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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/26/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Herlihy reference does not disclose “a belt member with one end side fixed to the receive coil and the other end side being a free end” as recited in claim 1, lines 3-4 or “a locking member that is fixed to the receive coil and fixes the belt member at a position of any length from the one end side of the belt member” as recited in claim 1, lines 5-6. Applicant purports to support this assertion by arguing that Herlihy does not disclose that the buckle, i.e., the locking member, is fixed to the local coil, i.e., the receive coil. Applicant’s argument rises and falls with the premise that Herlihy, col. 8, lines 27-60 does not disclose that the buckle is fixed to the plateau.
First, we turn to Applicant’s specification to determine the scope of “a locking member that is fixed to the receive coil” as recited in claim 1, line 5. Applicant’s Abstract states “a locking member that is fixed to the receive coil.” Applicant’s paragraph [0006] states “a locking member that is fixed to the receive coil.” Applicant’s paragraph [0015] states “the locking member is preferably fixed to a center of the receive coil.” Applicant’s paragraph [0043] states “[t]he stopper 104 is fixed to a fixed point 22B of the coil 22.” Applicant’s paragraph [0060] states “[t]he stopper 114 is fixed to the fixed point 22B of the coil 22.” Applicant’s paragraph [0077] states “The stopper 114 is fixed to the fixed point 22B that is a center of the upper surface of the coil 22.” These statements do not disclose any means or structure by which the locking member or stopper is fixed to the upper surface of the coil. Therefore, the plain and ordinary meaning of Applicant’s disclosure and the claims appear to encompass any means or structure by which the locking member or stopper are held at a position on the upper surface of the coil. This includes a means or structure by which the locking member or stopper is fixed to the upper surface of the coil by the tension of the tightened belt member, i.e., the locking member or stopper is prevented from moving across or away from the surface of the coil because such movement is prevented by the tightened belt.
Second, Applicant’s argument is premised upon the phrasing of col. 8, lines 44-50:
Referring also now to FIG. 6, each of the buckles 124 rests on a plateau 126 extending outward from the top of the shell 131 of the anterior coil 12' generally along its circumference of curvature. The plateau 126 is of suitable height to support the buckle 124 above the surface of the shell 131 to permit the buckle 124 to be readily grasped for release.
Note that Applicant admits that the plateau is fixed to the surface of the coil, Applicant’s contention is that the buckle is not fixed to the plateau.
Applicant contends that neither the phrase “rests on” nor the phrase “support” disclose that the buckle is fixed to the plateau, i.e., the buckle is prevented from moving across or away from the surface of the coil. First, Figs. 4 and 6 demonstrate that the buckle is situated atop the plateau such that it is in a fixed position relative to the surface of the coil. Second, there is nothing in the figures or the disclosure that support’s Applicant’s contention that the buckle is moveable relative to the plateau or the surface of the coil. In fact, col. 8, lines 48-50 provides that to achieve the function “to permit the buckle 124 to be readily grasped for release” that the buckle must remain atop the plateau such that it is placed at a “suitable height to support the buckle 124 above the surface of the shell 131.” This indicates that the buckle must not move from its position atop the plateau or from its position relative to the surface of the coil, thereby, the buckle must be fixed at its position atop the plateau. Further, that the plateau is fixed to the surface of the coil and the buckle must be fixed at its position atop the plateau establishes that the buckle is fixed in position relative to the surface of the coil. Therefore, Herlihy’s disclosure makes clear that the buckle is fixed relative to the surface of the coil. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Third, Applicant also contends that the phrase “rests on” in col. 8, lines 44-47 should be construed in the same manner as “rests back” in col. 5, lines 1-4 “when the local coil 10 is in use, the patient’s head rests back against the upper surface of the base 16.” This use of the phrase “rests back” is in an entirely disparate context as to be wholly irrelevant to the analysis of the plain meaning of the phrase “rests on” in col. 8, lines 44-47. The phrase “rests back” is employed in col. 5, lines 1-4 to discuss the placement of a patient’s head on a base support during use of the local coil. It is clear that the patient’s head is not a structural element of the local coil disclosed by Herlihy. The phrase “rests back” is not employed in col. 4, lines 1-4 to describe structural features let alone positional relationships between structural features of the local coil. The phrase “rests back” at most denotes an intended use for the local coil. Inapposite, col. 8, lines 44-47 employs the phrases “rests on” and “to support” to describe a positional relationship between structural features of the local coil: the buckle, the plateau, and the surface of the coil. Therefore, that Herlihy uses the phrase “rests back” in the context of an intended use of the local coil for a patient is of no help in construing the plain meaning of the phrases “rests on” and “to support.” Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Fourth, Applicant’s argument that other phrases such as “attached to” or “affixed to” to describe positional relationships between structural features of the local coil in col. 4, lines 38-41 and 48-50 and claim 5 rises and falls with the premise that the phrase “rests back” in col. 5, lines 1-4 informs the plain meaning of “rests on” and “to support” in col. 8, lines 44-47. As addressed above, the phrase “rests back” in col. 5, lines 1-4 is of no help in construing the plain meaning of the phrases “rests on” and “to support” as the contexts are inapposite. Further, that Herlihy uses the phrases such as “attached to” or “affixed to” to describe positional relationships between other structural features of the local coil as compared to “rests on” and “to support” to describe the positional relationship between the buckle, the plateau, and the surface of the coil does not provide significant evidence that the plain meaning of “rests on” and “to support” excludes a fixed positional relationship between the buckle, the plateau, and the surface of the coil. Applicant does not point to evidence from Herlihy that either the phrase “rests on” or “to support” were clearly selected to distinguish from the phrases “attached to” or “affixed to” used to describe positional relationships between other structural features of the local coil such that “rests on” or “to support” excludes a fixed positional relationship. Further, that claim 5 recites “affixed to” while claim 6 recites “rest on” merely indicates antecedent between the text of the specification and the text of the claims. Nothing in Herlihy’s disclosure is indicative of Applicant’s contention that “rests on” and “to support” excludes a fixed positional relationship. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Fifth, in arguendo, even taking Applicant’s assertion to be true that Herlihy col. 8, lines 44-50 phrasing of “rests on” and “to support” do not explictly disclose that the buckle is fixed to the plateau, which the Office does not; as discussed above, Applicant’s disclosure does not disclose any means or structure by which the locking member or stopper is fixed to the upper surface of the coil. Therefore, the plain and ordinary meaning of Applicant’s disclosure and the claims appear to encompass any means or structure by which the locking member or stopper are held at a position on the upper surface of the coil. This includes a means or structure by which the locking member or stopper is fixed to the upper surface of the coil by the tension of the tightened belt member, i.e., the locking member or stopper is prevented from moving across or away from the surface of the coil because such movement is prevented by the tightened belt. Herlihy col. 8, lines 27-43 states:
Straps 122 wrap circumferentially around the shells 131 of the anterior and posterior coils 12' and 14' to hold them snugly against the patient after they have been positioned so that their axes 112 and 114 of the contained coils are appropriately aligned. The straps 122 are tightened by means of conventional buckles 124 which expose one end of each strap 122 that may be grasped for cinching the straps 122 tightly around the shells 131.
In the preferred embodiment, two straps 122 are employed separated along the superior inferior axis of the patient to provide a distributed force against the shells 131 and an even force against the patient. The hemicylindrical shape of the shells 131 allow them to be supported simply against the patient without the use of other alignment or support means to ensure rough alignment of the axes 112 and 114 of the coils.
Herlihy coil. 8, lines 51-60 states:
Referring also to FIG. 9, toward the lateral edges of the shell 131 the straps 122 are received within a pair of laterally extending rails 128 formed within the upper surface of the shell 131 of the anterior coil 12' so as to guide the straps 122 along lines of circumference of the cylinder of the hemicylindrical shape of the shells 131, during tightening of the buckle 124. The rails 128 promote even pressure by the straps 122 on the shells 131 improving the alignment of the shells 131 when supported on the bilaterally symmetric patient.
