Detailed Action
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-21 has/have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by the amendments.
Double Patenting Rejections
Claim(s) 11 and 14-15 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 9,980,649 as explained in the office action dated March 4, 2026.
Claim(s) 1 and 4 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 12,396,687 as explained in the office action dated March 4, 2026.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 11 and 15 is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1, 4, 13 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,507,892 as explained in the office action dated March 4, 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 1-15 and 17-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
In regards to claims 1, the claim recites in line 13 “whether the host is” and in line 15 “whether the host is”. The limitations of lines 13 and 15 are preceded by a limitation reciting “notifications triggered by the server for one or more of the plurality of hosts, the notifications comprising at least one of”. Therefore, it is unclear each time the limitation of “the host” is recited to which host of the one or more of the plurality of hosts the limitation is referring. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
Also, the claim recites in line 20 “including the host analyte levels and the notifications”. The claim previously recites that information for each host includes analytes levels for that host and notifications for that host. Therefore, it is unclear to which host belongs the analyte levels and notifications recited in line 20. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
The examiner has interpreted the claim in the following way in order to advance prosecution:
1. (Currently Amended) An analyte monitoring system, comprising:
a remote monitor, comprising:
at least one memory comprising executable instructions; and
at least one processor in data communication with the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the at least one processor to:
receive, from a server, information associated with a plurality of hosts, the information for each of the plurality of hosts including:
host analyte levels that are based on measurements generated for the host by one or more continuous sensors for the host and sent from the host to the server, and
notifications triggered by the server for the host, the notifications comprising at least one of:
a connection status message indicating whether the host is connected to the server; or
a sharing status message indicating whether the host is in an active sharing state or a not-sharing state in which sharing with the remote monitor has been paused or terminated; and
present a dashboard view that includes a plurality of cells, each cell displaying the information associated with a host of the plurality of hosts of that host and the notifications for that host.
In regards to claim(s) 2-10 and 21, the claim(s) is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
In regards to claim 3, based on the interpretation given to claim 1 above, the claim has been interpreted in the following way:
3. (Currently Amended) The analyte monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the measurements generated for the host include one or more of:
an analyte concentration of the host, a heart rate measurement of the host,
a temperature measurement of the host,
a blood pressure measurement of the host,
a geographic location of the host, and
a state of the host, the state including one of exercising, sleeping, and working.
In regards to claim 9, based on the interpretation given to claim 1 above, the claim has been interpreted in the following way:
9. (Currently Amended) The analyte monitoring system of claim 1, wherein the information for each of the plurality of hosts includes one or more of:
a textual identifier of the
a visual identifier of the
an analyte concentration value for the
a rate of change of an analyte concentration value for the
an analyte concentration value for the
a functional status of a monitoring system of the host, and
an indication of one or more permissions to access predetermined data for the host.
In regards to claim 10, the claim recites in line 5 “set by the host”. It is unclear to which of the plurality of hosts the limitation of line 5 is referring. For this reason, the claim is indefinite. Based on the interpretation given to claim 1 above, line 5 of the claim has been interpreted in the following way: “are initially set by the host corresponding to the selected cell”.
In regards to claim 11, the claim has the same issues described in the rejection of claim 1 above. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
In regards to claim(s) 12-15 and 17-19, the claim(s) is/are indefinite due to its/their dependency on indefinite claim 1.
In regards to claims 13, 18 and 19, the claims have been interpreted in the same way as claims 3, 9 and 10 above.
In regards to claim 20, the claim has the same issues described in the rejections of claim 1 and 10 above. For this reason, the claim is indefinite.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 11 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-2008/0119705) in view of Killen et al. (US-2012/0136221), Martin et al. (US-8,510,126) and Johnson (US-9,848,058).
In regards to claim 1, Patel teaches an analyte monitoring system [fig. 1, par. 0007 L. 1-2]. Patel teaches that a host device receiving analyte data can transmit the received data to a server which can transmit to other devices (remote monitor) [par. 0042 L. 4-9 and L. 15-18, par. 0043 L. 1-6]. This teaching means that the system comprises a remote monitor. Also, Patel teaches that the remote monitor can be a PDA or smartphone [par. 0043 L. 1-6, par. 0044 L. 1-4]. This teaching means that the remote monitor comprises at least one memory comprising executable instructions; and at least one processor in data communication with the at least one memory and configured to execute the instructions. Patel teaches that the remote monitor (processor) is configured to receive, from a server, information associated with a host, the information of the host including host analyte levels that are based on measurements generated for the host by a continuous sensor for the host and sent from the host to the server [par. 0007 L. 1-2, par. 0038 L. 4-12, par. 0042 L. 1-9 and L. 15-18, par. 0043 L. 1-6].
