DETAILED ACTION
Status of Claims
This is a Final Office Action in response to the arguments and/or amendments filed on 11 February 2026.
Claim(s) 9, 10, and 13 is/are canceled. Claim(s) 1, 14, and 15 is/are amended.
Claim(s) 1-8, 11, 12, 14, and 15 is/are currently pending and have been examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim 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 1-8, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 14, which is representative of claims 1 and 15, recites: an examination support method comprising:
acquiring registration information registered in advance for a target subject who is a presentation destination of information related to a medical examination;
determining whether presentation information to be presented for the target subject
in a case where the presentation information cannot be decided on the basis of the registration information, imaging and/or
acquiring target subject data including at least one of imaging data obtained by the imaging
deciding the presentation information to be presented on the basis of the target subject data.
The preceding recitation of the claim has had strikethroughs applied to the additional elements beyond the abstract idea to more clearly demonstrate the limitations setting forth the abstract idea. The remaining limitations describe a concept of receiving and evaluating registration information of a patient, and when a decision cannot be made, observing the patient and providing information to the patient based on the observation. This concept describes a mental process that an imagining technician should follow to provide an imaging patient information similar to the “mental process that a neurologist should follow when testing a patient for nervous system malfunctions” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) as an example of managing personal behavior in the methods of organizing human activity sub-grouping. As such, these limitation set forth a method of organizing human activity. Alternatively, the identified concept is analogous to the examples of “observation”, “judgement”, and “opinion” given in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) and can be performed in the human mind. As such, these limitations set forth a mental process. Therefore the claims are determined to recite an abstract idea.
MPEP 2106, reflecting the 2019 PEG, directs examiners at Step 2A Prong Two to consider whether the additional elements of the claims integrate a recited abstract idea into a practical application.
Claim 14 recites the additional element of via a computer. Claims 1 and 13 recite the additional element of a processor. Claim 15 recites the additional element of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium. These additional elements are all recited at an extremely high level of generality, and are interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. Per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing device does not integrate an abstract idea into a practical application in Step 2A Prong Two, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of a presentation device that presents information. This additional element also is recited at an extremely high level of generality, and can be reasonably interpreted as a generic computing device used to implement the abstract idea. As such, this addition element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
The claims further recite the additional element of an imaging device and a sound collecting device. These additional elements do not describe any particular machine, any transformation of an article, any improvement to technology, and do not meaningfully limit the implementation of the abstract idea. Instead, these additional elements amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with electronic devices. As such, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
There are no further additional elements. When considered as a combination, the additional elements amount to instructions to implement the abstract idea with electronic devices in a computing device environment. As such, the combination of additional elements does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Therefore the claims are determined to be directed to an abstract idea.
At Step 2B of the Mayo/Alice analysis, examiners are to consider whether the additional elements amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.
As previously noted, the claims recite additional elements which may be interpreted as generic computing devices used to implement the abstract idea. However, per MPEP 2106.05(f), implementing an abstract idea on a generic computing does not add significantly more in Step 2B, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a generic computer. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more.
As previously noted, the claims recite the additional element of an imaging device and a sound collecting device. Inkinen et al. (US 2001/0005684 A1) demonstrates (a conventional multimedia computer, i.e. a computer, to which a microphone, a camera and speakers are coupled. See at least [0007) that imaging devices and sound collecting devices were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. As such, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more. Further, the previously cited portion of Inkinen demonstrates that the combination of a computer, an imaging device, and a sound collection device were conventional long before the priority date of the claimed invention. Therefore, when considered individually and as a combination, the additional elements of the independent claims do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Thus the independent claims are not patent eligible
Dependent claims 2-8, 11, and 12 further describe the abstract idea set forth by the above claims, but these claims are determined to continue to recite an abstract idea, albeit a narrowed one. Dependent claims 2-4 and 6-8 recite no further additional elements. The previously identified additional elements, individually and as a combination, do not either integrate the narrowed abstract ideas of claims 2-4 and 6-8 into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract ideas of claims 2-4 and 6-8 for the same reasons articulated above. Dependent claims 5, 11, and 12 further describe the additional element of the presentation device. However, even with the further description, this additional element continues to be interpretable as a generic computing device. As such, this additional element, individually and as a combination with the other additional elements, does not either integrate the narrowed abstract ideas of claims 5, 11, and 12 or amount to significantly more than the narrowed abstract ideas of claims 5, 11, and 12. Thus as these claims 2-8, 11, and 12 remain directed to a judicial exception and as the additional elements of claims 2-8, 11, and 12 do not amount to significantly more, these claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 12, 14, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popilock et al. (US 2012/0278144 A1) in view of Ben Abdelaziz (US 2022/0020374 A1) [hereinafter referred to as Abdelaziz].