Herlihy, Figs. 4, 6, and 9 demonstrate that the strap and buckles are tightly held to the surface of the coil.
Herlihy discloses not only that the buckle is positioned atop the plateau of the upper surface of the coil, but also that the buckle and strap are held tightly about the surface of the coils whereby the tension of the strap fixes the buckle to the surface of the coil, i.e., the buckle is prevented from moving across or away from the surface of the coil because such movement is prevented by the tightened strap. Therefore, even taking Applicant’s assertion to be true that Herlihy col. 8, lines 44-50 phrasing of “rests on” and “to support” do not explictly disclose that the buckle is fixed to the plateau, Herlihy’s disclosure makes clear that the buckle is fixed to the plateau and upper surface of the coil by the tension of the tightened belt member. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Sixth, Applicant contends that because Herlihy does not disclose that the buckle is fixed to the surface of the coil, Herlihy also does not disclose that strap has “one end side fixed to the receive coil” as recited in claim 1, line 3. As addressed above, Herlihy discloses that the buckle is fixed to the surface of the coil. Figs. 4 and 6 demonstrate that one end of the strap is fixed to the buckle while the opposite end is an exposed end, i.e., a free end. Further, as admitted by the Applicant, Herlihy col. 8, lines 27-43 states:
Straps 122 wrap circumferentially around the shells 131 of the anterior and posterior coils 12' and 14' to hold them snugly against the patient after they have been positioned so that their axes 112 and 114 of the contained coils are appropriately aligned. The straps 122 are tightened by means of conventional buckles 124 which expose one end of each strap 122 that may be grasped for cinching the straps 122 tightly around the shells 131.
Herlihy, thereby discloses that one end of the strap is fixed to the buckle and the other end of the strap is a free end. Therefore, as Herlihy discloses that the buckle is fixed to the surface of the coil, one end of the strap is fixed to the buckle, and the other end of the strap is a free end, contrary to Applicant’s contention, Herlihy discloses that the strap has “one end side fixed to the receive coil” as recited in claim 1, line 3. Thus, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Ergo, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herlihy et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,361,765), hereinafter “Herlihy.”
Regarding claim 1, Herlihy discloses a coil unit (quadrature local coil, Abstract) comprising:
a receive coil that receives a magnetic resonance signal of an examination target (quadrature local coil receives a magnetic resonance signal of a patient, Col. 1, lines 6-8; claims 1 and 5);
a belt member with one end side fixed to the receive coil and the other end side being a free end (a strap with one end fixed to the local coil and the other end side being a free end, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Fig. 4); and
a locking member that is fixed to the receive coil and fixes the belt member at a position of any length from the one end side of the belt member (a buckle that is fixed to the local coil and fixes the strap at a position of any length from the one end side of the strap, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 4, Herlihy discloses the belt member includes a first belt member of which one end side is fixed to the receive coil and the other end side is a free end (a first strap with one end fixed to the local coil and the other end side being a free end, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Fig. 4), and a second belt member of which one end side is fixed to the receive coil and the other end side is a free end (a second strap with one end fixed to the local coil and the other end side being a free end, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Fig. 4), and
the locking member includes a first locking member that fixes the first belt member (a first buckle that is fixed to the local coil and fixes the strap at a position of any length from the one end side of the strap, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Figs. 4 and 6) and a second locking member that fixes the second belt member (a second buckle that is fixed to the local coil and fixes the strap at a position of any length from the one end side of the strap, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 7, Herlihy discloses the receive coil has a structure that encircles around a trunk of a patient (local coil has a structure that encircles the pelvic region of the trunk of the patient, Col.4, lines 30-34; Col. 7, line 46 – Col.8, line 60; Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 9, Herlihy discloses the locking member is fixed to a center of the receive coil (the buckle is fixed to a center of the receive coil, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Figs. 4 and 6).
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herlihy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Biber et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0127469), hereinafter “Biber.”
Regarding claim 2, while Herlihy discloses a restriction member that is fixed to the receive coil and restricts a path of the belt member (rails are fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of the strap, Col.8, lines 51-60, Figs. 4 and 9), Herlihy does not appear to disclose the restriction member is a loop member.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Biber teaches a loop member that is fixed to the receive coil and restricts a path of the belt member (a belt buckle, GL, that is fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of the belt, GU, [0043]-[0045], [0049], Figs. 3-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Biber’s known technique of using a belt buckle to restrict the path of the belt on the local coil to Herlihy’s known local coil apparatus to achieve the predictable result that the belt and buckle provides an adjustable mechanism by which the local coil may be easily positioned and fastened thereby reducing installation and personal costs. See, e.g., Biber, [0045].
Regarding claim 3, while Herlihy discloses the one end side of the belt member, the locking member, and the restriction member are disposed in a straight line (the one end side of the strap, the buckle, and the rails are disposed in a straight line, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Figs. 4, 6, and 9), Herlihy does not appear to disclose the restriction member is a loop member.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Biber teaches the restriction member is a loop member (a belt buckle, GL, that is fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of the belt, GU, [0043]-[0045], [0049], Figs. 3-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Biber’s known technique of using a belt buckle to restrict the path of the belt on the local coil to Herlihy’s known local coil apparatus to achieve the predictable result that the belt and buckle provides an adjustable mechanism by which the local coil may be easily positioned and fastened thereby reducing installation and personal costs. See, e.g., Biber, [0045].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herlihy as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Biber.
Regarding claim 5, Herlihy discloses a first restriction member that is fixed to the receive coil and restricts a path of the first belt member (a first pair of rails are fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of a first strap, Col.8, lines 51-60, Figs. 4 and 9); and
a second restriction member that is fixed to the receive coil and restricts a path of the second belt member (a second pair of rails are fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of a second strap, Col.8, lines 51-60, Figs. 4 and 9).
However, Herlihy does not appear to disclose the first restriction member is a first loop member and the second restriction member is a second loop member.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Biber teaches a first loop member that is fixed to the receive coil and restricts a path of the first belt member (a first belt buckle, GL, that is fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of the first belt, GU, [0043]-[0045], [0049], Figs. 3-10); and
a second loop member that is fixed to the receive coil and restricts a path of the second belt member (a second belt buckle, GL, that is fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of the second belt, GU, [0043]-[0045], [0049], Figs. 3-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Biber’s known technique of using a belt buckle to restrict the path of the belt on the local coil to Herlihy’s known local coil apparatus to achieve the predictable result that the belt and buckle provides an adjustable mechanism by which the local coil may be easily positioned and fastened thereby reducing installation and personal costs. See, e.g., Biber, [0045].
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herlihy in further view of Biber as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Vincent et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2022/0334202), hereinafter “Vincent.”
Regarding claim 6, Herlihy discloses a straight line connecting the one end side of the first belt member and the first restriction member (a straight line connecting the one end side of the first strap and the first pair of rails, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Figs. 4, 6, and 9) and a straight line connecting the one end side of the second belt member and the second restriction member (a straight line connecting the one end side of the second strap and the second pair of rails, Col. 8, lines 27-60, Figs. 4, 6, and 9)
However, Herlihy does not appear to disclose the first restriction member is a first loop member and the second restriction member is a second loop member.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Biber teaches the first restriction member is a first loop member (a first belt buckle, GL, that is fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of the first belt, GU, [0043]-[0045], [0049], Figs. 3-10) and the second restriction member is a second loop member (a second belt buckle, GL, that is fixed to the local coil and restricts a path of the second belt, GU, [0043]-[0045], [0049], Figs. 3-10).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Biber’s known technique of using a belt buckle to restrict the path of the belt on the local coil to Herlihy’s known local coil apparatus to achieve the predictable result that the belt and buckle provides an adjustable mechanism by which the local coil may be easily positioned and fastened thereby reducing installation and personal costs. See, e.g., Biber, [0045].
