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 of 10/16/2025 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner. Claims 1-3, 5-12, 15, 16 and 18 have been amended. Claims 17 and 19 have been canceled. Claim 20 has been added. Claims 1-16, 18, and 20 are currently pending in the application with claim 1 being independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16, 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Independent claim 1 is directed to an “system” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claim 1 recites (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of a mental process, substantially as follows: “generate a plurality of points associated with an anatomical boundary within the intravascular image; generate a contour corresponding to the anatomical boundary by connecting the plurality of points; wherein, to generate the plurality of points, the processor circuit is configured to add a new point to the plurality of points: in response to a comparison between at least one distance threshold and a value of a distance of the contour from an existing point to the new point; and in response to a comparison between at least one curvature threshold and a value of a curvature of the contour from the existing point to the new point (claim 1.
In independent claim 1, the above recited steps can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper or with a generic computer, in a computer environment, or merely using the generic computer as a tool to perform the steps. If a person were to visually examine, i.e., perform an observation, of the intravascular image either in a printout or an electronic format, he/she would be able to identify the boundary and generate points associated with it and generate a contour using the rules recited in the claim based on predetermined threshold values. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in how the points are determined and how the contour is created or how the rules are applied. Therefore, a person would be able to perform generation steps based on rules mentally or with a generic computer.
Prong Two: Claim 1 does not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite (1) additional elements of an intravascular imaging catheter and a processor which is configured to control the imaging catheter to obtain an intravascularly image of a blood vessel. and (2) further an additional step of outputting the image and the points and the contour.
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details).
The step in (2) represents merely notification outputting by a processor as a post-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the estimated bio-information is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1, 18, and 19 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of using an intravascular imager and controlling it by a processor to gather imaging data of the vessel, and then outputting the contour points. These steps represent mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality.
Accordingly, these additional steps and tools for intravascular imaging of the inside of a blood vessel, and outputting a notification amount to no more than insignificant conventional extra-solution activity. Mere insignificant conventional extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims hence are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons:
Details about the point determination on the boundary (claims 2-16,18 )
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons:
Display details of the contour points (claims 20);
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing of an abstract idea (i.e. contour estimation algorithm), and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 8-10, 12, 15 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0036404) hereinafter “Li” in view of Kim (U.S. Patent No. 5,774,595) hereinafter “Kim”.
Regarding claim 1, Li discloses a system, [system 100 of Li; see FIG. 1 and [0021] and abstract of Li] comprising:
an intravascular imaging catheter configured for intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) or optical coherence tomography; and [see FIG. 1, [0094] and [0024] of Li]
a processor [border detection subsystem 110 is a processing unit; see claim 10] circuit configured for communication with the intravascular imaging catheter [see FIG. 1, [0021], [0024]; the border detection system is in communication with the ultrasound imaging subsystem] and
a display, [display 125; see [0021] of Li]
wherein the processor circuit is configured to:
control the intravascular intraluminal imaging catheter to obtain an intravascular image [see [0021] of Li] while the intraluminal imaging catheter is positioned within a blood vessel; [see FIG. 2-4, and [0024]; the image is an IVUS image which is within the blood vessel]
generate a plurality of points associated with an anatomical boundary within the intravascular image [see [0025]-[0029]; a plurality of edge points are automatically detected]
generate a contour corresponding to the anatomical boundary by connecting the plurality of points; and [see [0030]; the border is determined by passing through the set of pixels that make up the edge]
output, to the display, a screen display comprising the intravascular image, the plurality of points within the intravascular image, and the contour within the intravascular image, [see FIG. 3 and [0031]]
Li does not expressly disclose to generate the plurality of points, the processor circuit is configured to add a new point to the plurality of pints in response to a comparison between at least one distance threshold and a value of a distance of the contour from an existing point to the new point and in response to a comparison between at least one curvature threshold and a value of a curvature of the contour from the existing point to the new point.
