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 Office Action is in response to the amendments dated August 13, 2026.
Claims 5-9, 16-17, and 20-26 are pending.
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 present rejection(s) reference specific passages from cited prior art. However, Applicant is advised that the rejections are based on the entirety of each cited prior art. That is, each cited prior art reference “must be considered in its entirety”. Therefore, Applicant is advised to review all portions of the cited prior art if traversing a rejection based on the cited prior art.
Claims 5, 7-8, 20, and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US PGPUB 2021/0041604 – “Choi”) in view of Leu (US PGPUB 2017/0054884 – “Leu”) Azuma (PGPUB 2015/0080651 – “Azuma”).
Regarding Claim 5, Choi discloses:
A method of determining an adjustment for a liquid lens (Choi FIG. 6, liquid lens 280) of a camera (Choi FIG. 1, camera module 10), comprising:
controlling the liquid lens to achieve a first focus (Choi FIG. 6, controller 230 in control unit 220 and voltage driver 235; Choi paragraph [0100], “control unit 220 is a component for performing an AF function and an OIS function, and may control a liquid lens module 260 included in the lens assembly 250 using a user request or a sensed result”);
setting a threshold focus metric (Choi FIG. 6, controller 230; Choi paragraph [0103], “The controller 230…may calculate the amount of handshaking using the movement signal”);
if the image data focus metric is higher than the threshold focus metric, control the liquid lens to achieve a second focus (Choi paragraph [0103], “Choi paragraph [0103], “The controller 230… may calculate a drive voltage corresponding to the shape that a liquid lens 280 of the liquid lens module 260 needs to have in order to compensate for the calculated amount of handshaking.”).
Choi does not explicitly disclose receiving data of an image; calculating a focus metric of the image data and comparing the image data focus metric to the threshold focus metric.
Leu is analogous art in the field of optical lens control that teaches receiving data of an image (Leu block S230, analyze image captured at the start position); calculating a focus metric of the image data and comparing the image data focus metric to the threshold focus metric (Leu Fig. 9, query block S240, Is lens in focus?); and if the image data focus metric is higher than the threshold focus metric, controlling the lens to achieve a second focus (Leu FIG. 9, block S250, output position change signal for changing position of lens).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leu’s image analysis to adjust the lens with the method disclosed by Choi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method for controlling an imaging lens without the use of a distance sensor, in order to reduce the size, weight, and complexity of the imaging device.
Choi in view of Leu does not explicitly teach:
determining coverage of a sensor by a scope coupled to the camera based on the image data;
setting one or more regions of interest in the image frame based on the determined coverage of the sensor; and
calculating a focus metric of the image data based on the one or more regions of interest.
Azuma teaches:
determining coverage of a sensor by a scope coupled to the camera based on the image data (Azuma FIG. 5A, showing an endoscopic image);
setting one or more regions of interest in the image frame based on the determined coverage of the sensor (Azuma FIG. 5A, showing an endoscopic image divided into multiple regions of interest; Azuma paragraph [0077], “FIG. 5A shows an example of a region of interest divided into a plurality of discrete regions “); and
calculating a focus metric of the image data based on the one or more regions of interest (Azuma FIG. 1, estimation value calculation unit 5; Azuma paragraph [0043], “The estimation value is a value showing the degree of focus in the region of interest”; Azuma paragraph [0077], “the estimation value calculation unit 5 calculates the estimation value at each of the regions of interest set by the region setting unit 4“).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the use of Azuma’s region setting unit 4 estimation value calculation unit 5 with the method taught by Choi in view of Leu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that enables evaluating the degree of focus of a same subsection of an image across multiple frames (Azuma paragraph [0077], “estimation value calculation unit 5 calculates the estimation value at each of the regions of interest set by the region setting unit 4. The estimation value comparison unit 7 compares the reference value of the previous frame and the estimation value of the current frame at each of the regions of interest”).
As (1) the combination of the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, as described above; (2) the record shows no evidence of each element taught by the cited prior art performing differently in combination as it does separately (i.e., either alone or in combination the system for focusing performs in a same manner); and (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., nothing in the record supports anything other than the ability to utilize Azuma’s region setting unit 4 estimation value calculation unit 5 with the method taught by Choi in view of Leu). As such, no additional findings based on the Graham (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 7, Choi in view of Leu and Azuma teaches the features of Claim 5, as described above.
Leu further teaches resetting the threshold focus metric based on the image data focus metric; and repeating the method until a predetermined focus level is achieved (Leu FIG. 2, processor 10, camera module 20, and lens 210; Leu FIG. 9; Leu paragraph [0108], “camera module 20 changes the position of the lens 210 in response to the position change signal, captures an image using the lens 210 at the changed position, and transmits the captured image to the processor 10 or the SoC 10a in operation S220. The processor 10 or the SoC 10a receives and analyzes the image in operation S230 and determines whether the lens 210 is in focus based on the analysis result in operation S240. Such procedure is repeated until the lens 210 is in focus.”).
Regarding Claim 8, Choi in view of Leu and Azuma teaches the features of Claim 5, as described above.
Leu further teaches wherein if the image data focus metric is not higher than the threshold focus metric, the method comprises commanding delivery of a voltage to the liquid lens based on the threshold focus metric (Leu FIG. 2, processor 10, camera module 20, and lens 210; Leu FIG. 9; Leu paragraph [0108], “camera module 20 changes the position of the lens 210 in response to the position change signal, captures an image using the lens 210 at the changed position, and transmits the captured image to the processor 10 or the SoC 10a in operation S220. The processor 10 or the SoC 10a receives and analyzes the image in operation S230 and determines whether the lens 210 is in focus based on the analysis result in operation S240. Such procedure is repeated until the lens 210 is in focus.”).
Regarding Claim 20, Choi discloses:
A system (Choi FIG. 6, control circuit 210 having a controller 230 in control unit 220), configured to:
control a liquid lens (Choi FIG. 6, liquid lens 280) of a camera (Choi FIG. 1, camera module 10) to achieve a first focus (Choi FIG. 6, controller 230 in control unit 220 and voltage driver 235; Choi paragraph [0100], “control unit 220 is a component for performing an AF function and an OIS function, and may control a liquid lens module 260 included in the lens assembly 250 using a user request or a sensed result”);
set a threshold focus metric (Choi FIG. 6, controller 230; Choi paragraph [0103], “The controller 230…may calculate the amount of handshaking using the movement signal”);
if the image data focus metric is higher than the threshold focus metric, control the liquid lens to achieve a second focus (Choi paragraph [0103], “Choi paragraph [0103], “The controller 230… may calculate a drive voltage corresponding to the shape that a liquid lens 280 of the liquid lens module 260 needs to have in order to compensate for the calculated amount of handshaking.”).
Choi does not explicitly disclose receive data of an image; calculate a focus metric of the image data and compare the image data focus metric to the threshold focus metric.
Leu is analogous art in the field of optical lens control that teaches receive data of an image (Leu block S230, analyze image captured at the start position); calculate a focus metric of the image data(Leu Fig. 9, query block S240, Is lens in focus?) and compare the image data focus metric to the threshold focus metric (Leu FIG. 9, block S250, output position change signal for changing position of lens).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Leu’s image analyzer to adjust the lens with the device disclosed by Choi. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a device for controlling an imaging lens without the use of a distance sensor, in order to reduce the size, weight, and complexity of the imaging device.
Choi in view of Leu does not explicitly teach:
determining coverage of a sensor by a scope coupled to the camera based on the image data;
setting one or more regions of interest in the image frame based on the determined coverage of the sensor; and
calculating a focus metric of the image data based on the one or more regions of interest.
Azuma teaches:
determining coverage of a sensor by a scope coupled to the camera based on the image data (Azuma FIG. 5A, showing an endoscopic image);
setting one or more regions of interest in the image frame based on the determined coverage of the sensor (Azuma FIG. 5A, showing an endoscopic image divided into multiple regions of interest; Azuma paragraph [0077], “FIG. 5A shows an example of a region of interest divided into a plurality of discrete regions “); and
calculating a focus metric of the image data based on the one or more regions of interest (Azuma FIG. 1, estimation value calculation unit 5; Azuma paragraph [0043], “The estimation value is a value showing the degree of focus in the region of interest”; Azuma paragraph [0077], “the estimation value calculation unit 5 calculates the estimation value at each of the regions of interest set by the region setting unit 4“).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the use of Azuma’s region setting unit 4 estimation value calculation unit 5 with the method taught by Choi in view of Leu. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that enables evaluating the degree of focus of a same subsection of an image across multiple frames (Azuma paragraph [0077], “estimation value calculation unit 5 calculates the estimation value at each of the regions of interest set by the region setting unit 4. The estimation value comparison unit 7 compares the reference value of the previous frame and the estimation value of the current frame at each of the regions of interest”).
As (1) the combination of the prior art includes each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, as described above; (2) the record shows no evidence of each element taught by the cited prior art performing differently in combination as it does separately (i.e., either alone or in combination the system for focusing performs in a same manner); and (3) a finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable (i.e., nothing in the record supports anything other than the ability to utilize Azuma’s region setting unit 4 estimation value calculation unit 5 with the method taught by Choi in view of Leu). As such, no additional findings based on the Graham (Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966) factual inquiries are necessary, in view of the facts of the case under consideration, to explain a conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding Claim 22, Choi in view of Leu and Azuma teaches the features of Claim 20, as described above.
Leu further teaches resetting the threshold focus metric based on the image data focus metric; and repeating the method until a predetermined focus level is achieved (Leu FIG. 2, processor 10, camera module 20, and lens 210; Leu FIG. 9; Leu paragraph [0108], “camera module 20 changes the position of the lens 210 in response to the position change signal, captures an image using the lens 210 at the changed position, and transmits the captured image to the processor 10 or the SoC 10a in operation S220. The processor 10 or the SoC 10a receives and analyzes the image in operation S230 and determines whether the lens 210 is in focus based on the analysis result in operation S240. Such procedure is repeated until the lens 210 is in focus.”).
Regarding Claim 23, Choi in view of Leu and Azuma teaches the features of Claim 20, as described above.
Leu further teaches wherein if the image data focus metric is not higher than the threshold focus metric, the method comprises commanding delivery of a voltage to the liquid lens based on the threshold focus metric (Leu FIG. 2, processor 10, camera module 20, and lens 210; Leu FIG. 9; Leu paragraph [0108], “camera module 20 changes the position of the lens 210 in response to the position change signal, captures an image using the lens 210 at the changed position, and transmits the captured image to the processor 10 or the SoC 10a in operation S220. The processor 10 or the SoC 10a receives and analyzes the image in operation S230 and determines whether the lens 210 is in focus based on the analysis result in operation S240. Such procedure is repeated until the lens 210 is in focus.”).
Claims 6, 17, 21, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US PGPUB 2021/0041604 – “Choi”) in view of Leu (US PGPUB 2017/0054884 – “Leu”), Azuma (PGPUB 2015/0080651 – “Azuma”), and Barbato et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0066770 – “Barbato”).
Regarding Claim 6, Choi in view of Leu and Azuma teaches the features of Claim 5, as described above.
Choi in view of Leu and Azuma does not explicitly teach determining a type of scope connected to the camera.
Barbato teaches determining a type of scope connected to the camera (Barbato FIG. 24A, identification sensor 2103, endoscope 2013, camera hand-piece 2010; Barbato paragraph [0131], “identification sensor 2103 determines the type of endoscope 2013 or light guide that is attached to the camera hand-piece 2010”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Barbato’s endoscope identifier with the method taught by Choi in view of Leu and Azuma. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that ensures mechanical, functional, and electrical compatibility between a scope and a camera.
Regarding Claim 17, Choi in view of Leu and Azuma teaches the features of Claim 5, as described above.
Choi in view of Leu and Azuma does not explicitly teach wherein the camera is an endoscopic camera, such that receiving the image data comprises receiving data of an image from an endoscope.
Barbato teaches wherein the camera is an endoscopic camera (Barbato FIG. 1A endoscope 20; Barbato FIG. 18, camera/CMOS 1708) , such that receiving the image data comprises receiving data of an image from an endoscope (Barbato paragraph [0101], “3-CMOS sensor 1708 transmits and receives data and draws power from the transmitting/receiving unit 1764 of the video input board 1760”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Barbato’s endoscope/endoscopic camera with the method taught by Choi in view of Leu and Azuma. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that focuses images captured during endoscopic surgery.