However, Herlihy in further view of Biber does not appear to teach an intersection between the straight lines.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Vincent teaches a straight line connecting the one end side of the first belt member and the opposite end of the first belt member intersects with a straight line connecting the one end side of the second belt member and the opposite end of the second belt member (RF coil assembly has a pair of straps that loop around the subject wherein a straight line connecting the shoulder portion end side of the first strap and the opposite end of the first strap intersects diagonally with the straight line connecting the shoulder portion end side of the second strap and the opposite end of the second strap, [0096], Fig. 6E).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Vincent’s known technique of providing diagonally opposed straps to an RF coil assembly to Herlihy in further view of Biber’s known local coil apparatus having a first and second straight strap between the end of the strap, locking mechanism, and loop member to achieve the predictable result that this allows for reduction of the setup time with the RF coil assembly by providing for adjustment of the fit to the subject. See, e.g., Vincent, [0096].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herlihy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bollenbeck et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0287775), hereinafter “Bollenbeck.”
Regarding claim 8, Herlihy does not appear to disclose a pipe member into which the belt member is inserted.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Bollenbeck teaches a pipe member into which the belt member is inserted (connection cable is employed as a fastening strap and placed within a tube shaped strap, [0013], [0017], [0026]-[0028]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Bollenbeck’s known technique of disposing a connecting cable employed as a fastening strap to fasten a local coil to the patient within a tube shaped strap to Herlihy’s known local coil apparatus including straps to fasten the local coil to the patient to achieve the predictable result that this improves the handling of the local coil by removing the need for dealing with a separate connection cable. See, e.g., Bollenbeck, [0014].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herlihy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bollenbeck.
Regarding claim 10, Herlihy does not disclose the belt member is a cable that outputs the magnetic resonance signal received by the receive coil.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Bollenbeck teaches the belt member is a cable that outputs the magnetic resonance signal received by the receive coil (connection cable is employed as a fastening strap and outputs the magnetic resonance signal received by the local coil, [0013], [0017], [0019], [0021], [0026]-[0028], [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Bollenbeck’s known technique of disposing a connecting cable employed as a fastening strap to fasten a local coil to the patient within a tube shaped strap to Herlihy’s known local coil apparatus including straps to fasten the local coil to the patient to achieve the predictable result that this improves the handling of the local coil by removing the need for dealing with a separate connection cable. See, e.g., Bollenbeck, [0014].
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herlihy in further view of Bollenbeck as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ota et al. (2012/0153954), hereinafter “Ota.”
Regarding claim 11, Herlihy in further view of Bollenbeck does not appear to teach the belt member is a flat cable in which a plurality of cables are bundled in a planar shape.
However, in the same field of endeavor of local coils, Ota teaches the belt member is a flat cable in which a plurality of cables are bundled in a planar shape (the belt member is a flat collection of coil elements that are wires/cables bundled in a planar shape with the cable free end of which outputs the magnetic resonance signal received by the loop coil elements, [0366]-[0367], Figs. 48-49; see also cable output of the received magnetic resonance signal via a plurality of individual connections to the bundle of cable/coil elements, [0147], [0151], [0158], [0194]-[0197], [0269], [0344]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have applied Ota’s known technique of using a planar belt element to communicate the received magnetic resonance signal from a local coil in communication with the belt element via a free end of the belt to Herlihy in further view of Bollenbeck’s known local RF coil having a strap comprising a connection cable to achieve the predictable result that providing the coil elements and wires/cables within the flexible belt member allows the patient to easily move even when the RF coil device is mounted onto the patient. See, e.g., Ota, [0379].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Johnathan Maynard whose telephone number is (571)272-7977. The examiner can normally be reached 10 AM - 6 PM.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/J.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights