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 .
DETAILED ACTION
In the Amendment dated 03 February 2026, the following occurred:
Claims 1, 3, 6, 13, 15, and 16 were amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Claims 1, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
The claims recite a system and method for planning medical procedures and updating medical plans during procedures, and therefore meet step 1.
Step 2A1
The limitations of (Claim 13 being representative) receiving […] procedural pre-therapeutic imaging data, the pre- therapeutic imaging data being indicative of a coronary issue in at least a portion of a vasculature of a patient; automatically determining, […] based at least in part on the pre-therapeutic imaging data, a procedural plan for use during a therapeutic medical procedure in a Catheterization Laboratory, the procedural plan comprising data indicative of one or more treatments, data identifying at least one medical instrument to perform the one or more treatments, and step-by-step instructions of how to perform the one or more treatments; and outputting […] the procedural plan., as drafted, is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, falls in the grouping of certain methods of organizing human activity (i.e., managing personal behavior including following rules or instructions).
That is, other than reciting a system and method implemented by processing circuitry and a memory (non-transitory computer-readable storage medium), the claimed invention amounts to managing personal behavior or interaction between people. For example, but for the processing circuitry/memory, this claim encompasses a person analyzing pre-therapeutic imaging data to determine a procedural plan in the manner described in the identified abstract idea, supra. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers managing personal behavior or interactions between people but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “certain methods of organizing human activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites the additional elements of processing circuitry and a memory that implement the identified abstract idea. The processing circuitry/memory is not exclusively described by the applicant and is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., general purpose microprocessors) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer or components thereof. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Step 2B
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using processing circuitry to perform the noted steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept (“significantly more”).
Claims 2-12, 14, and 16-20 are similarly rejected because they either further define/narrow the abstract idea and/or do not further limit the claim to a practical application or provide an inventive concept such that the claims are subject matter eligible even when considered individually or as an ordered combination.
Claims 2 and 14 merely describe the receiving patient metadata and determining the procedural plan, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 3 and 16 merely describe the procedural plan, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 4, 5, 17, and 18 merely describe determining the procedural plan, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 10 merely describes determining to update the procedural plan or updating the procedural plan, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 4, 10, and 17 further recite the additional elements of a machine learning algorithm or an artificial intelligence algorithm. Utilization of a machine learning/artificial intelligence algorithm equates to saying “apply it.” MPEP 2106.04(d)(I) indicates that merely saying “apply it” or equivalent to the abstract idea cannot provide a practical application or significantly more. The Examiner notes that the machine learning/artificial intelligence algorithms are described in the Specification at Para. 0064 as encompassing Naïve Bayes, k-nearest neighbors, random forest, support vector machines, neural networks, linear regression, and logistic regression.
Claims 6 and 19 merely describe the coronary issue, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 7 and 20 merely describe outputting the procedural plan, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 7 further recites the additional elements of a computing device, a user interface, or a robot, which are considered to “generally link” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis.
Claim 8 merely describes receiving second imaging data and displaying the procedural plan together with the second imaging data, which further defines the abstract idea. Claim 9 merely describes determining to update the procedural plan, updating the procedural plan, and displaying the updated procedural plan, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claims 8 and 9 further recite the additional element of a display device, which is considered to “generally link” under both the practical application and significantly more analysis.
Claim 11 merely describes generating a report, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim 12 merely describes updating the report, which further defines the abstract idea.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 13, 15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comaniciu et al. (U.S. 2015/0042646), referred to hereinafter as Comaniciu, in view of Maschke (U.S. 2009/0292309).
REGARDING CLAIM 1
Comaniciu teaches the claimed medical system comprising: memory configured to store one or more procedural plans; and processing circuitry communicatively coupled to the memory, the processing circuitry being configured to: [Para. 0033 teaches a memory configured to store a patient-specific anatomical model used for procedural planning. Para. 0026 teaches circuitry of a computer system.]
receive pre-therapeutic imaging data, the pre-therapeutic imaging data being indicative of a coronary issue in at least a portion of a vasculature of a patient; [Para. 0032 teaches receiving pre-operative cardiac image data of a patient. Para. 0031 teaches the image data indicates the presence of scar tissue (a coronary issue).]
