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 .
This action is in response to the communication filed 7/16/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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.
With regard to applicant’s interview request on page 9 of the amendment, the Examiner respectfully notes that as applicant has filed the instant response, a reply is required and thus presented in the instant action. Should applicant desire and interview, applicant is invited to contact to the Examiner to discuss any such interview request.
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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101).
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “wherein the light barrier is exposed to the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user such that the light barrier directly contacts the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user” on the last three lines stands rejected because it positively recites and positively requires a user and a hand of a user, and thus a human organism.
Applicant is not claiming any configuration, functional language, or intended use for the above exposure of the light barrier with regard to a user. Instead, applicant is positively reciting and requiring that the light barrier be existed to a finger (digit) of a hand of a user, “such that the light barrier directly contacts the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user,” thus actually requiring that the light barrier directly contact the digit (finger). The only way the light barrier can be exposed such that it contacts a digit of a hand is if the finger is present and contacting the light barrier. Such a recitation positive recites the digit, and thus a human organism, because the light barrier cannot contact the tissue of a digit without that digit being present.
Note that there is a difference between reciting a light barrier being exposed “for” contacting a digit of a user as opposed to claiming that the light barrier is exposed “such that” it directly contacts the digit. “Such that,” as used in this instance, is not reasonably an intended use, and the scope of the above claim phrase reasonably requires the presence of the digit and thus requires and claims a human organism. Even if unintended, the current claim scope reasonably captures the actual inclusion of a human finger, and thus a human, and is therefore improper under 35 U.S.C. 101.
This phrase therefore stands rejected for incorporating and requiring a human organism.
As to Claim 16,
The phrase “the light barrier protrudes from the first curved surface such that the light barrier deforms the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user responsive to directly contacting the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user” on lines 1-3 stands rejected because it positively recites and positively requires a user and a hand of a user, and thus a human organism.
Applicant is expressly reciting that the light barrier protrudes such that the light barrier deforms the tissue of the digit of the first hand. This raises an issued under 101, because the only way the light barrier can actually deform the tissue of the digit (finger) is if the finger were present and actually pressed against the light barrier. Such a recitation requires the digit, and thus requires a human organism in the claim. The incorporation or requiring of a human organism in a claim is not permitted and this claim therefore stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The Examiner again respectfully notes that there is a difference between reciting the intended use of the light barrier “for” deforming tissue of a finger as opposed to actually deforming such tissue. Even if unintended, the current claim scope reasonably captures the actual inclusion of a human finger, and thus a human, and is therefore improper under 35 U.S.C. 101.
As to Claims 2-17,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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 1-17 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “wherein the light barrier is exposed to the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user such that the light barrier directly contacts the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user” on the last three lines introduces new matter.
The Examiner acknowledges that applicant does disclose that a hand can contact the light device as seen in Figure 5B. However, these claims are expressly directed towards the steering apparatus itself and what the steering apparatus comprises. This raises an issued under 112, because the only way the light barrier can actually contact the tissue of the digit (finger) is if the finger were present and actually pressed against the light barrier. However, this claim is directed towards the actual steering apparatus, and a finger or user is not originally disclosed to be part of such an apparatus. While a user may “use” the apparatus, such a user is not part of the apparatus. This apparatus is not originally disclosed to include or otherwise comprise a digit of a hand, and thus positively claiming one introduces new matter.
As to Claim 16,
The phrase “the light barrier protrudes from the first curved surface such that the light barrier deforms the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user responsive to directly contacting the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user” on lines 1-3 introduces new matter.
Applicant is expressly reciting that the light barrier protrudes such that the light barrier deforms the tissue of the digit of the first hand. This raises an issued under 112, because the only way the light barrier can actually deform the tissue of the digit (finger) is if the finger were present and actually pressed against the light barrier. However, this claim is directed towards the actual steering apparatus, and a finger or user is not originally disclosed to be part of such an apparatus. While a user may “use” the apparatus, such a user is not part of the apparatus. This apparatus is not originally disclosed to include or otherwise comprise a digit of a hand, and thus positively claiming one introduces new matter.
As to Claims 2-17,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 1-17 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.
As to Claim 1,
The phrase “wherein the light barrier is exposed to the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user such that the light barrier directly contacts the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user” on the last three lines is indefinite.
1) The Examiner acknowledges that applicant does disclose that a hand can contact the light device as seen in Figure 5B. However, these claims are expressly directed towards the steering apparatus itself and what the steering apparatus comprises. This phrase is therefore indefinite, because it is unclear how this phrase should be interpreted. It is unclear if the light barrier must actually touch the digit, or if being exposed such that it could contact the digit is sufficient to meet the claim limitation. For the purpose of compact prosecution and with regard to the prior art, the Examiner is interpreting that a light barrier that is exposed and that can contact a digit of a hand would reasonably meet the above claim feature.
