each transducer element further comprises one or more connections (ultrasound cable 31) suited for receiving electrical signals and for connection thereof to a measuring instrument (ultrasound imaging apparatus 3), with said connection (31) being direct (Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rus Calborg to include a direct cable connection for connecting the piezoelectric elements to an ultrasound apparatus or the like as taught by Sato (Fig. 1, [0025]). The electrical signals generated by the piezoelectric elements may predictably be quantified and/or visualized (e.g. an ultrasound image) by an ultrasound imaging apparatus via the cable connection as recognized by Sato (0018], [0025]).
Regarding claim 4, Rus Calborg in view of Gomez and Sato teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 3.
However, Rus Calborg fails to explicitly teach wherein the annular base further comprises a plurality of slots for guiding the one or more connections of the plurality of transducer elements.
In an analogous ultrasonic receiver field of endeavor, Gomez teaches such a feature. Gomez teaches an ultrasound receiver including four piezoelectric elements (transducer elements) and each of them connected to a sectorized-anglewise ring (Pages 2-3, Section 2.1, Fig 1). As shown in figure 1 as reproduced below, Gomez teaches a receiver structure comprising an annular base in which there are a plurality of slots for guiding connections, i.e. positive and negative cables, of the receiver.
PNG
media_image1.png
394
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rus Calborg to include slots in the annular base for guiding connections of the receiver as taught by Gomez (Fig. 1, Pages 2-3, Section 2.1). The slots may predictably allow for positive and negative cables to be routed to respective terminals or electrodes of the piezoelectric transducer for operation as recognized by Gomez (Fig. 1).
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rus Calborg (US20180214913) in view of Gomez (“Experimental Evidence of Generation and Reception…”) and Sato (US20220257215) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Faris (“Experimental analysis and validation of ultrasonic torsional waves”).
Regarding claim 18, Rus Calborg in view of Gomez and Sato teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 3.
However, Rus Calborg fails to teaches wherein the annular base comprises a plurality of support platforms for the plurality of transducer elements, with at least two securing posts emerging from each of said platforms.
In an analogous torsional wave device field of endeavor, Faris teaches such a feature. Faris teaches a torsional wave elastography sensor design (Page 40, 3.1.3. “Anisotropic TWE sensor”, Fig. 3.2). Faris teaches wherein the lower element consists of a complete ring, e.g. an annular base, from which six columns (i.e., securing posts) emerge, e.g. from a support platform of the annular base/lower ring, to serve as lateral support for the upper parts (Page 40 3.1.3. “Anisotropic TWE sensor”). Faris teaches wherein the receivers or upper ring is separated into three sectors angled at 0°, 90°, and 225° (Page 99, Figure 6.3). Since Faris teaches six columns for supporting an upper ring separated into three sectors, an ordinarily skilled artisan would infer at least two columns for each sector and each support platform from which the columns emerge.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rus Calborg to include a plurality of support platforms with corresponding support columns emerging therefrom for the plurality of transducer elements as taught by Faris (Page 40, 3.1.3. “Anisotropic TWE sensor”, Fig. 3.2, Page 99, Figure 6.3). Rus Calborg in view of Gomez teaches wherein the plurality of transducer elements are connected to the ring sections/sectors. By including these columns as taught by Faris, the upper parts, i.e. the upper ring may predictably have lateral support provided by said columns as recognized by Faris (Page 40).
However, the combination noted above fails to teach wherein each post further comprises a plurality of slots for guiding the one or more connections of the plurality of transducer elements.
In an analogous ultrasonic receiver field of endeavor, Gomez teaches such a feature. Gomez teaches an ultrasound receiver including four piezoelectric elements and each of them connected to a sectorized-anglewise ring (Pages 2-3, Section 2.1, Fig 1). As shown in figure 1C as reproduced below (and its caption), Gomez teaches supporting structure for the piezoelectric transducer elements, the supporting structure including a plurality of slots for guiding positive and negative cable wiring toward the piezoelectric transducer elements (Fig 1C).
PNG
media_image1.png
394
435
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rus Calborg in view of Faris to further include a plurality of slots in the supporting structure for positive and negative cables as taught by Gomez (Fig. 1C). The plurality of slots allowing for routing of positive and negative cables may predictably provide voltage across electrodes of the transducer elements, thereby allowing operation of the transducer elements in a compact manner. Gomez’s teaching of including a plurality of slots in support structure leading toward the piezoelectric elements would predictably result in the addition of these slots to the support columns of Faris as these support columns similarly lead to the piezoelectric transducer elements.
Regarding claim 19, Rus Calborg in view of Gomez, Sato, and Faris teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 18.
Rus Calborg further teaches wherein each transducer element (5) comprises electrodes having connections independent from one another, said connections being suited for measuring therein an electrical signal obtained with an ultrasonic sensor by a measuring instrument ([0051], “each piezoelectric element is in contact with two electrodes of different charges, arranged perpendicular to the polarization of said piezoelectric elements”, [0050], “the invention relates to a transducer capable of generating a torsional ultrasonic pulse which propagates by going through the specimen, and it is capable of picking up the distorted pulse after it goes through the specimen”, [0072], “a computational model which is combined with an ‘inverse problem’ algorithm that receives as input the measurements of mechanical parameters”); and with said electrodes being connected to a side of the receiving ring (4a) with silver-conductive resin ([0054], “the faces of the rings coming into contact with the piezoelectric elements (inner faces) will be covered with a conductive silver resin, which will act most of the time as an electrode on the attachment faces between the piezoelectric elements and the rings, such that each ring will act independently as the anode and cathode”, [0085], “The piezoelectric elements and wiring are attached to the electrodes with a conductive silver resin”).
In claims 18 and 19 above, Gomez in the combination may alternatively be replaced with Rus Calborg ‘591.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rus Calborg (US20180214913) in view of Gomez (“Experimental Evidence of Generation and Reception…”) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Faris (“Experimental analysis and validation of ultrasonic torsional waves”).
Regarding claim 20, Rus Calborg in view of Gomez teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 1.
However, Rus Calborg fails to teach the invention comprising three ring sections and three transducer elements oriented respectively with respect to the longitudinal axis of the ultrasonic receiver at 0°, 90°, and one of the following angles: 45° or 225°.
In an analogous torsional wave device field of endeavor, Faris teaches such a feature. Faris teaches a torsional wave elastography sensor design (Page 40, 3.1.3. “Anisotropic TWE sensor”, Fig. 3.2). Faris teaches wherein the lower element consists of a complete ring, e.g. an annular base, from which six columns (i.e., securing posts) emerge, e.g. from a support platform of the annular base/lower ring, to serve as lateral support for the upper parts (Page 40 3.1.3. “Anisotropic TWE sensor”). Faris teaches wherein the receivers or upper ring is separated into three sectors angled at 0°, 90°, and 225° (Page 99, Figure 6.3). Moreover, Faris teaches wherein three slots are formed at the three angles/orientations for connection to respective piezoelectric elements (Page 40, 3.1.3, “Anisotropic TWE sensor”, “There are three slots arranged to form 0, 90 and 225 degrees…Each piezoelectric element is independently connected in an inner face slot using conductive silver resin”). Figure 6.3 shows wherein each of the three ring sector includes a respective piezoelectric transducer element (square).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rus Calborg to have the device include three ring sections with respective transducers arranged at 0, 90, and 225 degrees as taught by Faris (Page 40, 3.1.3, “Anisotropic TWE sensor” & Page 99, Figure 6.3). The sectors and transducer elements angled in such a manner may allow measurement of a direction parallel to a selected fiber direction, perpendicular to it, and an intermediate orientation as recognized by Faris (Page 40, 3.1.3, “Anisotropic TWE sensor”), thereby allowing for measurement of anisotropy.
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 TOMMY T LY whose telephone number is (571) 272-6404. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00pm-8:00pm eastern time.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/TOMMY T LY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/SERKAN AKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