automatically determine, based at least in part on the pre-therapeutic imaging data, a procedural plan for use during a therapeutic medical procedure in a Catheterization Laboratory…; [Para. 0031 teaches automatically generating a patient-specific anatomical heart model from the pre-operative image data. Para. 0048 teaches generating a patient-specific cardiac electrophysiology model based on the patient-specific anatomical model. Para. 0063 teaches the patient-specific cardiac electrophysiology model is used to calculate cardiac electrophysiology. Para. 0064 teaches the calculated cardiac electrophysiology includes maps used during the placement of a catheter, which is interpreted to take place in a Catheterization Laboratory.]
and output the procedural plan. [Para. 0064 teaches displaying calculated cardiac electrophysiology maps.]
Comaniciu may not explicitly teach
…the procedural plan comprising data indicative of one or more treatments, data identifying at least one medical instrument to perform the one or more treatments, and step-by-step instructions of how to perform the one or more treatments;
However, Maschke teaches the following:
…the procedural plan comprising data indicative of one or more treatments, data identifying at least one medical instrument to perform the one or more treatments, and step-by-step instructions of how to perform the one or more treatments; [Para. 0020 teaches a workflow for treating a patient. Images of the heart are obtained. An occluder is selected based on a measured aperture size. The occluder is introduced into the patient using a catheter having a guide wire, and emplaced. Subsequently, the steps of detaching the occlude from the guide wire and removing the catheter from the patient are performed.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the medical system of Comaniciu to include a procedural plan as taught by Maschke, with the motivation of improving efficiency (see Maschke at Para. 0068).
REGARDING CLAIM 3
Comaniciu in view of Maschke teaches the claimed medical system of claim 1.
Maschke further teaches
wherein the procedural plan further comprises at least one of data identifying at least one device to be used during the one or more treatments, indications of when and where and how to use the at least one medical instrument or the at least one medical device, or a warning regarding unapproved uses for at least one of the at least one medical instrument or the at least one device. [Para. 0069 teaches obtaining images for use in determining a type and size of occluder to be used.]
REGARDING CLAIM 4
Comaniciu in view of Maschke teaches the claimed medical system of claim 1.
Comaniciu further teaches
wherein as part of determining the procedural plan, the processing circuitry is configured to apply at least one of a machine learning algorithm or an artificial intelligence algorithm to the pre-therapeutic imaging data. [Para. 0029 teaches as part of the planning of electrophysiological interventions, machine learning algorithms are applied to the preoperative images.]
REGARDING CLAIM 5
Comaniciu in view of Maschke teaches the claimed medical system of claim 1.
Comaniciu further teaches
wherein as part of determining the procedural plan, the processing circuitry is configured to execute a plurality of simulations of procedures to determine at least one treatment to include the procedural plan. [Para. 0068 teaches automatically selecting virtual pacing locations (treatments), and a virtual electrophysiological intervention (simulation of procedure) can be performed for each pacing location.]
REGARDING CLAIM 7
Comaniciu in view of Maschke teaches the claimed medical system of claim 1.
Comaniciu further teaches
wherein the processing circuitry is configured to output the procedural plan to at least one of a computing device, a user interface, or a robot. [Para. 0064 teaches displaying calculated cardiac electrophysiology maps on a display device of a computer system.]
REGARDING CLAIM 8
Comaniciu in view of Maschke teaches the claimed medical system of claim 1.
Comaniciu further teaches
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive second imaging data during the therapeutic medical procedure; and control a display device to display the procedural plan together with the second imaging data during the therapeutic medical procedure. [Para. 0064 teaches the patient-specific cardiac EP model is personalized based on intra-operative data (second imaging data received during the medical procedure). The maps produced by the model, based on pre-operative and intra-operative data, are displayed during the intervention.]
REGARDING CLAIM 10
Comaniciu in view of Maschke teaches the claimed medical system of claim 9.
Comaniciu further teaches
wherein as part of at least one of determining to update the procedural plan or updating the procedural plan, the processing circuitry is configured to apply at least one of a machine learning application or an artificial intelligence application to at least one of at least a portion of the second imaging data or at least a portion of the procedural plan. [Para. 0074 teaches applying a machine-learning algorithm to intra-operative image data (second imaging data).]