2) The second issue is that the only way a digit of a hand can contact the light barrier is during a use of the steering apparatus. A hand of a user is not part of the apparatus, and thus cannot contact the apparatus except during use. While applicant does not expressly recite a method step of use, similar to what is recited in MPEP 2173.05(p)(II), reciting a use of an apparatus inside an apparatus claim is indefinite, because it is unclear how such features should be treated. Apparatus claims are not directed towards any use, but instead are directed towards the final product itself. It is therefore unclear if any use of the final product apparatus is required in the claim, as no digit can contact the light barrier without such use.
As to Claim 16,
The phrase “the light barrier protrudes from the first curved surface such that the light barrier deforms the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user responsive to directly contacting the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user” on lines 1-3 is indefinite.
Applicant is expressly reciting that the light barrier protrudes such that the light barrier deforms the tissue of the digit of the first hand. This raises an issued under 112, because the only way the light barrier can actually deform the tissue of the digit (finger) is if the finger were present and actually pressed against the light barrier. However, this claim is directed towards the actual steering apparatus, and a finger or user is not originally disclosed to be part of such an apparatus. While a user may “use” the apparatus, such a user is not part of the apparatus. It is therefore unclear if any use of the final product apparatus is required in the claim, as no digit can contact the light barrier without such use. For the purpose of compact prosecution, and with regard to any prior art, the Examiner is interpreting the above feature as an intended use, such that a tissue would deform should one be pressed against the barrier, but no such tissue or digit is required.
As to Claims 2-17,
These claims stand rejected for incorporating and reciting the above rejected subject matter of their respective parent claim(s) and therefore stand rejected for the same reasons.
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.
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 1-6, 8, and 10-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rake et al. (Rake) (US 2014/0316227) in view of Han (US 2016/0310027).
PNG
media_image1.png
360
601
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to Claims 1, 5, 16,
Rake discloses A steering apparatus configured for physiological monitoring, the steering apparatus (1) comprising:
a first portion (left half of steering wheel) and a second portion (right half of steering wheel) configured to rotate about a third portion (middle of the wheel) of the steering apparatus to control the vehicle (Figures 1,2), (Paragraph [0037]), the first portion being symmetrical with the second portion across the third portion (Figures 1,2),
wherein the first portion comprises a first depressed region (7) forming a first curved surface that is shaped to receive a digit of a first hand of a user when the user places their first hand on the steering apparatus (Figures 1,2), ((Paragraphs [0039],[0043]), the first curved surface being elongate extending along a length of the first portion (Figure 1), wherein a first sensor (2’ in Figure 1 or 2 in Figure 2) is positioned within the first curved surface (Figures 1,2), (Paragraphs [0039],[0043]),
wherein the second portion comprises a second depressed region (7) forming a second curved surface on the second portion that is shaped to receive a digit of a second hand of the user when the user places their second hand on the steering apparatus (Figures 1,2), (Paragraphs [0039],[0043]), the second curved surface extending along a length of the second portion (Figures 1,2), wherein a second sensor (3’ in Figure 1 or 3 in Figure 2) is positioned within the second curved surface (Figures 1,2), (Paragraphs [0039],[0043]),
wherein the first sensor comprises: one or more optical emitters (LED) configured to emit optical radiation away from the first curved surface toward a tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user (Figures 1-3), (Paragraphs [0013],[0027],[0039]), one or more optical detectors (photo sensor) configured to generate plethysmography data responsive to attenuation of the optical radiation by the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user (Figures 1-3), (Paragraphs [0013],[0027],[0039]).
Rake does not disclose:
a light barrier positioned between the one or more optical emitters and the one or more optical detectors, wherein the light barrier is exposed to the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user such that the light barrier directly contacts the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user,
an emitter chamber embedded within the first curved surface, the emitter chamber housing the one or more optical emitters;
a detector chamber embedded within the first curved surface, the emitter chamber housing the one or more optical detectors; and
wherein the light barrier is positioned between the emitter chamber and the detector chamber, the light barrier configured to:
induce optical radiation emitted from the one or more optical emitters to penetrate the digit of the first hand of the user before arriving at the one or more optical detectors; and
inhibit optical radiation emitted from the one or more optical emitters from travelling within a gap between the first curved surface and the digit of the first hand of the user,
the light barrier protrudes from the first curved surface such that the light barrier deforms the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user responsive to directly contacting the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user.