Regarding Claim 21, Choi in view of Leu and Azuma teaches the features of Claim 20, as described above.
Choi in view of Leu and Azuma does not explicitly teach a system that is configured to determine a type of scope connected to the camera.
Barbato teaches a system (Barbato FIG. 24A, processor 2005) that is configured to determine a type of scope connected to the camera (Barbato FIG. 24A, ID sensor 2103, endoscope 2013, camera hand-piece 2010; Barbato paragraph [0131], “identification sensor 2103 determines the type of endoscope 2013 or light guide that is attached to the camera hand-piece 2010”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Barbato’s endoscope/endoscopic camera with the system taught by Choi in view of Leu and Azuma. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a system that is capable of setting up a camera based on the type of endoscope that is attached thereto (see Barbato paragraph [0131]).
Regarding Claim 26, Choi in view of Leu and Azuma teaches the features of Claim 20, as described above.
Choi in view of Leu and Azuma does not explicitly teach wherein the camera is an endoscopic camera, such that receiving the image data comprises receiving data of an image from an endoscope.
Barbato teaches wherein the camera is an endoscopic camera (Barbato FIG. 1A endoscope 20; Barbato FIG. 18, camera/CMOS 1708) , such that receiving the image data comprises receiving data of an image from an endoscope (Barbato paragraph [0101], “3-CMOS sensor 1708 transmits and receives data and draws power from the transmitting/receiving unit 1764 of the video input board 1760”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize Barbato’s endoscope/endoscopic camera with the method taught by Choi in view of Leu and Azuma. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that focuses images captured during endoscopic surgery.
Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US PGPUB 2021/0041604 – “Choi”) in view of Leu (US PGPUB 2017/0054884 – “Leu”), Azuma (PGPUB 2015/0080651 – “Azuma”), and Blalock et al. (US PGPUB 2007/0016022 – “Blalock”).
Regarding Claim 9, Choi in view of Leu and Azuma teaches the features of Claim 5, as described above.
As described in the rejection of Claim 5 above, Choi in view of Leu and Azuma teaches receiving the image data, calculating the focus metric of the image data and comparing the image data focus metric to the threshold focus metric, and controlling the liquid lens to achieve the second focus.
Blalock is analogous art in the field of imaging that teaches that such image focusing is performed during lymphatic imaging, blood flow imaging (Blalock paragraph [0097], “a plurality of image points 154 forming an image 168. In several embodiments, image 168 may be…used to estimate blood flow…focusing may be repeated on reflected outgoing ultrasound 112 at plurality of image points 154.”), tissue perfusion imaging, or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Blalock’s blood flow imaging with the method taught by Choi in view of Leu and Azuma. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a method that ensures that an image of a blood vessel remains in focus in order to accurately determine the blood flow therein.
Regarding Claim 24, Choi in view of Leu and Azuma teaches the features of Claim 20, as described above.
As described in the rejection of Claim 20 above, Choi in view of Leu and Azuma teaches receiving the image data, calculating the focus metric of the image data and comparing the image data focus metric to the threshold focus metric, and controlling the liquid lens to achieve the second focus.
Blalock is analogous art in the field of imaging that teaches that such image focusing is performed during lymphatic imaging, blood flow imaging (Blalock paragraph [0097], “a plurality of image points 154 forming an image 168. In several embodiments, image 168 may be…used to estimate blood flow…focusing may be repeated on reflected outgoing ultrasound 112 at plurality of image points 154.”), tissue perfusion imaging, or a combination thereof.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Blalock’s blood flow imaging with the system taught by Choi in view of Leu and Azuma. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a system that ensures that an image of a blood vessel remains in focus in order to accurately determine the blood flow therein.
Claims 16 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi (US PGPUB 2021/0041604 – “Choi”) in view of Leu (US PGPUB 2017/0054884 – “Leu”), Azuma (PGPUB 2015/0080651 – “Azuma”), and Ozawa et al. (US Patent 5,628,036 – “Ozawa”).