REGARDING CLAIMS 13 AND 15
Claims 13 and 15 are analogous to Claim 1, thus Claims 13 and 18 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 1.
REGARDING CLAIMS 16-18
Claims 16-18 are analogous to Claims 3-5, respectively, thus Claims 16-18 are similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejections of Claims 3-5.
REGARDING CLAIM 20
Claim 20 is analogous to Claim 7, thus Claim 20 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 7.
Claims 2, 6, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comaniciu in view of Maschke and Min et al. (WO 2021/257893), referred to hereinafter as Min.
The Examiner notes that due to the size of the Min reference and associated issues with the USPTO system, a copy of the Min reference has not been included with the present rejection. It has been included in the PTO-892 form and is downloadable from google patents.
REGARDING CLAIM 2
Comaniciu in view of Maschke teaches the claimed medical system of claim 1.
Comaniciu in view of Maschke may not explicitly teach
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive patient metadata comprising at least one of sex, age, weight, height, body mass index, body fat percentage, comorbidities, cholesterol level, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, physical exercise level, or heart rate, and wherein the processing circuitry automatically determines the procedural plan further based on the patient metadata.
However, Min teaches the following:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to receive patient metadata comprising at least one of sex, age, weight, height, body mass index, body fat percentage, comorbidities, cholesterol level, blood pressure, blood oxygenation, physical exercise level, or heart rate, and wherein the processing circuitry automatically determines the procedural plan further based on the patient metadata. [Para. 0301 teaches receiving patient biomarker data. The biomarker data is used to determine whether a patient is at risk for a cardiovascular event. The risk factor is used to generate a treatment (procedural) plan. Para. 0936 teaches sex, age, cholesterol levels, and blood pressure.]
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of computerized healthcare, before the effective filling date of the invention, to modify the medical system of Comaniciu in view of Maschke to receive patient data to determine a treatment plan as taught by Min, with the motivation of improving efficiency and accuracy (see Min at Para. 0253).
REGARDING CLAIM 6
Comaniciu in view of Maschke teaches the claimed medical system of claim 1.
Comaniciu in view of Maschke may not explicitly teach
wherein the coronary issue comprises at least one of a bifurcation lesion, a calcified lesion, a chronic total occlusion (CTO), an in-stent restenosis (ISR), or left main disease.
However, Min teaches the following:
wherein the coronary issue comprises at least one of a bifurcation lesion, a calcified lesion, a chronic total occlusion (CTO), an in-stent restenosis (ISR), or left main disease. [Para. 1075 teaches bifurcation lesion. Para. 0360 teaches Chronic Total Occlusion (CTO).]
Motivation to combine the teaching of Min with the teachings of Comaniciu and Maschke is the same as that used with respect to claim 2 and is therefore reiterated here.
REGARDING CLAIM 9
Comaniciu in view of Maschke teaches the claimed medical system of claim 8.
Comaniciu further teaches
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine, based on at least one of at least a portion of the second imaging data or at least a portion of the procedural plan, to update the procedural plan; [Para. 0061 teaches determining to update the patient-specific model parameters of the cardiac electrophysiology model based on the pre-operative or intra-operative electrophysiology data.]
and control the display device to display the updated procedural plan. [Para. 0063 teaches the updated procedural plan is the patient-specific cardiac EP model, which calculates maps. Para. 0064 teaches displaying the calculated cardiac electrophysiology maps.]
Comaniciu in view of Maschke may not explicitly teach
update the procedural plan to generate an updated procedural plan, the updated procedural plan comprising at least one treatment that is not included in the procedural plan;
However, Min teaches the following:
update the procedural plan to generate an updated procedural plan, the updated procedural plan comprising at least one treatment that is not included in the procedural plan; [Para. 0542 teaches updating the proposed treatment for the subject.]
Motivation to combine the teaching of Min with the teachings of Comaniciu and Maschke is the same as that used with respect to claim 2 and is therefore reiterated here.
REGARDING CLAIM 11
Comaniciu in view of Maschke teaches the claimed medical system of claim 1.
Comaniciu in view of Maschke may not explicitly teach
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate a report comprising data collected during the therapeutic medical procedure.
However, Min teaches the following:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate a report comprising data collected during the therapeutic medical procedure. [Para. 0873 teaches generating a report comprising collected patient information (medical analysis and test results).]
Motivation to combine the teaching of Min with the teachings of Comaniciu and Maschke is the same as that used with respect to claim 2 and is therefore reiterated here.
REGARDING CLAIM 12
Comaniciu in view of Maschke teaches the claimed medical system of claim 1.
Comaniciu in view of Maschke may not explicitly teach
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to update the report to generate an updated report based on post-procedural data relating to the patient.
However, Min teaches the following:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to update the report to generate an updated report based on post-procedural data relating to the patient. [Para. 0318 teaches performing post-implantation analysis. Para. 0322 teaches generating a report based on past and/or present medical data. Para. 0328 teaches automatically and dynamically changing content of a report based upon image findings.]
Motivation to combine the teaching of Min with the teachings of Comaniciu and Maschke is the same as that used with respect to claim 2 and is therefore reiterated here.
REGARDING CLAIM 14
Claim 14 is analogous to Claim 2, thus Claim 14 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 2.
REGARDING CLAIM 19
Claim 19 is analogous to Claim 6, thus Claim 19 is similarly analyzed and rejected in a manner consistent with the rejection of Claim 6.
Response to Arguments
Claim Objections
Regarding the objection to Claim 6, the Applicant has amended the claim such that an objection is no longer required. The objection has been withdrawn.
Humans do not (and in all likelihood, cannot) “automatically determine, based at least in part on the pre-therapeutic imaging data, a procedural plan for use during a therapeutic medical procedure in a Catheterization Laboratory, the procedural plan comprising data indicative of one or more treatments, data identifying at least one medical instrument to perform the one or more treatments, and step-by-step instructions of how to perform the one or more treatments” (emphasis added). As such, amended claim 1 is not directed to managing personal behavior or interaction between people and is directed to statutory subject matter.
Regarding (a), the Examiner respectfully and wholeheartedly disagrees. That the claim purportedly performs the steps “automatically” does not remove it from being directed to Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity. Humans perform actions automatically all the time. When you get in your car to go somewhere you automatically turn the engine on. Even assuming that this is not true (which it is), performing the steps “automatically” is a consequence of confining the abstract idea to a computer. This is supported by MPEP 2106.05(a)(I) which states: “Examples that the courts have indicated may not be sufficient to show an improvement in computer-functionality: […] iii. Mere automation of manual processes….”
…example 39 merely involves an abstract idea and is patent eligible even though it claimed, “training the neural network in a first stage using the first training set.”
Regarding (b), The Examiner respectfully disagrees that Applicant’s claims are similar to Example 39. The claims in Example 39 were found to not be directed to any of the enumerated types of abstract ideas and were thus eligible under step 2A – Prong 1 of the Alice Corp. test for subject matter eligibility. MPEP 2106.04(a)(1) states that “examiners should keep in mind that while all inventions at some level embody, use, reflect, rest upon, or apply laws of nature, natural phenomenon, or abstract ideas, not all claims recite an abstract idea” (internal quotations omitted). Example 39 is a hypothetical illustration of this principle. The training, use, and subsequent retraining of the Neural Network model in Example 39 are all functions that are outside of the ambit of an abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(1)(vii)). And, while there may be an abstraction present in the collection of data, the remainder of the claim (all the additional elements of the claim) are purely directed to improvements in training Neural Network to detect faces.
This is contrasted with Applicant’s claimed invention that recites the abstract idea of (to paraphrase) planning percutaneous coronary intervention and that represents Certain Methods of Organizing Human activity as described in the basis of rejection. The additional element(s) of using a trained machine learning model represent the use of machine learning as a tool that is applied to the abstract idea to achieve the described result (saying “apply it”). Because there is an identified abstract idea present in Applicant’s claims and the additional elements of using a machine learning model are merely additional elements ancillary to this identified abstract idea, the recitation of machine learning is insufficient to provide a practical application and the claims are not subject matter eligible.