Han discloses:
a light barrier (218) positioned between the one or more optical emitters (206) and the one or more optical detectors (204), wherein the light barrier is exposed to the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user such that the light barrier directly contacts the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user (Figure 2B),(Paragraph [0039] / note that this phrase 1) is being interpreted to mean that the light barrier is exposed such that it can contact a digit, and 2) that even if positively recited, because it is exposed, it will contact a digit should one be placed onto the device of Figure 2B),
an emitter chamber (see above figure) embedded within a surface (see above figure), the emitter chamber housing the one or more optical emitters (206) (see above figure);
a detector chamber (see above figure) embedded within the first surface (see above figure), the emitter chamber housing the one or more optical detectors (204); and
wherein the light barrier is positioned between the emitter chamber and the detector chamber (see above figure), the light barrier configured to:
induce optical radiation emitted from the one or more optical emitters to penetrate the digit of the first hand of the user before arriving at the one or more optical detectors (see above figure / note the barrier is substantially similar to that of applicant and that it will induce such radiation by not blocking/absorbing it); and
inhibit optical radiation emitted from the one or more optical emitters from travelling within a gap between the first curved surface and the digit of the first hand of the user (see above figure), (Paragraph [0039]), (Figure 2B),
the light barrier protrudes from the first surface such that the light barrier deforms the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user responsive to directly contacting the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user (Figure 2B / note any tissue pressing against the light barrier will be deformed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rake to include a light barrier positioned between the one or more optical emitters and the one or more optical detectors, wherein the light barrier is exposed to the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user such that the light barrier directly contacts the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user, an emitter chamber embedded within the first curved surface, the emitter chamber housing the one or more optical emitters; a detector chamber embedded within the first curved surface, the emitter chamber housing the one or more optical detectors; and wherein the light barrier is positioned between the emitter chamber and the detector chamber, the light barrier configured to: induce optical radiation emitted from the one or more optical emitters to penetrate the digit of the first hand of the user before arriving at the one or more optical detectors; and inhibit optical radiation emitted from the one or more optical emitters from travelling within a gap between the first curved surface and the digit of the first hand of the user, the light barrier protrudes from the first surface such that the light barrier deforms the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user responsive to directly contacting the tissue of the digit of the first hand of the user given the above disclosure and teaching of Han in order to advantageously utilize a sensing configuration that includes the sensing portion is shielded from the external environment (as evidenced by Paragraph [0001] of previously applied DE MARCO et al. (DE MARCO) (US 2022/0142495) to thereby minimize noise, and wherein the photoplethysmography sensor can be easily manufactured with good assembly tolerances (as evidenced by Paragraph [0001] of previously applied DE MARCO et al. (DE MARCO) (US 2022/0142495).
As to Claim 2,
Rake discloses a controller is configured to control an operation on the vehicle based on the one or more physiological parameters of the user, the controller configured to determine the one or more physiological parameters sensor data originating from the first sensor or the second sensor (Paragraphs [0028],[0029] / note the physiological parameter can simply be the presence of a finger activating the toggle switch, and note that a controller must be present to interpret any use of the toggle switches to perform the disclosed function).
As to Claim 3,
Rake discloses the first curved surface comprises a left arm (LA) electrode configured to contact the digit of the first hand and respond to electrical voltages conducted through the first hand of the user to the LA electrode (Figure 1),(Paragraphs [0042],[0043] / note surface 2’ is the left arm electrode), and wherein the second curved surface comprises a right arm (RA) electrode configured to contact the digit of the second hand of the user and respond to electrical voltages conducted through the second hand to the RA electrode (Figure 1),(Paragraphs [0042],[0043] / note surface 3’ is the right arm electrode), the RA electrode being operably coupled with the LA electrode to form an electrode pair (Paragraphs [0042],[0043] / note these electrodes are used together to perform an EKG), the RA electrode and the LA electrode being physically and electrically isolated from each other on the steering apparatus (Figure 1).
As to Claim 4,
Rake discloses the first sensor comprises an oximeter (8) positioned with the depressed region of the left portion (Figure 1), (Paragraphs [0039],[0042]).
As to Claim 6,
Rake discloses the LA electrode at least partially surrounds the one or more emitters and/or the one or more detectors (Figure 1 / note the optical sensing device as a whole is surrounded by the conductive material 6).
As to Claim 8,
Rake discloses the first curved surface and the second curved surface are symmetrical with each other across the third portion (Figure 1).
As to Claims 10, 11, and 12,
Rake in view of Han does not expressly disclose the dimensions of the sensors used and thus does not expressly disclose a length of the first curved surface is between 20mm and 60mm, a width of the first curved surface is between 15mm and 35mm, the first curved surface is bounded by a stadium shaped perimeter, wherein a width of the first curved surface is between 60% and 65% of a length of the first curved surface.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the dimensions of the sensors are result effective variables because they must reasonably be adjusted based upon the actual size of the steering wheel and the expect size of the fingers being placed into the depressed regions of the sensors.
As such, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rake to optimize the dimensions of the sensors to thereby include and to use the claimed dimensions to thereby include a length of the first curved surface is between 20mm and 60mm, a width of the first curved surface is between 15mm and 35mm, the first curved surface is bounded by a stadium shaped perimeter, wherein a width of the first curved surface is between 60% and 65% of a length of the first curved surface given the above because it has been held that "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05), and because it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” (MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A), and in order to advantageously ensure that the sensors were sufficiently sized to allow the fingers of a user to comfortably rest against the steering wheel while still being able to accurate measure the vitals of person to ensure they are able to properly operate the vehicle.
As to Claim 13,
Rake discloses the first depressed region is positioned on a top portion of the steering apparatus (Figure 1).
As to Claim 14,
Rake discloses the first depressed region is positioned on a front of the steering apparatus facing toward the user (Figure 1).
As to Claim 15,
Rake discloses the first depressed region is positioned on a back of the steering apparatus facing away from the user (Figure 2).
As to Claim 17,
Rake discloses that the electrodes are metal surfaces (Paragraph [0042]), but does not explicitly disclose the LA electrode comprises a curved surface, the curved surface of the LA electrode being at least partially recessed into the first curved surface, and wherein the RA electrode comprises a curved surface, the curved surface of the RA electrode being at least partially recessed into the second curved surface.
However, the only difference here is whether the curved surfaces for the electrodes that must reasonably follow the surfaces they are placed on, which are curved, are on or integrated into the curved surface of the steering wheel.
A person of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably know that it would be obvious to choose to integrate the electrodes into the steering wheel, and specifically in the very recessed they are placed, because mere integration is obvious (MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rake to include integrating the electrodes into the curved surfaces to therefore include the LA electrode comprises a curved surface, the curved surface of the LA electrode being at least partially recessed into the first curved surface, and wherein the RA electrode comprises a curved surface, the curved surface of the RA electrode being at least partially recessed into the second curved surface given the above disclosure and teaching of Rake in order to advantageously minimize the chance of damage to the electrodes by recessing them into the recessed surface so that they are less likely to be broken off and are more difficult to damage (MPEP 2144.04(V)(B)).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rake et al. (Rake) (US 2014/0316227) in view of Han (US 2016/0310027) as applied to Claim 3 and in further view of Yanai et al. (Yanai) (US 2008/0238695).
As to Claim 7,
Rake in view of Han does not disclose a second left arm (LA) electrode positioned on the first curved surface, the second LA electrode configured to contact the digit of the first hand of the user and respond to the electrical voltage conducted through the first hand of the user to the second LA electrode.
Yanai discloses a second left arm (LA) (22) electrode positioned on the first curved surface (Figures 2A,2B), (Paragraph [0031]), the second LA electrode configured to contact the digit of the first hand of the user and respond to the electrical voltage conducted through the first hand of the user to the second LA electrode (Paragraph [0031]), (Figure 2A).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rake in view of Han include a second left arm (LA) electrode positioned on the first curved surface, the second LA electrode configured to contact the digit of the first hand of the user and respond to the electrical voltage conducted through the first hand of the user to the second LA electrode as taught by Yanai in order to advantageously provide a redundant sensing surface in case one surface becomes damaged during repeated use, and in order to advantageously utilize a simplified installation configuration for the electrodes and the electrodes of each electrode device can be easily placed in a limited area.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rake et al. (Rake) (US 2014/0316227) in view of Han (US 2016/0310027) as applied to Claim 1 and in further view of in view of BAI (CN 107226123 A).
Note the cited paragraphs for the above foreign reference come from the provided English machine translation.
As to Claim 9,
Rake in view of Han does not disclose a temperature sensor positioned with the first depressed region.
BAI discloses a temperature sensor positioned with the other sensors and used to measure vitals of a user when gripping a steering wheel (Paragraphs [0015],[0061]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Rake in view of Han to include a temperature sensor positioned with the first depressed region given the above disclosure and teaching of BAI in order to advantageously integrate the sensors in a manner that make the steering wheel more comfortable to use (Paragraph [0012]), while making sure that the driver is safe to drive the car and is not ill or otherwise unable to effectively operate the vehicle.
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 DAVID M. SCHINDLER whose telephone number is (571)272-2112. The examiner can normally be reached 8am-4:30pm.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
DAVID M. SCHINDLER
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/DAVID M SCHINDLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights