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 .
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.
Notice of Amendment
In response to the amendment(s) filed on 8/18/26, amended claim(s) 1-2 is/are acknowledged. The following new and/or reiterated ground(s) of rejection is/are set forth:
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “active implantable medical device,” in claim 1, which corresponds to “a cardiac rhythm monitor, a vital data monitor, an implantable pulse generator, an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator, a cardiac resynchronization device, a cardiac resynchronization device with a defibrillator, a glucose monitor, and a neurostimulator” (see claim 6 of the originally-filed claim set); “a sensing unit for sensing at least one diagnostic parameter of a human or animal patient,” in claim 1, which has no corresponding structure; “a data transfer interface for transferring data on the at least one diagnostic parameter sensed by the sensing unit to the remote data-monitoring device,” in claim 1, which has no corresponding structure; and “a remote data-monitoring device … configured to apply at least one post-processing function on the data received from the active implantable medical device for virtual programming of the active implantable medical device,” in claim 1, which has no corresponding structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For claim 1, the claim language “a sensing unit for sensing at least one diagnostic parameter of a human or animal patient” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant had possession of the claimed since an applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991). However, those evidentiary bars are not met with the current written description. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
For claim 1, the claim language “a data transfer interface for transferring data on the at least one diagnostic parameter sensed by the sensing unit to the remote data-monitoring device” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant had possession of the claimed since an applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991). However, those evidentiary bars are not met with the current written description. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
For claim 1, the claim language “a remote data-monitoring device … configured to apply at least one post-processing function on the data received from the active implantable medical device for virtual programming of the active implantable medical device” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, there is a lack of evidence that Applicant had possession of the claimed since an applicant shows that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention by describing the claimed invention with all of its limitations using such descriptive means as words, structures, figures, diagrams, and formulas that fully set forth the claimed invention. Lockwood v. Amer. Airlines, Inc., 107 F.3d 1565, 1572, 41 USPQ2d 1961, 1966 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Possession may be shown in a variety of ways including description of an actual reduction to practice, or by showing that the invention was “ready for patenting” such as by the disclosure of drawings or structural chemical formulas that show that the invention was complete, or by describing distinguishing identifying characteristics sufficient to show that the inventor was in possession of the claimed invention. See, e.g., Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc., 525 U.S. 55, 68, 119 S.Ct. 304, 312, 48 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (1998); Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d at 1568, 43 USPQ2d at 1406; Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharm., 927 F.2d 1200, 1206, 18 USPQ2d 1016, 1021 (Fed. Cir. 1991). However, those evidentiary bars are not met with the current written description. The examiner respectfully requests Applicant’s assistance in determining where support may be found or have the subject matter deleted from the claim(s).
Dependent claim(s) 2-13 fail to cure the deficiencies of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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(s) 1-13 is/are 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.
For claim 1, the claim language “a sensing unit for sensing at least one diagnostic parameter of a human or animal patient” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim language cannot be ascertained since it is unclear what structure(s) is/are included in the claimed subject matter and what structure(s) is/are not. The claim is examined as meaning any structure capable of performing the recited function.
For claim 1, the claim language “a data transfer interface for transferring data on the at least one diagnostic parameter sensed by the sensing unit to the remote data-monitoring device” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim language cannot be ascertained since it is unclear what structure(s) is/are included in the claimed subject matter and what structure(s) is/are not. The claim is examined as meaning any structure capable of performing the recited function.
For claim 1, the claim language “a remote data-monitoring device … configured to apply at least one post-processing function on the data received from the active implantable medical device for virtual programming of the active implantable medical device” is ambiguous. Specifically, this claim language invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the corresponding structure could not be found. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claim language cannot be ascertained since it is unclear what structure(s) is/are included in the claimed subject matter and what structure(s) is/are not. The claim is examined as meaning any structure capable of performing the recited function.
For claim 3, the claim language “wherein the data transfer interface is configured to allow exclusively a data transfer away from the active implantable medical device, but not towards the active implantable medical device” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites “wherein the remote data-monitoring device is configured to apply at least one post-processing function on the data received from the active implantable medical device for virtual programming of the active implantable medical device” and “wherein the remote data-monitoring device is further configured to virtually program the active medical device.” Therefore, it is unclear how the remote data-monitoring device is configured to virtually program the implantable medical device when there is no data transfer towards the implantable medical device. The claim is examined as meaning that the implantable medical device has a state or configurations, among multiple states or configurations, where data is not receive by the implantable medical device, but only being sent form the implantable medical device, but that in other configurations data may be sent to the implantable medical device so that the claims do not contradict one another.
For claim 4, the claim language “wherein the active implantable medical device is configured to allow exclusively a data transfer away from the active implantable medical device, but not towards the active implantable medical device” is ambiguous. Claim 1, from which claim 3 depends, recites “wherein the remote data-monitoring device is configured to apply at least one post-processing function on the data received from the active implantable medical device for virtual programming of the active implantable medical device” and “wherein the remote data-monitoring device is further configured to virtually program the active medical device.” Therefore, it is unclear how the remote data-monitoring device is configured to virtually program the implantable medical device when there is no data transfer towards the implantable medical device. The claim is examined as meaning that the implantable medical device has a state or configurations, among multiple states or configurations, where data is not receive by the implantable medical device, but only being sent form the implantable medical device, but that in other configurations data may be sent to the implantable medical device so that the claims do not contradict one another.
Dependent claim(s) 2-13 fail to cure the ambiguity of independent claim 1, thus claim(s) 1-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-6, and 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0041866 to Linberg et al. (hereinafter “Linberg”).
For claim 1, Linberg discloses an implant arrangement (Abstract) comprising an active implantable medical device (10, 10’, and/or 10’’) (Fig. 1) (para [0056]) and a remote data-monitoring device (20 and/or 20’) (Fig. 1) (para [0056]),
the active implantable medical device comprising a sensing unit for sensing at least one diagnostic parameter of a human or animal patient (“sensing electrodes,” “sense amplifiers,” “activity sensors,” and/or “physiological sensors,” para [0062]) and a data transfer interface for transferring data on the at least one diagnostic parameter sensed by the sensing unit to the remote data-monitoring device (“telemetry transmitter,” para [0065]),
wherein the remote data-monitoring device is configured to apply at least one post-processing function on the data received from the active implantable medical device for virtual programming of the active implantable medical device (see 182-200, which happens after 180, in Figs. 7A-B) (para [0080]),
wherein the remote data-monitoring device is further configured to virtually program the active medical device via an adjustment of at least one configuration parameter of the post-processing function (see 190 in Fig. 7A as well as 196, 198, and 200 in Fig. 7B) (para [0080]),
wherein the at least one configuration parameter alters an effect of the post-processing function on the data received from the active implantable medical device (para [0080]).
For claim 3, Linberg further discloses wherein the data transfer interface is configured to allow exclusively a data transfer away from the active implantable medical device, but not towards the active implantable medical device (see the direction of 26, 26’, and/or 28’ in Fig. 1, which shows the direction of the data transfer being away from 10 towards 20, 20’) (also see para [0064], which discloses that “uplink” is “[i]n the alternate” to “downlink”).
For claim 4, Linberg further discloses wherein the active implantable medical device is configured to allow exclusively a data transfer away from the active implantable medical device, but not towards the active implantable medical device (see the direction of 26, 26’, and/or 28’ in Fig. 1, which shows the direction of the data transfer being away from 10 towards 20, 20’) (also see para [0064], which discloses that “uplink” is “[i]n the alternate” to “downlink”).
For claim 5, Linberg further discloses wherein the data transfer interface is the only data transfer interface of the active implantable medical device (as can be seen in Fig. 3A) (also see para [0065]).
For claim 6, Linberg further discloses wherein the active implantable medical device is a device chosen from the group consisting of a cardiac rhythm monitor, a vital data monitor, an implantable pulse generator, an implantable cardioverter/defibrillator, a cardiac resynchronization device, a cardiac resynchronization device with a defibrillator, a glucose monitor, and a neurostimulator (para [0074]).
For claim 8, Linberg further discloses wherein the active implantable medical device comprises a data storage for storing the sensed data prior to transferring it to the remote data-monitoring device (76) (para [0062]).
For claim 9, Linberg further discloses wherein the diagnostic parameter is chosen from the group consisting of an electrocardiogram, an electroencephalogram, a pressure curve, a breathing curve, an activity curve, and a temperature curve (para [0063] and/or [0069]).
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.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linberg in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0101544 to Hoberman et al. (hereinafter “Hoberman”).
For claim 2, Linberg does not expressly disclose wherein the sensing unit is configured to sense the at least one diagnostic parameter based on a sensing threshold.
However, Hoberman teaches wherein the sensing unit is configured to sense the at least one diagnostic parameter based on a sensing threshold (para [0050]) (also see para [0052]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Linberg wherein the sensing unit is configured to sense the at least one diagnostic parameter based on a sensing threshold, in view of the teachings of Hoberman, for the obvious advantage of detecting the threshold level for an evoked response from the patient.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linberg in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,594,523 to Levine.
For claim 7, Lindberg further discloses wherein the active implantable medical device is a cardiac rhythm monitor (para [0074]).
Linberg does not expressly disclose an automatic implantation recognition function, wherein the active implantable medical device is configured to automatically activate sensing the at least one diagnostic parameter and transferring the sensed data to the remote data-monitoring device upon successful implantation recognition.
However, Levine teaches an automatic implantation recognition function (Abstract), wherein the active implantable medical device is configured to automatically activate sensing the at least one diagnostic parameter and transferring the sensed data to the remote data-monitoring device upon successful implantation recognition (Abstract) (col. 6, lines 21-25 and col. 8, lines 58-65).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Linberg to include an automatic implantation recognition function, wherein the active implantable medical device is configured to automatically activate sensing the at least one diagnostic parameter and transferring the sensed data to the remote data-monitoring device upon successful implantation recognition, in view of the teachings of Levine, for the obvious advantage of having the device start automatically when it is implanted so that it doesn’t have to be manually done by a health-care provider.
Claim(s) 10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linberg in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0196457 to Thakur et al. (hereinafter “Thakur”).
For claim 10, Linberg does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one configuration parameter serves for modulating at least one of a sensitivity of detection of the at least one diagnostic parameter in the data received from the active implantable medical device and a specificity of detection of the at least one diagnostic parameter in the data received from the active implantable medical device.
However, Thakur teaches wherein the at least one configuration parameter serves for modulating at least one of a sensitivity of detection of the at least one diagnostic parameter in the data received from the active implantable medical device (para [0108]-[0109], i.e., via gain control) and a specificity of detection of the at least one diagnostic parameter in the data received from the active implantable medical device (para [0108]-[0109], i.e., cardiac polarization versus fibrillation).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Linberg wherein the at least one configuration parameter serves for modulating at least one of a sensitivity of detection of the at least one diagnostic parameter in the data received from the active implantable medical device and a specificity of detection of the at least one diagnostic parameter in the data received from the active implantable medical device, in view of the teachings of Thakur, for the obvious advantage of filtering out data in the signal that is not related to the parameter of interest.
For claim 12, Linberg does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one configuration parameter serves for modulating a sensing threshold of the at least one diagnostic parameter in the data received from the active implantable medical device.
However, Thakur teaches wherein the at least one configuration parameter serves for modulating a sensing threshold of the at least one diagnostic parameter in the data received from the active implantable medical device (para [0108]-[0109]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Linberg wherein the at least one configuration parameter serves for modulating a sensing threshold of the at least one diagnostic parameter in the data received from the active implantable medical device, in view of the teachings of Thakur, for the obvious advantage of filtering out data in the signal that is not related to the parameter of interest.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linberg in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2023/0127355 to Paak et al. (hereinafter “Paak”) (Examiner’s Note: the relied upon portions of Paak finding support in U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/235,966 filed 8/23/21).
For claim 11, Linberg does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one configuration parameter serves for modulating a continuous evaluation of a physiologic curve representing the at least one diagnostic parameter.
However, Paak teaches wherein the at least one configuration parameter serves for modulating a continuous evaluation of a physiologic curve representing the at least one diagnostic parameter (para [0136]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Linberg wherein the at least one configuration parameter serves for modulating a continuous evaluation of a physiologic curve representing the at least one diagnostic parameter, in view of the teachings of Paak, for the obvious advantage of increasing the statistical significance of any diagnostic determination that is made based on the diagnostic parameter.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Linberg in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0246465 to Ben-Haim et al. (hereinafter “Ben-Haim”).
For claim 13, Linberg does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one configuration parameter can be chosen from a predefined set of configuration parameters and is assigned to a type of diagnostics to be applied to a patient to whom the active implantable medical device is implanted.
However, Ben-Haim teaches wherein the at least one configuration parameter can be chosen from a predefined set of configuration parameters and is assigned to a type of diagnostics to be applied to a patient to whom the active implantable medical device is implanted (para [0124]-[0125]) (also see para [0126]).
It would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to modify Linberg wherein the at least one configuration parameter can be chosen from a predefined set of configuration parameters and is assigned to a type of diagnostics to be applied to a patient to whom the active implantable medical device is implanted, in view of the teachings of Ben-Haim, for the obvious advantage of individualizing the configuration of the implantable medical device to the parameter(s) and/or condition that is being monitored.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 8/18/26 have been fully considered.
With respect to the 112 rejections, each of them will be treated in the order they were presented. With respect to the “active implantable medical device,” this claim language was not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112. Therefore, this argument is moot. With respect to the “data transfer interface,” para [0018]-[0021] and [0066] state the function of the data transfer interface and also disclose protocols that may be used for data transfer (i.e., such as “Bluetooth”), but the structure of the data transfer “interface” is never disclosed. The protocol for data transfer is not an interface for data transfer. Therefore, the rejections are maintained. With respect to the “remote data-monitoring device,” para [0012]-[0013] and [0025] describe the functionality of the remote data-monitoring device, but never actually disclose the structure of what the remote data-monitoring device is. Therefore, the rejections are maintained.
With respect to the 102/103 rejections, Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not address the new grounds of rejection necessitated by Applicant’s amendments presented in the response filed 8/18/26.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL LEE CERIONI whose telephone number is (313) 446-4818. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM PT.
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/DANIEL L CERIONI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights