Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in reference to the communication filed on 18 MAY 2026.
Amendments to claims 1, 18-20, as well as the cancellation of claim 17, are entered and considered.
Claims 1-16, 18-20 are present and have been examined.
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 1-16, 18-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As explained below, the claim(s) are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step One: Is the Claim directed to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1-16, 18-20 the independent claim(s) 1, 19, 20 recite(s) a method and systems, each of which is a statutory category of invention.
Step 2A – Prong One: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon (product of nature) or an abstract idea? YES
With respect to claim(s) 1-16, 18-20, the independent claim(s) (claims 1, 19, 20) is/are directed, in part, to:
receiving
determining
monitoring performance of the prehabilitation program by the patient
detecting
adjusting the prehabilitation program
These claim elements are considered to be abstract ideas because they are directed to mental process, in that the claims ensconce concepts performed in the human mind including observation, evaluation, judgment, and opinion functions. Receiving information and subsequently making a determination using that information are examples of such concepts. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a concept performed in the human mind, then it/they falls/ fall into the “mental processes” category. These claims are further found to be directed to certain methods of organizing human activity, in that the claims ensconce managing personal behavior or relationships, including following rules/instructions. Receiving information and making a determination about a patient’s care is an example of such instructions/relationships/interactions between people. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers interactions between people, then it/they falls/ fall into the “human activity” category.
Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
Step 2A – Prong Two: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim(s) recite(s) additional elements: Claims 1, 19, 20 each at last nominally recite a computer and a processor of a patient operated device, and have been amended to also recite the use of one or more wearable sensors to send/receive data. The computer(s) and processor(s) in the claims, as well as the sensors, is/are recited at a high level of generality and as such amount to no more than adding the words “apply it” to the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea (see MPEP 2106.05f), or generally links the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological field of use/computing environment (see MPEP 2106.05h). Examiner finds no improvement to the functioning of the computer, the sensors themselves, or any other technology or technical field in the processors/computers as claimed (see MPEP 2106.05a), nor any other application or use of the judicial exception in some meaningful way beyond a general like between the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (see MPEP 2106.05e). Examiner also finds that the sensors are at best sending/receiving information, which is analogous to adding insignificant extra solution activity to the judicial exception(s) identified (see MPEP 2106.05g).
Accordingly, this/these additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO.
The independent claim(s) is/are additionally directed to claim elements such as: Claims 1, 19, 20 each at last nominally recite a computer, with claims 19, 20 further reciting the use of a processor. When considered individually, the computer/processor claim elements only contribute generic recitations of technical elements to the claims. It is readily apparent, for example, that the claim is not directed to any specific improvements of these elements. Examiner looks to Applicant’s specification in:
[Fig. 1] “The method may be implemented at a processor or processor system, for example in a computer server, which will generically be termed a system herein.”
[fig 3] “Reference is now made to Figure 3, in which there is shown a computer system according to an embodiment. The computer system or variants thereof may be used for providing a prehabilitation program for a patient prior to undergoing a medical treatment or procedure.”
Page 8 provides the only discussion of the sensors: “The monitoring may be manual (input from the user); and/or automatic (based on sensor data or other measurements provided by or through the device, for example using wearable sensor technology).” – i.e. the sensors are described at most in functional terms.
Page 10 discloses a user device, which is understood to also be a general purpose computer,
These passages, as well as others, makes it clear that the invention is not directed to a technical improvement. When the claims are considered individually and as a whole, the additional elements noted above, appear to merely apply the abstract concept to a technical environment in a very general sense – i.e. a generic computer receives information from another generic computer, processes the information and then sends information back. The most significant elements of the claims, that is the elements that really outline the inventive elements of the claims, are set forth in the elements identified as an abstract idea. The fact that the generic computing devices are facilitating the abstract concept is not enough to confer statutory subject matter eligibility.
As per dependent claims 2-16, 18:
Dependent claims 2-18 are not directed any additional abstract ideas and are also not directed to any additional non-abstract claim elements. Rather, these claims offer further descriptive limitations of elements found in the independent claims and addressed above – such as the information received and then subsequently incorporated into the recommendations provided. While these descriptive elements may provide further helpful context for the claimed invention these elements do not serve to confer subject matter eligibility to the invention since their individual and combined significance is still not heavier than the abstract concepts at the core of the claimed invention.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, 10-12, 14-16, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Wu et al (“The Feasibility and Effects of a Telehealth-Delivered Home-Based Prehabilitation Program for Cancer Patients during the Pandemic,” hereinafter Wu) in view of Hladio et al (US 20230285080 A1, hereinafter Hladio).
In reference to claim 1, 19, 20:
Wu teaches: A computer implemented method for providing a prehabilitation program for a patient prior to undergoing a medical treatment or procedure, the method comprising:
receiving at a processor, health information of the patient and information relating to the medical treatment or procedure, the health information being indicative of a current state of health for the patient (at least [2.4] “The program started within one week of the prehab team receiving the referrals and was considered completed immediately before the patients’ operating date or upon finishing their non-surgical cancer treatment. Surgical patients performed prehabilitation up until one week before their surgery. Non-surgical patients performed our interventional recommendations throughout their non-surgical cancer treatment….A baseline assessment was performed during this session. Information was obtained on the patient’s health status, past medical history (including smoking status and alcohol consumption), current medications, well-being, quality of life, and physical activity levels.” And at [2.3, 2.8] Clinical Software was used in the presentation of telehealth, i.e. Zoom); and
determining, at the processor, the prehabilitation program for the patient based on the received health information and the information relating to the medical treatment or procedure (at least [2.5.1] “Patients waiting for colorectal, or urology operations were encouraged to perform pelvic floor exercises and those awaiting lung or breast surgery were encouraged to perform inspiratory muscle training exercises”). Wu as cited teaches all the limitations above, as well as making changes to the program based on adherence. However, Wu does not teach receiving progress at a processor of a patient device nor the use of sensors in monitoring. Hladio however does teach:
receiving at a processor of a patient operated device, health information indicative of a current state of health for the patient (at least [fig 1 and related text including 026-030] “Condition data generally refers to a broader set of data associated with or influencing how a patient moves, and may include kinetic data. Condition data may include kinesiological data for the patient, including physiological, psychological, biomechanical, anatomical, and neurological data. Condition data may also include social, emotional, demographic (e.g. race, gender, BMI (body mass index), age, height, weight, etc.) data. Condition data may also include information about a patient's modifiable risk factors (such as smoking, alcohol or drug use), comorbidities (such as diabetes, neurological disorders, previous trauma, mental health issues such as depression and anxiety), pain scores, prehabilitation compliance metrics (e.g. an indicator of how well the patient is complying with the prescribed prehabilitation regimen), and patient reported outcome measures such as the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), Hip disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC), the Harris Hip Score (HHS) or other quality of life scores… Condition data may be received by the prehabilitation module from any source, including from sensors (such as wearable sensor 104 or sensors within the patient's mobile device 106), data entry (for example, forms, surveys, tests, data fields, notes, provided by a prehabilitation client application on the patient's mobile device 106), and from the patient's medical records (for example, by connecting to the patient's electronic medical records).;
monitoring performance of the prehabilitation program by the patient at the processor, wherein the monitoring is automatic and based on sensor data provided by or through the patient operated device using one or more wearable sensors (at least [fig 1 and related text including 026-030] “ Condition data may also include information about a patient's modifiable risk factors (such as smoking, alcohol or drug use), comorbidities (such as diabetes, neurological disorders, previous trauma, mental health issues such as depression and anxiety), pain scores, prehabilitation compliance metrics (e.g. an indicator of how well the patient is complying with the prescribed prehabilitation regimen… Condition data may be received by the prehabilitation module from any source, including from sensors (such as wearable sensor 104 or sensors within the patient's mobile device 106), ;
detecting by the processors an adherence issue by comparing the sensor data with the prehabilitation program (at least [fig 1 and related text]” n an embodiment, sensor or other condition data from the same, or similar activities is received by the prehabilitation module 110 over time. For example, the sensor data may be generated by wearable sensors 104, and measuring the range of motion of the patient's knee, and provided to the prehabilitation module 110. Several weeks later (by way of example), the same range of motion activity may be performed, and sensor data may again be generated by the wearable sensor 104, and provided to the prehabilitation module 11)0; and
adjusting the prehabilitation program by the processor based on the detected adherence issue (at least [fig 1 and related text] “ The extrapolation module 116 performs computations on the first condition data 112A and second condition data 112B and outputs a prediction of the patient's post-surgical kinetic condition 118. The post-surgical kinetic condition 118 is used as an input to a surgical planning module 120. A user interface module 122 is provided to enable a user (for example, a surgeon) to perform surgical planning, by providing information, visualizations and controls for user interaction.“ at [fig 2 and related text ] ”Planning parameters 204, such as the implant make, model and size are shown. The planning parameters 204 may include surgical target information 204A, such as a target inclination and anteversion for an acetabular prosthesis for a hip replacement surgery. The planning parameters 204 may be for multiple implants, such as a cup and a stem for use in a total hip arthroplasty. The surgical target information 204A may be presented numerically, for example, as a range of acceptable values for a particular spatial parameter (for example, the acceptable range of acetabular inclination relative to a planning coordinate frame may be between 29° and 51°, or equivalently, 40°+/−) 11°.” At [041-3] “ As such, the extrapolation takes as inputs the “surgical” and “biological” modifications to predict the post-surgical condition. Surgical intervention parameters may relate to modification of bone. Surgical intervention parameters may be associated with changes to range of motion, pain, strength and other characteristics. In an embodiment, the extrapolation results of a post-surgical condition may be presented to a patient to encourage continued or improved adherence to pre-surgery therapies such as but not limited to physiotherapy or weight loss therapy. In an embodiment, the extrapolated post-surgical condition represents a marked improvement in kinetic condition, etc. Providing these results to the patient may encourage continued adherence. In an embodiment, the extrapolated post-surgical condition represent negligible or very small improvement, at least suggesting that unless the patient's pre-surgical condition is improved, the post-surgical condition may be insufficient to warrant surgery (e.g. in the short term). “) Wu and Hladio are analogous references in that both discuss the importance of prehabilitation. As the saying goes, “what gets measured gets improved,” and as such, the measurement or tracking of the adherence to the prehabilitation program would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill as the goal of the prehabilitation is generally, improvement of a condition. One would have been particularly motivated to monitor progress, as taught by Hladio, as Hladio teaches that this provides insight into a patient’s future compliance with post-habilitation after a procedure, which is vital to the success of the procedure (see 24). As such, tracking compliance with prehabilitation would have been obvious to include in pre-procedure timelines.
In reference to claim 2:
Wu/Hladio teaches all the limitations above. Wu further teaches: wherein the health information comprises information indicative of a current state of physical and mental health for the patient and wherein the prehabilitation program comprises a level of support to be provided to the patient (at least [2.4] “A baseline assessment was performed during this session. Information was obtained on the patient’s health status, past medical history (including smoking status and alcohol consumption), current medications, well-being, quality of life, and physical activity levels.” At [2.5.3-2.5.4] support discussed).
In reference to claim 3:
Wu/Hladio teaches all the limitations above. Wu further teaches: wherein the prehabilitation program comprises an exercise program and/or a nutrition program (at least [2.2] “Our program consisted of the following four key interventions: (i) personalized training exercises, (ii) nutritional advice, (iii) medical optimization therapies, and (iv) psychological support”).
In reference to claim 4:
Wu/Hladio teaches all the limitations above. Wu further teaches: wherein the step of determining comprises: determining upper and lower limits of daily protein intake (at least [2.5.2] “Furthermore, patients were also taught the importance of protein amounts and quality, whilst being recommended to aim for a minimum daily protein intake of 1.5 g/kg of ideal body weight… Patients with a low MUST score at baseline assessment were advised to consume supplemental nutritional shakes [21].”).
In reference to claim 5:
Wu/Hladio teaches all the limitations above. Wu further teaches: wherein the received health information comprises an indication of whether the patient can perform one or more specific activities independently and without pain and/or discomfort (at least [2.7] “The EQ-5D-3L descriptive system comprises the following 5 dimensions: mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, and anxiety/depression. Each dimension has the following three levels: no problems (coded as 1), some problems (coded as 2) or extreme problems (coded as 3).”), and wherein the step of determining comprises selecting one or more exercises from a set of exercises for the exercise program, the one or more exercises being selected based on the indication of whether the patient can perform the one or more specific activities (at least [2.5.1] “Patients were also encouraged to perform home-based resistance exercises at least twice a week. They were provided with an online exercise video and/or exercise guides with a description of each exercise and advice on how to perform the exercises safely.”).
In reference to claim 6:
Wu/Hladio teaches all the limitations above. Wu further teaches: wherein the specific activities comprise one or more of: sitting and standing from a chair, extending arms over head, laying down flat on the floor and standing up and/or wherein the set of exercises comprise one or more of: shoulder press; bridge; arm lift; and elbow push (at least [2.5.1] “These guides included six multi-joint resistance training exercises targeting all of the major muscle groups and were presented in a circuit format (sit-to-stand, wall-press, calf raises, unilateral row, knee extension, and shoulder press).“
In reference to claim 7:
Wu/Hladio teaches all the limitations above. Wu further teaches: wherein the exercise program comprises a circuit training prescription, at least one parameter of the circuit training prescription being set based on the received health information (at least [2.5.1.] “These guides included six multi-joint resistance training exercises targeting all of the major muscle groups and were presented in a circuit format (sit-to-stand, wall-press, calf raises, unilateral row, knee extension, and shoulder press). Patients were encouraged to perform the circuit three times per session, for 8–10 repetitions per exercise per set. Further advice on exercise adjustments were provided to increase, or reduce, their difficulty.”).
In reference to claim 10:
Wu/Hladio teaches all the limitations above. Wu further teaches: wherein the exercise program comprises a circuit training prescription irrespective of the medical treatment or procedure (at least [2.5.1.] “These guides included six multi-joint resistance training exercises targeting all of the major muscle groups and were presented in a circuit format (sit-to-stand, wall-press, calf raises, unilateral row, knee extension, and shoulder press). Patients were encouraged to perform the circuit three times per session, for 8–10 repetitions per exercise per set. Further advice on exercise adjustments were provided to increase, or reduce, their difficulty.”).
In reference to claim 11:
Wu/Hladio teaches all the limitations above. Wu further teaches: wherein the circuit training prescription comprises one or more of: a hip knees up exercise; a shoulder press exercise; a lateral raise exercise; a knee extension exercise; a knee flexion exercise; a rowing exercise; a hip extension exercise; a hip abduction exercise; and a wall press exercise (at least [2.5.1.] “These guides included six multi-joint resistance training exercises targeting all of the major muscle groups and were presented in a circuit format (sit-to-stand, wall-press, calf raises, unilateral row, knee extension, and shoulder press). Patients were encouraged to perform the circuit three times per session, for 8–10 repetitions per exercise per set. Further advice on exercise adjustments were provided to increase, or reduce, their difficulty.”).
In reference to claim 12:
Wu/Hladio teaches all the limitations above. Wu further teaches: wherein the exercise program comprises one of more condition-specific exercises, the one of more condition-specific exercises comprising one or more of: a pelvic floor exercise; a bracing exercise; a side plank exercise; a plank exercise; a bridge exercise; a shoulder shrug exercise; a shoulder circling exercise; a bent arm forward exercise; a bent arm sideways exercise; a back scratching exercise; a winging it exercise; a wall climbing exercise; an arm lift exercise; and an elbow push exercise, the one of more condition-specific exercises being selected based on the received information relating to the medical treatment or procedure (at least [2.5.1.] “Further advice on exercise adjustments were provided to increase, or reduce, their difficulty. Patients waiting for colorectal, or urology operations were encouraged to perform pelvic floor exercises and those awaiting lung or breast surgery were encouraged to perform inspiratory muscle training exercises”).
In reference to claim 14:
Wu/Hladio teaches all the limitations above. Wu further teaches: wherein the exercise program comprises one or more of: physical exercises; mobility exercises; and breathing exercises (at least [2.5.1] “Patients were recommended to perform moderate intensity physical activity (MPA) for at least 150 minutes per week [18]. The MPA was in the form of walking, cycling or any other activity that would increase their breathing frequency, whilst still being able to talk. Patients were also encouraged to perform home-based resistance exercises at least twice a week….”).
In reference to claim 15:
Wu/Hladio teaches all the limitations above. Wu further teaches: wherein the health information comprises an indication of a height and/or weight for the patient, and wherein the nutrition program comprises a recommended protein intake range that is set based on the received indication of a height and/or weight for the patient (at least [2.5.2] “Furthermore, patients were also taught the importance of protein amounts and quality, whilst being recommended to aim for a minimum daily protein intake of 1.5 g/kg of ideal body weight”)
In reference to claim 16:
Wu/Hladio teaches all the limitations above. Wu further teaches: presenting the prehabilitation program to the patient by the processor (at least [2.2] “We were able to adopt a multi-modal telehealth-delivered home-based program. Our program consisted of the following four key interventions: (i) personalized training exercises, (ii) nutritional advice, (iii) medical optimization therapies, and (iv) psychological support.”).
In reference to claim 18:
Wu/Hladio teaches all the limitations above. Wu further teaches: wherein the step of monitoring is further based on user-input information and/or sensor-based information (at least [2.5.1] “Patients were encouraged to perform the circuit three times per session, for 8–10 repetitions per exercise per set. Further advice on exercise adjustments were provided to increase, or reduce, their difficulty”).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Hladio, further in view of Spokely et al (“Improving Older Adults’ Functional Health Using the Progressive Stay Strong, Stay Healthy Program,” hereinafter Spokely).
In reference to claim 8:
Hladio/Wu teaches all the limitations above. Wu teaches wherein the received health information comprises [current physical condition of a patient], and wherein the at least one parameter of the circuit training prescription is set based on the received [physical condition of the patient] (at least [2.5.1] “Patients were encouraged to perform the circuit three times per session, for 8–10 repetitions per exercise per set. Further advice on exercise adjustments were provided to increase, or reduce, their difficulty”). Wu does not specifically teach wherein the physical information is the sit to stand test. Spokely however does teach: Wherein health information comprises a number of sit to stand movements the patient can perform independently and without pain and/or discomfort within a 30 second period, and wherein the at least one parameter of the circuit training prescription is set based on the received number of sit to stand movements (at least [table 1] 30STS reps, Pre-SSSH; at [table 4 and related text] “Elevated fall risk according to 30STS and TUG scores are shown in Table 4.”; at [Discussion Section] scores allowed for a change in risk assessment based on the score, i.e. if a person were assigned Level one or Level two of SSSH and/or the risk assessment for the exercises in fig 1). Wu and Spokely are analogous references as both disclose a means of prescriptive prehabilitation to improve procedure or treatment outcomes. Wu teaches consideration of particular physical capabilities of a patient, and as such using a known test such as the 30STS as taught by Spokely would have been an obvious choice to standardize measurements of physical capability.
In reference to claim 9:
Hladio/Wu/Spokely teaches all the limitations above. Spokely further teaches: wherein the at least one parameter of the circuit training prescription comprises a number of sit to stand exercises and wherein the number of sit to stand exercises is set based on whether the received number of sit to stand movements exceeds one or more thresholds (at least [fig 1 and related text] exercises and progressions based on the baseline test as recorded in tables 1-3 and related text; table 2 for example showing an improved number of 30STS reps). The motivation to combine Wu/Spokely is similar to that above with respect to claim 8, and as such is incorporated herein.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Hladio, in view of Triguero-Canovas et al, (Home-based prehabilitation improves physical conditions measured by ergospirometry and 6MWT in colorectal cancer patients: a randomized controlled pilot study” hereinafter Triguero-Canovas).
In reference to claim 13:
Wu/Hladio teaches all the limitations above, but does not specifically teach a multi minute walking test. Triguero-Canovas teaches: wherein the received health information comprises data from a multi-minute walking test undertaken by the patient, and wherein the step of determining comprises setting one or more cardiovascular exercises for the exercise program based on the data from the multi-minute walking test (at least [Prehabilitation Program/Fig 1 and related text] “The exercise program was based on daily aerobic exercises and 3 weekly sessions of muscle endurance exercises. It was individualized according to the physical condition of the patient at the time of diagnosis as measured by ergo spirometry and 6MWT (Fig. 1). “). Wu and Triguero-Canovas are analogous references as both disclose a means of prescriptive prehabilitation to improve procedure or treatment outcomes. Wu teaches consideration of particular physical capabilities of a patient, and as such using a known test such as the 6MWT would have been an obvious choice to standardize measurements of physical capability.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230377714, to Liarno, discloses a prehabilitation program electronically prepared for a patient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks as filed on 18 MAY 2026 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the rejection under 35 USC 101 begin on page 7. Applicant concludes the amended claims as presented are eligible, by virtue of inclusion of sensor data, and appears to assert an improvement is found on page 8. Examiner respectfully submits that compliance with prehabilitation, nor monitoring for compliance, is not a technical problem for the purposes of the analysis. As noted above, the amended elements are at best, applying computing technology to the abstract idea(s) as identified. Applicant’s discussion of a practical application on page 8 is not found to be persuasive for similar reasons – scaling prehabilitation may be accomplished with the invention, but again, this is not found to be a technical improvement to a technical problem. Applicant asserts that the claims recite significantly more on page 9, Examiner notes that there is not a requirement of a finding an element to be well understood, routine and/or conventional to support a rejection, this is just one possible avenue. Applicant’s remaining remarks regarding the dependent claims are found unpersuasive in view of the discussion with regard to claim 1.
Applicant’s remarks regarding the prior art are noted, but are largely addressed by the newly cited reference and therefore found to be moot/unpersuasive.
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 KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER whose telephone number is (571)270-5920. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Mamon Obeid can be reached at 571-270-1813. 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.
/KATHERINE . KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3687
/KATHERINE KOLOSOWSKI-GAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3687
Prosecution Insights