DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“a height-adjusting device configured to adjust an elevation” in claims 7 and 17.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-11, 13-24 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “...defined by at least two right-angled surfaces intersecting at right angles to form at least three-orthogonal path segments” in lines 15-17 and “the intersecting right-angled surface” in line 20 were 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. The specification does disclose that the receiver comprises two right angled surface and three-orthogonal path (see par. [0056] of the PG Pub. version of the specification), but the specification does not explicitly state that the two right-angled intersecting at right angles and the intersecting right-angled surface.
Regarding claim 14, the claim limitation “...defined by at least two right-angled surfaces intersecting at right angles to form at least three-orthogonal path segments” in lines 16-18 and “the intersecting right-angled surface” in line 21 were 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. The specification does disclose that the receiver comprises two right angled surface and three-orthogonal path (see par. [0056] of the PG Pub. version of the specification), but the specification does not explicitly state that the two right-angled intersecting at right angles and the intersecting right-angled surface.
Regarding claim 21, the claim limitation “...defined by at least two right-angled surfaces intersecting at right angles to form at least three-orthogonal path segments” in lines 16-18 and “the intersecting right-angled surface” in line 21 were 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. The specification does disclose that the receiver comprises two right angled surface and three-orthogonal path (see par. [0056] of the PG Pub. version of the specification), but the specification does not explicitly state that the two right-angled intersecting at right angles and the intersecting right-angled surface.
Claims 4-8, 10-11, 13, 15-20, and 22-24 are rejected because they depend from rejected claims.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-11, 13-24 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “...defined by at least two right-angled surfaces intersecting at right angles to form at least three-orthogonal path segments” in lines 15-17 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the claim limitation. Furthermore, the claim limitation “the intersecting right-angled surface” in line 20 is indefinite because it is unclear what intersecting right-angled surface the claim is referring to since the claim 1 recites two right-angled surfaces intersecting at right angles.
Regarding claim 14, the claim limitation “...defined by at least two right-angled surfaces intersecting at right angles to form at least three-orthogonal path segments” in lines 16-18 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the claim limitation. Furthermore, the claim limitation “the intersecting right-angled surface” in line 21 is indefinite because it is unclear what intersecting right-angled surface the claim is referring to since the claim 1 recites two right-angled surfaces intersecting at right angles.
Regarding claim 21, the claim limitation “...defined by at least two right-angled surfaces intersecting at right angles to form at least three-orthogonal path segments” in lines 15-17 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by the claim limitation. Furthermore, the claim limitation “the intersecting right-angled surface” in line 20 is indefinite because it is unclear what intersecting right-angled surface the claim is referring to since the claim 1 recites two right-angled surfaces intersecting at right angles.
Regarding claim 24, the claim limitation “the orthogonal path segments” is indefinite because it is unclear which orthogonal path segments the claim is referring to since claim 1 limits at least three orthogonal path segments.
Claims 4-8, 10-11, 13, 15-20, and 22-23 are rejected because they depend from rejected claims.
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.
Claims 1, 4-8, 10-11, and 13-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rapoport et al. (US 2019/0328596; hereinafter Rapoport), in view of Popescu (US 2021/0156936).
Regarding claim 1, Rapport discloses a device and method for neonate incubator, capsule and cart. Rapport shows an incubator (see abstract) of a MRI system (see par. [0022]) including a patient compartment (see 110 in fig. 1 or 410 in fig. 4A; par. [0087], [0118]), comprising: a support structure (see 215 in fig. 2; par. [0129]; a patient table connected to the support structure (see 250 in fig. 2 or 417 in fig. 4A; par. [0129], [0119]); an RF coil selectively coupled to the support structure (see RF coil 450 coupled to bottom of bed 417 in fig. 4A; par. [0118], [0119]), the RF coil including a receiver (see fig. 4B) arranged along a peripheral edge of the RF coil (see proximal end of coil 450 in fig. 4B); and a hood selectively coupled to one of the support structure or the patient table and configured to engage the receiver (see par. [0118]), wherein when the hood is engaged with the receiver a volume of the hood and a volume of the RF coil merge together (see fig. 4A and 5A).
Furthermore, Rapport shows wherein the receiver comprises an entrance port opening from an exterior of the patient compartment into the receiver (see fig. 4B), and an internal passage extending from the entrance port, and an exit opening from the internal passages into an interior of the patient compartment (see fig. 4A and 5A), but fails to explicitly state the internal passages is defined by at least two right-angled surfaces intersection at right angles to form at least three orthogonal path segments, wherein the intersecting right-angled surface cause the acoustic waves propagating through the internal passage to undergo reflections along the orthogonal path segments, such that a portion of the acoustic energy of the propagating acoustic waves is redirected toward the exterior and an acoustic energy level at the exit port is reduced relative to an acoustic energy level at the entrance port.
Popescu discloses a MRI scanner. Popescu teaches internal passages is defined by at least two right-angled surfaces intersection at right angles to form at least three orthogonal path segments (see fig. 8), intersecting right-angled surface (see fig. 8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapport to have the internal passages is defined by at least two right-angled surfaces intersection at right angles to form at least three orthogonal path segments, as taught by Popescu, to be able to provide more comfort for the patient, and be able to implement active noise cancelation and noise improvement.
Regarding the limitations of claim 1 “...generates acoustic noise from a noise source during operation, the noise source being exterior of the patient compartment" and “...cause the acoustic waves propagating through the internal passage to undergo reflections along the orthogonal path segments, such that a portion of the acoustic energy of the propagating acoustic waves is redirected toward the exterior and an acoustic energy level at the exit port is reduced relative to an acoustic energy level at the entrance port” are directed to the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Therefore, as taught, the combined invention disclosed by Rapport and Popescu is capable of performing the functions as set forth by applicant.
Regarding claim 4, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows wherein the RF coil is movably coupled to the support structure (see fig. 4A and 4B) or the hood is movably coupled to the support structure or the patient table (see fig. 4A and 4B).
Regarding claim 5, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows wherein the RF coil and the hood define an inner surface of the patient compartment (see fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 6, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows wherein the RF coil forms part of an external superior incubator section (see 420 in fig. 4A and 4B).
Regarding claim 7, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows further comprising a height-adjusting device configured to adjust an elevation of the hood relative to the patient table (see par. [0128], [0129]).
Regarding claim 8, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows wherein the receiver comprises a groove formed along an outer peripheral edge of the RF coil (see fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 10, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows further comprising a heater fluidically coupled to the patient compartment and operative to provide heated air into the patient compartment (see par. [0161]).
Regarding claim 11, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows further comprising an anterior cardiac/body RF coil arranged over the patient table, the cardiac/body RF coil movable relative to the patient table in elevation (see par. [0126], [0131]).
Regarding claim 13, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows wherein when the hood is engaged with the receiver the RF coil forms an exterior surface of the incubator and an interior surface of the patient compartment (see fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 14, Rapport discloses a deice and method for neonate incubator, capsule and cart. Rapport shows an incubator (see abstract) including a patient compartment (see 110 in fig. 1 or 410 in fig. 4A; par. [0087], [0118]), comprising: a support structure (see 215 in fig. 2; par. [0129]; a patient table connected to the support structure (see 250 in fig. 2 or 417 in fig. 4A; par. [0129], [0119]); an RF coil selectively coupled to the support structure (see RF coil 450 coupled to bottom of bed 417 in fig. 4A; par. [0118], [0119]), the RF coil including a receiver (see fig. 4B) arranged along a peripheral edge of the RF coil (see proximal end of coil 450 in fig. 4B); and a hood selectively coupled to one of the support structure or the patient table (see fig. 4A; par. [0118]) and configured to engage the receiver (see par. [0118]), wherein when the hood is engaged with the receiver an exterior surface of the patient compartment is defined by both the hood and the RF coil (see fig. 4A).
Furthermore, Rapport shows wherein the receiver comprises an entrance port opening from an exterior of the patient compartment into the receiver (see fig. 4B), and an internal passage extending from the entrance port, and an exit opening from the internal passages into an interior of the patient compartment (see fig. 4A and 5A), but fails to explicitly state the internal passages is defined by at least two right-angled surfaces intersection at right angles to form at least three orthogonal path segments, wherein the intersecting right-angled surface cause the acoustic waves propagating through the internal passage to undergo reflections along the orthogonal path segments, such that a portion of the acoustic energy of the propagating acoustic waves is redirected toward the exterior and an acoustic energy level at the exit port is reduced relative to an acoustic energy level at the entrance port.
Popescu discloses a MRI scanner. Popescu teaches internal passages is defined by at least two right-angled surfaces intersection at right angles to form at least three orthogonal path segments (see fig. 8), intersecting right-angled surface (see fig. 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapport to have the internal passages is defined by at least two right-angled surfaces intersection at right angles to form at least three orthogonal path segments, as taught by Popescu, to be able to provide more comfort for the patient, and be able to implement active noise cancelation and noise improvement.
Regarding the limitations of claim 14 “...generates acoustic noise from a noise source during operation, the noise source being exterior of the patient compartment" and “...cause the acoustic waves propagating through the internal passage to undergo reflections along the orthogonal path segments, such that a portion of the acoustic energy of the propagating acoustic waves is redirected toward the exterior and an acoustic energy level at the exit port is reduced relative to an acoustic energy level at the entrance port” are directed to the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Therefore, as taught, the combined invention disclosed by Rapport and Popescu is capable of performing the functions as set forth by applicant.
Regarding claim 15, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows wherein the RF coil and the hood define an inner surface of the patient compartment (see fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 16, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows wherein the RF coil forms part of an external superior incubator section (see fig. 4A and 4B).
Regarding claim 17, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows further comprising a height-adjusting device configured to adjust an elevation of the hood relative to the patient table (see par. [0128], [0129]).
Regarding claim 18, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows wherein the receiver comprises a groove formed along an outer peripheral edge of the RF coil (see fig. 4B).
Regarding claim 19, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows wherein the receiver comprises at least two right-angled surfaces that present at least three right-angled paths into and out of the patient compartment (see 4A, 11C and 11D).
Regarding claim 20, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows wherein when the hood is engaged with the receiver the RF coil forms an exterior surface of the incubator and an interior surface of the patient compartment (see fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 21, Rapport discloses a deice and method for neonate incubator, capsule and cart. Rapport shows an incubator (see abstract) including a patient compartment (see 110 in fig. 1 or 410 in fig. 4A; par. [0087], [0118]), comprising: a support structure (see 215 in fig. 2; par. [0129]; a patient table connected to the support structure (see 250 in fig. 2 or 417 in fig. 4A; par. [0129], [0119]); an RF coil selectively coupled to the support structure (see RF coil 450 coupled to bottom of bed 417 in fig. 4A; par. [0118], [0119]), the RF coil including a receiver (see fig. 4B) arranged along a peripheral edge of the RF coil (see proximal end of coil 450 in fig. 4B); and a hood selectively coupled to one of the support structure or the patient table and configured to engage the receiver (see par. [0118]), wherein when the hood is engaged with the receiver the RF coil forms an exterior surface of the incubator and an interior surface of the patient compartment (see fig. 4A).
Furthermore, Rapport shows wherein the receiver comprises an entrance port opening from an exterior of the patient compartment into the receiver (see fig. 4B), and an internal passage extending from the entrance port, and an exit opening from the internal passages into an interior of the patient compartment (see fig. 4A and 5A), but fails to explicitly state the internal passages is defined by at least two right-angled surfaces intersection at right angles to form at least three orthogonal path segments, wherein the intersecting right-angled surface cause the acoustic waves propagating through the internal passage to undergo reflections along the orthogonal path segments, such that a portion of the acoustic energy of the propagating acoustic waves is redirected toward the exterior and an acoustic energy level at the exit port is reduced relative to an acoustic energy level at the entrance port.
Popescu discloses a MRI scanner. Popescu teaches internal passages is defined by at least two right-angled surfaces intersection at right angles to form at least three orthogonal path segments (see fig. 8), intersecting right-angled surface (see fig. 8)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Rapport to have the internal passages is defined by at least two right-angled surfaces intersection at right angles to form at least three orthogonal path segments, as taught by Popescu, to be able to provide more comfort for the patient, and be able to implement active noise cancelation and noise improvement.
Regarding the limitations of claim 21 “...generates acoustic noise from a noise source during operation, the noise source being exterior of the patient compartment" and “...cause the acoustic waves propagating through the internal passage to undergo reflections along the orthogonal path segments, such that a portion of the acoustic energy of the propagating acoustic waves is redirected toward the exterior and an acoustic energy level at the exit port is reduced relative to an acoustic energy level at the entrance port” are directed to the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Therefore, as taught, the combined invention disclosed by Rapport and Popescu is capable of performing the functions as set forth by applicant.
Regarding claim 22, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows wherein when the hood is engaged with the receiver an exterior surface of the patient compartment is defined by both the hood and the RF coil (see fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 23, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows wherein when the hood is engaged with the receiver the RF coil forms an exterior surface of the incubator and an interior surface of the patient compartment (see fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 24, Rupport and Popescu disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Rupport shows wherein the entrance port and the exit port are laterally offset from one another (see fig. 4B). The claim limitation “......such that acoustic waves entering through the entrance port traverse the orthogonal path segments before reaching the exit port” are directed to the intended use of the invention. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Therefore, as taught, the combined invention disclosed by Rapport and Popescu is capable of performing the functions as set forth by applicant.
Response to Arguments
The previous claim objection to claims 1, 13, 14, 20-23 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect prior art rejection of the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the prior office action of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner has provided new prior art Popescu.
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 SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797