The Examiner notes that the claims in Example 39 were found to represent improvement to the computer-based technology of facial recognition. Facial recognition in the manner claimed is not what humans do mentally nor is it organization of a human activity. Humans innately recognize faces. The claims are not improving how humans recognize faces, but are improving how Neural Networks are used by computers to perform facial recognition. This is supported by the Background of hypothetical Example 39 which states that “prior methods suffer from the inability to robustly detect human faces in images where there are shifts, distortions, and variations in scale and rotation of the face pattern in the image.” As such, the claims of Example 39 also recite an improvement to technology of facial recognition by Neural Networks.
Finally, Applicant’s claims do not just involve an abstract idea as in Example 39, absent the addition element of a computer, the claims are wholly directed to an abstract idea. Thus the claims recite an abstract idea.
Nothing in amended claim 1, amended claim 13, or amended claim 15 recites directing or organizing a human to do anything.
Regarding (c), The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Multiple CAFC decisions that the Office has characterized as Certain Method of Organizing Human Activity did not actively recite a person or persons performing the steps of the claims (see, e.g., EPG, TLI communications, Ultramercial). Because whether a human is required to perform the step of the claim is not a requirement for claims to encompass certain method of organizing human activity, this argument is not persuasive. Further, given the broadest reasonable interpretation and as described in the basis of rejection, the identified abstract idea represents a series of rules or instructions for a person or persons to follow, with or without the aid of a computer, to perform the noted steps. Humans literally perform catheterization procedures and Applicant’s claims represent a series of rules or instructions for these humans to follow. The Examiner is unclear how the Applicant could argue otherwise.
…“The techniques of this disclosure may be powered by real world data as more therapeutic medical procedures are performed, thus improving the recommendations of treatment…”… “…the procedural plan generated through the techniques of this disclosure may help the clinician plan such a complex case, giving them a starting point for their procedural strategy.” …the techniques may improve patient outcomes.
Regarding (d), The Examiner respectfully disagrees. None of the passages of the Specification cited by the Applicant indicate that a practical application is present based on any measure in MPEP. The cited portions do not indicate that a technical problem exists; a problem cause by the technological environment to which the claim are confined (a general-purpose computer). See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and MPEP 2106.05(a) which indicate that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention provides a technical solution to a technical problem. See, e.g., DDR Holdings, LLC. v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1259 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (finding that claiming a website that retained the “look and feel” of a host webpage provided a technological solution to the problem of retention of website visitors by utilizing a website descriptor that emulated the “look and feel” of the host webpage, where the problem arose out of the internet and was thus a technical problem). Here, the Applicant’s argued problem is not a technological problem caused by the computer. The problem of clinicians not being comfortable with performing complex cases was not a problem cause by the computer, is it a problem that existed and/or exists regardless of whether a computer is involved in the process. At best, Applicant’s identified problem is a training problem. Because no technological problem is present, the claims do not provide a practical application.
Further, there is no improvement within the meaning of the word in MPEP 2106. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer. MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states that a practical application may be present where the claimed invention improves another technology. Applicant’s claimed in invention does not improve the computer in any way; it merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstraction. Applicant’s claimed in invention does not improve another technology because another technology is not present in the claims. Merely outputting data is not an improvement as indicated by multiple CAFC decisions discussed in MPEP 2106, see, e.g., Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016); Interval Licensing LLC v. AOL, Inc., 896 F.3d 1335, 1344-45, 127 USPQ2d 1553, 1559-60 (Fed. Cir. 2018); TLI Communications, 823 F.3d at 612-13, 118 USPQ2d at 1747-48; and Intellectual Ventures I v. Capital One Fin. Corp., 850 F.3d 1332, 121 USPQ2d 1940 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Regarding the rejection of Claims 1-20, the Examiner has considered Applicant’s arguments; however, the arguments are moot given the new grounds of rejection as necessitated by amendment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Goldsmith (U.S. 2025/0242099) which discloses methods for using vascular valves and serovalves.
Southard et al. (U.S. 2009/0023643) which discloses methods for treating acute myocardial infarction.
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 CAMRYN B LEWIS whose telephone number is (703)756-1807. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 11:00 am - 8:00 pm EST.
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, Robert Morgan can be reached on 571-272-6773. 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.
/CAMRYN B LEWIS/
Examiner, Art Unit 3683
/JASON S TIEDEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3683
Prosecution Insights