Regarding Claim 1, 14, and 15: Popilock discloses an examination support apparatus comprising: a processor, wherein the processor (See at least [0026]) acquires registration information registered in advance for a target subject who is a presentation destination of information related to a medical examination and decides the presentation information on the basis of the target subject data (the selector 212 selects an informational and/or instructional program that correspond to patient demographics (e.g., age, gender, race, language, etc.), patient history (e.g., medical, family, imaging, etc.), a type of imaging examination being performed, a primary language of the patient, and/or other information. See at least [0031]. Also: Patient demographics, medical history, family history, imaging history, spoken language, etc. can be obtained from one or more patient information repositories 214 (e.g., a hospital information system (HIS), a radiology information system (RIS), etc.) and/or other electronic storage. See at least [0032]. Also: once the patient is confirmed, the selector 212 selects a next one or more programs for presentation via the display 118. The particular program may selected based on various information such as the particular examination being performed, patient information demographics, languages spoken and/or understood by the patient, patient medical history, patient imagines history, and/or other information. See at least [0049]).
Popilock further discloses instructs an imaging device that images the target subject to perform imaging and/or instructs a sound collecting device that collects voice of the target subject to collect sound, acquire target subject data including at least one of imaging data obtained by the imaging device or audio data obtained by the sound collecting device, and decide the presentation information on the basis of the target subject data (A confirmer 222 confirms various information. For example, the confirmer 222 can confirm that the correct patient is in the examination room. For example, the confirmer 222 can retrieve the name of the scheduled patient from the electronic schedule 216 or the selector 212 (as shown) and confirm the name of the patient with a name provided by the patient. See at least [0035]. Also: At 312, the program is sent to the playback device, which streams the program to the display 120. In this example, the greeting is played and the patient is asked to provide their name. See at least [0045]. Also: At 314, the response of the patient to the request is detected. A patient response can detected through various approaches. For example, in one instance, the system detects audio responses and detects a patient speaking his/her name. Additionally or alternatively, the system is configured for a tactile response, for example, via one or more touch screen buttons, and the patient selects or presses a touch screen button confirming or rejecting a candidate name. In this instance, the patient can touch a button using a finger, a digital pen, a mouse pointer, etc. Where the input region 204 includes an identification band scanner, a biometric scanner (e.g., facial, cornea, fingerprint, etc), and/or other scanner, the patient can be asked to place the appropriate article and/or anatomy within the scanner's reading field. See at least [0046]. Also: the confirmer 222 can notify the selector 212 of a match so that the selector 212 can select a next program to display based one the patient and/or patient information. See at least [0035]).
Popilock does not expressly disclose determines whether presentation information to be presented for the target subject by a presentation device that presents the information related to the medical examination can be decided on the basis of the registration information and proceeding to collect data in a case where the presentation information cannot be decided on the basis of the registration information.
Abdelaziz teaches determines whether presentation information to be presented for the target subject by a presentation device that presents the information can be decided on the basis of the registration information and in a case where the presentation information cannot be decided on the basis of registration information, instructs an imaging device that images the target subject to perform imaging and/or instructs a sound collecting device that collects voice of the target subject to collect sound, acquires target subject data including at least one of imaging data obtained by the imaging device or audio data obtained by the sound device, and decides the presentation information on the basis of the target subject data (the customized mode of use comprises: a default operation if the result of said comparison is an absence of recognition of the user or recognition of a user for whom the central processing unit cannot access a preference for the language of said PVA system or for the language of the wake words … When the customized mode of use is a default operation, the method further comprises: voice output by a sound-emitting device, in a first predefined language, at the command of said central processing unit, of welcome words and of a proposal to store an identity and a language preference for said user of the PVA system … In addition, the method comprises: capture, by an acoustic sensor, of a user's voice response to said proposal, detection of a language used in said voice response … capture, by an acoustic sensor, of a user's voice message; detection of the language used in said message; and determination of a customized mode of use of the personal virtual assistant, by said central processing unit, based on the result of said detection. See at least [0015]-[0032]).
Popilock provides a medical imaging system which interacts with a patient using a voice interface including collecting audio information to confirm the patient’s information, upon which the claimed invention’s determination of whether the available information necessitates confirmation can be seen as an improvement. However, Abdelaziz demonstrates that the prior art already knew of determining a whether it is necessary to collect additional information from a user to present content to that user. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Abdelaziz to the system of Popilock. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Abdelaziz would have resulted in an improved system which could acquire additional information only when necessary. As such the application of Abdelaziz, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Popilock and the teachings of Abdelaziz.
Regarding Claim 2: Popilock in view of Abdelaziz makes obvious the above limitations. Popilock further discloses wherein the processor recognizes attributes of the target subject by using target subject data, and decides the presentation information on the basis of the attributes of the target subject (At 318, once the patient is confirmed, the selector 212 selects a next one or more programs for presentation via the display 118. The particular program may selected based on various information such as the particular examination being performed, patient information demographics, languages spoken and/or understood by the patient, patient medical history, patient imagines history, and/or other information. See at least [0049]. Also: may include the video or virtual radiologist discussing various aspects of the imaging procedure with the patient. This may include explaining the imaging procedure, such as identifying the region of the patient that is being scanned, noting approximately how long the imaging procedure should take, apprising the patient of any actions that they may need to perform during the procedure (e.g., hold breath, turn, position arms over head, etc.), etc. Additionally or alternatively, the program may include instructions such as instructions instructing the patient on how to lie down (e.g., supine, prone, on a side, etc.) on the patient support 114 and to go ahead and lie down. See at least [0050]. Also: A selector 212 selects (and/or identifies) one or more programs 210 from the library 208 for display based on various information. … the selector 212 selects an informational and/or instructional program that correspond to patient demographics (e.g., age, gender, race, language, etc.), patient history (e.g., medical, family, imaging, etc.), a type of imaging examination being performed, a primary language of the patient, and/or other information. See at least [0031]).
Regarding Claim 3: Popilock in view of Abdelaziz makes obvious the above limitations. Popilock further discloses wherein in a case where a plurality of target subjects having different attributes are recognized, the processor receives a user's input for selecting which target subject among the plurality of target subjects the presentation information is presented for (At 314, the response of the patient to the request is detected. A patient response can detected through various approaches. For example, in one instance, the system detects audio responses and detects a patient speaking his/her name. Additionally or alternatively, the system is configured for a tactile response, for example, via one or more touch screen buttons, and the patient selects or presses a touch screen button confirming or rejecting a candidate name. See at least [0046]).
Regarding Claim 4: Popilock in view of Abdelaziz makes obvious the above limitations. Popilock further discloses wherein in a case where a plurality of target subjects having different attributes are recognized, the processor automatically selects which target subject among the plurality of target subjects the presentation information is presented for, according to a standard determined in advance (At 314, the response of the patient to the request is detected. A patient response can detected through various approaches. For example, in one instance, the system detects audio responses and detects a patient speaking his/her name. Additionally or alternatively, the system is configured for a tactile response, for example, via one or more touch screen buttons, and the patient selects or presses a touch screen button confirming or rejecting a candidate name. See at least [0046]).
Regarding Claim 8: Popilock in view of Abdelaziz makes obvious the above limitations. Popilock further discloses wherein the processor recognizes a situation of the target subject during viewing of the information related to the medical examination by using the target subject data, and decides the presentation information on the basis of the situation of the target subject (At 602, optionally, the selector 212 selects one or more programs to present to the operator of the apparatus 100 via the display 118 during the imaging procedure. In one instance, the information in the program may indicate that the procedure is going as planned. In another instance, the information may include data relating to a patient position, a state of one or more of the auxiliary devices, a percentage of scan completed and/or to be completed, an estimated radiation dose, etc. In another instance, the information may include a warning, an alert, and/or other notification noting that the imaging procedure is not going as planned. Such a notification may indicate that no signal is being received from an ECG lead and/or that the ECG may have become disconnected. See at least [0066]. Also: At 604, optionally, the selector 212 selects one or more programs to present to the operator of the apparatus 100 via the display 118 after the imaging procedure. The information in such a program may relate to conditions that may result in a re-scan, adjustments to scan parameters for a next scan, information about a next imaging acquisition for the patient, a radiation dose delivered, etc. The information may also include information relating to the physiological and/or emotional state of the patient during the scan. Such information may include, but is not limited to, the patient's blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, etc. a degree of patient movement, etc. See at least [0067]).
Regarding Claim 12: Popilock in view of Abdelaziz makes obvious the above limitations. Popilock further discloses wherein in a case where the presentation device includes a display device that presents the information related to the medical examination by display, the processor decides at least any of a color, a brightness, a size, a speed, or a language of the display in deciding the presentation information. However, Miller teaches wherein in a case where the presentation device includes a display device that presents the information related to the medical examination by display, the processor decides at least any of a color, a brightness, a size, a speed, or a language of the display in deciding the presentation information (A selector 212 selects (and/or identifies) one or more programs 210 from the library 208 for display based on various information. For example, in one instance the selector 212 selects a default program. By way of example, the same greeting may be presented to each patient. In another instance, the selector 212 selects an informational and/or instructional program that correspond to patient demographics (e.g., age, gender, race, language, etc.), patient history (e.g., medical, family, imaging, etc.), a type of imaging examination being performed, a primary language of the patient, and/or other information. See at least [0031]. Also: Moreover, the information presented to the patient may depend on various factors such as patient age, a language of the patient, and/or other patient specific information, which may facilitate reducing any patient anxiety and/or improving the likelihood that the instructions will be followed. See at least [0025]).
Claim(s) 5 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popilock et al. (US 2012/0278144 A1) and Ben Abdelaziz (US 2022/0020374 A1), and further in view of Miller et al. (US 2006/0074286 A1).
Regarding Claim 5: Popilock in view of Abdelaziz makes obvious the above limitations. Popilock does not expressly disclose wherein in a case where the presentation device includes a first presentation device and a second presentation device that present the information related to the medical examination in different formats and a first target subject and a second target subject having different attributes are recognized, the processor decides each of first presentation information to be presented for the first target subject by the first presentation device and second presentation information to be presented for the second target subject by the second presentation device.
However, Mill teaches wherein in a case where the presentation device includes a first presentation device and a second presentation device that present the information related to the medical examination in different formats and a first target subject and a second target subject having different attributes are recognized, the processor decides each of first presentation information to be presented for the first target subject by the first presentation device and second presentation information to be presented for the second target subject by the second presentation device (Patient display 104 may also be used to prompt the patient to perform a bodily action, such as, it may prompt the patient to hold his/her breath. The promptings may be in an audio or visual form or as a combination of the two. Computer system 106 may, therefore, be programmed to issue pre-recorded verbal commands to the patient. These verbal commands, in accordance with various embodiments of the invention may be issued in the patient's native language, or in his/her choice of language. See at least [0018]).
Popilock and Abdelaziz suggest a medical imaging system which interacts with a patient using a display according to patient information, upon which the claimed invention’s use of multiple presentation devices and presenting content to a user using those multiple presentation devices can be seen as an improvement. Miller demonstrates that the prior art already knew of medical imaging systems with multiple presentation devices and presenting content to a user using those multiple presentation devices according to patient information. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Miller to the system of Popilock and Abdelaziz, and further one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Miller would have resulted in an improved system which would better engage users who have a preference for audio interaction. As such the application of Miller, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Popilock and the teachings of Abdelaziz and Miller.
Regarding Claim 11: Popilock in view of Abdelaziz makes obvious the above limitations. Popilock does not expressly disclose wherein in a case where the presentation device includes an acoustic device that presents the information related to the medical examination by voice, the processor decides at least any of a frequency, a volume, a speed, or a language of the voice in deciding the presentation information. However, Miller teaches wherein in a case where the presentation device includes an acoustic device that presents the information related to the medical examination by voice, the processor decides at least any of a frequency, a volume, a speed, or a language of the voice in deciding the presentation information (Patient display 104 may also be used to prompt the patient to perform a bodily action, such as, it may prompt the patient to hold his/her breath. The promptings may be in an audio or visual form or as a combination of the two. Computer system 106 may, therefore, be programmed to issue pre-recorded verbal commands to the patient. These verbal commands, in accordance with various embodiments of the invention may be issued in the patient's native language, or in his/her choice of language. See at least [0018]).
Popilock and Abdelaziz suggest a medical imaging system which interacts with a patient based on their language, upon which the claimed invention’s presentation of information via an acoustic device while deciding on a language can be seen as an improvement. Miller demonstrates that the prior art already knew of medical imaging systems with audio presentation devices that decide to present audio content in the language of a user. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Miller to the system of Popilock and Abdelaziz, and further one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Miller would have resulted in an improved system which would better engage users in their preferred languages. As such the application of Miller, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Popilock and the teachings of Abdelaziz and Miller.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Popilock et al. (US 2012/0278144 A1) and Ben Abdelaziz (US 2022/0020374 A1), and further in view of Osipova (US 2014/0180671 A1)
Regarding Claim 6: Popilock in view of Abdelaziz makes obvious the above limitations. Popilock does not expressly disclose wherein in a case where the attributes of the target subject include at least a language used by the target subject and the language used cannot be uniquely recognized, the processor decides the presentation information such that the presentation device presents the information related to the medical examination for the target subject in a plurality of candidate languages.
However, Osipova teaches the processor decides the presentation information such that the presentation device presents the information for the target subject in a plurality of candidate languages (the user can specify the language of communication of the processor controlled device. As shown in FIG. 2C, the English language is selected as the language of communication. See at least [0043] and Fig. 2C).
Popilock and Abdelaziz suggest a medical imaging system which interacts with a patient based on their language, upon which the claimed invention’s presentation of information in multiple languages can be seen as an improvement. However, Osipova demonstrates that the prior art already knew of presenting information in multiple languages to allow a user to select a language for use in an interface. One of ordinary skill in the art could have easily applied the techniques of Osipova to the system of Popilock and Abdelaziz. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that such an application of Osipova would’ve resulted in an improved system which would allow users greater control over how they interact with the interface. As such the application of Osipova, and the claimed invention, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention in view of the disclosures of Popilock and the teachings of Abdelaziz and Osipova.
Regarding Claim 7: Popilock in view of Abdelaziz and Osipova makes obvious the above limitations. Additionally, Osipova teaches wherein the processor decides the presentation information such that the presentation device presents the information or the target subject in a format according to a recognition accuracy for each of the plurality of candidate languages (In one example, languages in the list may be arranged according to how widely each language is used in the identified region or country. In one example, the list of languages is prioritized so that the highest ranked language is the most commonly used language in the country or region. For example, the most widely used language may be listed first place on the list and should be suggested as the most probable language for recognition. See at least [0035]). The motivation to combine Popilock, Abdelaziz, and Osipova is the same as explained under claim 6 above, and is incorporated herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 112(d) Rejections of claim 13: The cancellation of claim 13 renders moot the rejection thereof.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's amendments filed 11 February 2026 canceling the claim resolve the identified rejection.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 101 Rejections of claims 1, 14, and 15:
The artisan of ordinary skill should have understood that this configuration is different from a mere mental process or organization of human activities, in that the processor performs a conditional determination and, based on the determination result, actively controls the operation of external devices (the imaging device and the sound collecting device). In other words, the present application involves device control carried out by the processor, rather than leaving the decision to a human mind.
Because imaging and/or sound collection is performed only when the registration information is insufficient to decide the presentation information, embodiments of the present application may also achieve technical effects including more efficient use of deice resources, reduction of power consumption of the imaging device and the sound collection device, and avoidance of congestion of storage capacity due to unnecessary target subject data.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 11 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(C) clearly states that the performance of a mental process by a computer does not necessarily prevent the claim from setting forth a mental process. Here, applicant is merely claiming that the concept abstract be performed in a computer environment, and as such the claims recite a mental process despite the literal presence of a processor.
Examiner notes that the claims do not require that “imaging and/or sound collection is performed only when the registration information is insufficient.” The claim requires that this collection is performed at least in certain cases, but does not exclude data collection in the remainder of cases from the scope of the claim. In other words, a system which always collects data would fall within the scope of the claimed invention, and would see no such performance advantages.
Applicant’s Argument Regarding 102 Rejections of claims 1-4, 8-10, and 12-15: Popilock fails to disclose or suggest a control scheme in which a determination result as to whether presentation information can be decided from registration information is used to switch the operation of sensor devices.
Examiner’s Response: Applicant's arguments filed 11 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are rendered moot by the amendment of claims 1, 14, and 15.
Additional Considerations
The prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure can be found in the PTO-892 of the prior office action dated 3 December 2025.
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 Bion A Shelden whose telephone number is (571)270-0515. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 12pm-10pm 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, Kambiz Abdi can be reached at (571) 272-6702. 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.
/Bion A Shelden/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3685 2026-06-09
Prosecution Insights