Regarding Claim 16, Choi in view of Leu and Azuma teaches the features of Claim 5, as described above.
Choi in view of Leu and Azuma does not explicitly teach wherein setting the threshold focus metric comprises setting the threshold previously calculated focus metric to a highest focus metric.
Ozawa is analogous art in the field of lens focusing that teaches wherein setting the threshold focus metric comprises setting the threshold focus metric to a highest focus metric (Ozawa FIG. 1; Ozawa col. 8 lines 30-38, “upon starting the focus adjustment process, the flag is first reset to 0, and at step S104 the threshold value E1 is set to an initial value. Then, when the shooting lens 1 is driven to the in-focus position or near the vicinity of the in-focus position, the flag is set to 1 at step S108. If a computed defocus amount based on low frequency components of the object image signals later exceeds the predetermined range, the threshold value E1 is replaced with a larger value”; Examiner interprets iterative increased in the focus threshold value as setting the focus threshold value as the highest focus threshold value.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ozawa’s iterative focus threshold increases with the method taught by Choi in view of Leu and Azuma. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a focus control method that reiteratively adjusts the threshold of focus/lens movement, as described in S105 of Ozawa FIG. 1.
Regarding Claim 26, Choi in view of Leu and Azuma teaches the features of Claim 20, as described above.
Choi in view of Leu and Azuma does not explicitly teach wherein setting the threshold focus metric comprises setting the threshold previously calculated focus metric to a highest focus metric.
Ozawa is analogous art in the field of lens focusing that teaches wherein setting the threshold focus metric comprises setting the threshold focus metric to a highest focus metric (Ozawa FIG. 1; Ozawa col. 8 lines 30-38, “upon starting the focus adjustment process, the flag is first reset to 0, and at step S104 the threshold value E1 is set to an initial value. Then, when the shooting lens 1 is driven to the in-focus position or near the vicinity of the in-focus position, the flag is set to 1 at step S108. If a computed defocus amount based on low frequency components of the object image signals later exceeds the predetermined range, the threshold value E1 is replaced with a larger value”; Examiner interprets iterative increased in the focus threshold value as setting the focus threshold value as the highest focus threshold value.).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Ozawa’s iterative focus threshold increases with the system taught by Choi in view of Leu and Azuma. A person having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine these prior art elements according to known methods to yield the predictable result of a system that reiteratively adjusts the threshold of focus/lens movement, as described in S105 of Ozawa FIG. 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed August 13, 2026, with respect to the objection to Claim 8 have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendment to Claim 8, removing the indefinite term “high”. Therefore, the objection to Claim 8 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6, filed August 13, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to Claim 16, which clarify the highest focus metric to that which was previously calculated. Therefore, the rejection of Claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a)(b) has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 6-9, filed August 13, 2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of Claims 1, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered. The arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 1 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are moot since they are currently canceled. The arguments regarding the rejection of Claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are persuasive in view of the present amendments. Therefore, the rejection of Claims 20 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Azuma (PGPUB 2015/0080651 – “Azuma”).
As the arguments presented against currently-amended Claim 20, as well as those applicable to cancelled Claims 13-15, address the teachings of Barbato et al. (US PGPUB 2016/0066770 – “Barbato”) as failing to teach or suggest the features of determining coverage of a sensor by a scope coupled to the camera based on the image data; setting one or more regions of interest in the image frame based on the determined coverage of the sensor; calculating a focus metric of the image data based on the one or more regions of interest. However, as described above, these features are now rejected in view of the teachings of Azuma, and are therefore moot.
On page 7, Applicant asserts that Barbato fails to teach “endoscope identification is derived from captured image data” in Claim 5. However, this feature is not claimed in Claim 5 or any other pending claims. Rather, Claim 5 claims “determining coverage of a sensor by a scope coupled to the camera based on the image data”. As such, this argument is moot.
Therefore, the rejection of Claim 5-9, 16-17, and 20-26 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
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 JIM BOICE whose telephone number is (571)272-6565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm Eastern.
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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
JIM BOICE
Examiner
Art Unit 3795
/JAMES EDWARD BOICE/Examiner, Art Unit 3795
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795 10/9/26
Prosecution Insights