Kim, directed towards automatic detection of contours of objects [see abstract of Kim] further discloses to generate the plurality of points, the processor circuit is configured to add a new point to the plurality of pints in response to a comparison between at least one distance threshold and a value of a distance of the contour from an existing point to the new point [see FIG. 2A and column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold] and in response to a comparison between at least one curvature threshold and a value of a curvature of the contour from the existing point to the new point [see column 4, lines 31-60 and column 5, lines 17-30; the number of pixels between the contour between the new point and the previous pint and the curvature of the outline is calculated (which is a measure of how much the contour is curved away from the segment line) and is compared with a threshold]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li such that the processor is configured to generate the plurality of points, the processor circuit is configured to add a new point to the plurality of pints in response to a comparison between at least one distance threshold and a value of a distance of the contour from an existing point to the new point and in response to a comparison between at least one curvature threshold and a value of a curvature of the contour from the existing point to the new point according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Regarding claim 2, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kim further discloses that the processor circuit is configured to determine a location of the new point based on at least one of the value of distance or the value of the curvature between the existing point and the new point [see FIG. 2A and column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold ; further see column 5, lines 17-30; the point with largest curvature is selected] and wherein the existing point and the new point are consecutive. [see claim 1 of Kim; the processes a step-by step process and therefore the new point is selected consecutively compared to the previous points]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the processor circuit is configured the processor circuit is configured to determine a location of the new point based on at least one of the value of distance or the value of the curvature between the existing point and the new point and wherein the existing point and the new point are consecutive according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Regarding claim 3, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kim further discloses that the at least one distance threshold comprises a minimum distance threshold, and wherein, to add the new point to the plurality of points, the processor circuit is configured to add the new point only when the value of the distance between the existing point and the new point is equal to or greater in magnitude than the minimum threshold distance. [column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the at least one distance threshold comprises a minimum distance threshold, and wherein, to add the new point to the plurality of points, the processor circuit is configured to add the new point only when the value of the distance between the existing point and the new point is equal to or greater in magnitude than the minimum threshold distance. according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Regarding claim 8, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kim further discloses that to add the new point to the plurality of points, the processor circuit is configured to add the new point only when the value of the distance between the existing point and the new point is equal to or greater in magnitude than a minimum threshold distance. [see FIG. 2A and column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold ]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that to add the new point to the plurality of points, the processor circuit is configured to add the new point only when the value of the distance between the existing point and the new point is equal to or greater in magnitude than a minimum threshold distance according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Regarding claim 9, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kim further discloses that the at least one curvature threshold comprises a maximum positive curvature threshold, and wherein, to add the new point to the plurality of points, the processor circuit is configured to add the new point when the value of the curvature between the existing point and the new point is equal to or less in magnitude than the maximum positive curvature threshold. [see column 4, lines 44-55; the curvature (i.e. second error value) is compared with a threshold value, and the point is selected only if the value of the curvature is less than that threshold.]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that at least one curvature threshold comprises a maximum positive curvature threshold, and wherein, to add the new point to the plurality of points, the processor circuit is configured to add the new point when the value of the curvature between the existing point and the new point is equal to or less in magnitude than the maximum positive curvature threshold according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Regarding claim 10, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kim further discloses wherein to add the new point to the plurality of points, the processor circuit is configured to add the new point only when the value of the distance between the first point and the second point is equal to or greater in magnitude than the minimum threshold distance. [see FIG. 2A and column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the processor circuit is configured to place the second point only when the distance of the contour between the first point and the second point is equal to or greater in magnitude than the minimum threshold distance according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Regarding claim 12, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kim further discloses that to add the new point to the plurality of pints, the processor circuit is configured to add the new point only when the value of the distance between the existing point and the new point is equal to or greater in magnitude a minimum threshold distance. [see FIG. 2A and column 3, lines 12-25; the new point C is added to points A and B if the distance from point C (new point) to line segment AB is more than a predetermined threshold]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the processor circuit is configured to place the second point only when the distance of the contour between the first point and the second point is equal to or greater in magnitude than the minimum threshold distance according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Regarding claim 15, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Li further discloses that the contour does not surround a position of the intraluminal imaging catheter in the intraluminal image. [see FIG. 3 and [0023]; the border is shown with respect to the catheter]
Regarding claim 16, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Li further discloses that the processor circuit is configured generate the plurality of points automatically without receiving a user input identifying a plurality of locations for the plurality of points. [see [0025]-[0030] of Li; the initial border points are generated automatically]
Regarding claim 18, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kim further discloses that to add the new point to the plurality of points, the processor circuit is configured to add the new point such that a value of the distance between the existing point and the new point is different than the value of the distance of a different pair of points. [This is inherent in a process where the points are generated randomly, the value of two points are not the same in general.]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of LI such that it is configured to generate the plurality of points, the processor circuit is configured to determine the plurality of locations for the plurality of points such that a first distance of the contour between the first point and the second point is different than a second distance of the contour between the second point and the third point according to the teachings of Kim in order to reduce approximation errors in contour information [see column 2, lines 1-2 of Kim]
Regarding claim 20, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kim further discloses that the visual appearance of the plurality of points and a visual appearance of the contour in the screen display are different from one another. [see FIG. 4A; the appearance of the points and the contour is different since the contour is a line and the points are zero-dimensional dots]
Claims 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0036404) hereinafter “Li” in view of Kim (U.S. Patent No. 5,774,595) hereinafter “Kim” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kitamura et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2012/0051612) hereinafter “Kitamura”
Regarding claim 4, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kitamura, directed towards lumen border detection [see abstract of Kitamura] further discloses that the processor circuit is configured to change the minimum threshold distance. [see [0129-[0130]; the update range determining unit updates the threshold value]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the processor circuit is configured to change the minimum threshold distance according to the teachings of Kitamura in order to prevent the contour positions from being mis-detected and possibly diagnosed as an abnormal portion [see [0051] of Kitamura]
Regarding claim 5, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kitamura further discloses that the at least one distance threshold comprises a maximum distance threshold, and wherein, to add the new point to the plurality of points the processor circuit is configured to add the new point when the value of the distance between the existing point and the new point is equal or less in magnitude than the maximum threshold distance. [see Fig. 8 and [0078]; step b7, the points are only placed if they are less than a predetermined threshold value]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the at least one distance threshold comprises a maximum distance threshold, and wherein, to determine the location of the second point, the processor circuit is configured to always place the second point when the distance of the contour between the first point and the second point is equal to or greater in magnitude than the maximum threshold distance according to the teachings of Kitamura in order to prevent the contour positions from being mis-detected and possibly diagnosed as an abnormal portion [see [0051] of Kitamura]
Regarding claim 6, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kitamura further discloses that the processor circuit is configured to change the maximum threshold distance. [see [0129]-[0130]; the update range determining unit updates the threshold values]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the processor circuit is configured to change the maximum threshold distance according to the teachings of Kitamura in order to prevent the contour positions from being mis-detected and possibly diagnosed as an abnormal portion [see [0051] of Kitamura]
Regarding claim 7, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Kitamura further discloses that the at least one curvature threshold comprises a maximum negative curvature threshold, and wherein, to determine the location of the second point, the processor circuit is configured to place the second point when the curvature of the contour between the first point and the second point is equal to or less in magnitude than the maximum negative curvature threshold. [see [0064] and [0070]-[0071] and [0092]; the curvature towards the inside of the boundary is the negative curvature]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the at least one curvature threshold comprises a maximum negative curvature threshold, and wherein, to determine the location of the second point, the processor circuit is configured to place the second point when the curvature of the contour between the first point and the second point is equal to or less in magnitude than the maximum negative curvature threshold according to the teachings of Kitamura in order to prevent the contour positions from being mis-detected and possibly diagnosed as an abnormal portion [see [0051] of Kitamura]
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0036404) hereinafter “Li” in view of in view of Kim (U.S. Patent No. 5,774,595) hereinafter “Kim” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toma et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2014/0081142) hereinafter “Toma”.
Regarding claim 11, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Li as modified by Kim does not expressly disclose that to determine the location of the second point, the processor circuit is configured to place the second point when the curvature of the contour between the first point and the second point changes from positive to negative or from negative to positive.
Toma, directed towards determining the border of the lumen using curvature data [see abstract of Toma] further discloses that to determine the location of the second point, the processor circuit is configured to place the second point when the curvature of the contour between the first point and the second point changes from positive to negative or from negative to positive. [see FIG. 4B and [0116] of Toma]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that to determine the location of the second point, the processor circuit is configured to place the second point when the curvature of the contour between the first point and the second point changes from positive to negative or from negative to positive according to the teachings of Toma in order to automate the contour determination process with higher accuracy [see [0003] of Toma]
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0036404) hereinafter “Li” in view of in view of Kim (U.S. Patent No. 5,774,595) hereinafter “Kim” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Yu et al. (“Super-resolution ultrasound imaging method for microvascular in vivo with a high temporal accuracy”, Scientific Reports, 2018) hereinafter “Yu”.
Regarding claim 13, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Li as modified Kiim does not expressly disclose to generate the contour, the processor circuit is configured to perform modified Akima piecewise cubic Hermite interpolation between the plurality of points.
Yu, directed towards analyzing images of lumens with high accuracy [see abstract of Yu] further discloses to generate the contour, the processor circuit is configured to perform modified Akima piecewise cubic Hermite interpolation between the plurality of points. [see page 7, last paragraph of the pate disclosing suing the modified Akima cubic Hermite interpolation method to detect the structure of the vascular system]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that to generate the contour, the processor circuit is configured to perform modified Akima piecewise cubic Hermite interpolation between the plurality of points according to the teachings of Yu in order to automate the contour determination process with higher accuracy [see [0003] of Toma]
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0036404) hereinafter “Li” in view of in view of Kim (U.S. Patent No. 5,774,595) hereinafter “Kim” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Akima (“a new metho of interpolation and smooth curve fitting based on local procedures”, J. of Computing Machinery, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1970)
Regarding claim 14, Li as modified by Kim discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Li as modified by Kim discloses wherein the processor circuit is configured to receive a user input to move a location of a point, wherein the processor circuit is configured to perform re-interpolation between only a subset of the plurality of point s that is proximate to the point.
Li as modified by Ktim does not expressly disclose that to generate the contour, the processor circuit is configured to perform interpolation between the plurality of points,
Akima, directed towards a method of contour determination [see abstract of Akima] further discloses that in order to generate the contour, the processor circuit is configured to perform interpolation between the plurality of points, [see page 591, section under 2.2. interpolation between a pair of points]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the system of Li as modified by Kim such that the processor circuit is configured to generate the contour, the processor circuit is configured to perform interpolation between the plurality of points according to the teachings of Akima in order to provide an improved method of determining the slope and curvature of the contour. [see page 590], second paragraph]
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims under U.S.C. 101
With regards to the rejection of claims under U.S.C. 101 for being directed towards an abstract idea, the applicant has argued that inclusion of the IVUS imager should add to significantly more than the abstract idea.
In response, the examiner notes that the IVUS imager has been recited at a high level of generality and the image acquisition process is merely a pre-solutionary activity to the abstract idea. Therefore, the IVUS does not add significantly more than the abstract idea. Further, simple mention of an area in the claim does not constitute into a practical application.
Rejection of claims under U.S.C. 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of claim(s) 1 under U.S.C. 103 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT.
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, Ashley Buran can be reached at (571) 270-5284. 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.
/MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795