Patel does not explicitly teach that the system is used for a plurality of hosts. However, the fact that Patel’s system uses a server, it inherently means that the system is used for a plurality of hosts because a server will not be implemented for a single host. Patel does not teach that the remote receiver receives the data from the plurality of hosts and that the information for each of the hosts includes notifications. Also, Patel does not teach that the remote monitor presents a dashboard view.
On the other hand, Killen teaches that a remote receiver can receive the data from a plurality of hosts, wherein the data includes information of each host including physiological values that are based on measurements generated for the host by a continuous sensor and sent from the host to the server which in the case of Patel is host analyte levels generated by a continuous sensor of the host as shown above [fig. 1 element 8 (remote device), par. 0104 L. 1-4, par. 0112 L. 6-10, par. 0116 L. 1-4, par. 0133 L. 1-3, par. 0149 L. 9-15, par. 0150 L. 1-6, par. 0210]. Also, Killen teaches that the server can send notifications for one or more of the plurality of hosts based on the monitored data of each host [fig. A72, par. 0113, par. 0143 L. 1-10, par. 0154 L. 16-20]. This teaching means that the information for each of the hosts includes notifications triggered by the server for the host. Furthermore, Killen teaches that the remote monitor (processor) is configured to present a dashboard view that includes a plurality of cells, each cell displaying the information associated with a host of the plurality of hosts [fig. A26, par. 0134].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Killen’s teachings of the remote monitor receiving data from a plurality of hosts in the system taught by Patel because it will permit a caregiver that is in charge of multiple hosts to review data and notifications from each host in a simple manner.
The combination of Patel and Killen teaches that the information for each host includes notifications triggered by the server for the host [see Killen fig. A72, par. 0113, par. 0143 L. 1-10, par. 0154 L. 16-20] , and that t each cell of the dashboard displays the information associated with a host [see Killen fig. A26, par. 0134]. However, the combination does not teach that the notifications include a connection status or a sharing status and that the displayed information includes the analyte levels and notifications of the host.
On the other hand, Martin teaches that the displayed information in a cell can include the analyte levels associated with the host associated with that cell [fig. 16 ninth column (analyte levels)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Martin’s teachings of displaying the glucose values in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to easily know if the glucose values of a host are normal or not.
The combination of Patel and Killen does not teach that the notifications include a connection status or a sharing status and that the displayed information includes the notifications of the host.
On the other hand, Johnson teaches when displaying data of a host in a dashboard, the displayed data can also include a connection status message indicating whether the host is connected to the server [fig. 5B elements 845, col. 4 L. 61-63, col. 36 L. 20-28]. This teaching means that the notifications for the host comprise a connection status message indicating whether the host is connected to the server, that the displayed information in a cell includes the notifications for that host.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Johnson’s teachings of having notifications regarding the connection status and displaying those notifications in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a user of the remote monitor to see if the host is transmitting data to the server together with other displayed data for that host.
In regards to claim 4, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin and Johnson, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that cells can be arranged based on the data of the hosts including analyte levels of the hosts [see Martin fig. 12 element 1205, col. 3 L. 34-39, col. 13 L. 1-8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Martin’s teachings of arranging the cells based on analyte levels in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to easily identify the hosts that have high or low analyte levels.
In regards to claim 5, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin and Johnson, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the cells can be arranged based on a patient score that indicates whether the patient’s health is deteriorating [see Killen par. 0133 L. 11-18]. This teaching means that the at least one processor arranges the plurality of cells based on the severity of a monitored condition for the corresponding hosts.
In regards to claim 6, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin and Johnson, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the connection status indicates if the host system is online or offline [see Johnson fig. 5B elements 845, col. 4 L. 61-63, col. 36 L. 20-28]. This teaching means that the connection status message comprises an active status message indicating that the host’s system is connected and a disconnected status indicating that the remote monitor is currently not connected to a data transmission component.
In regards to claim 11, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin and Johnson, as shown in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches a system performing the claimed functions. Therefore, the combination also teaches the claimed method.
In regards to claim 14, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin and Johnson, as shown in the rejection of claim 4 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 15, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin and Johnson, as shown in the rejection of claim 5 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-2008/0119705) in view of Killen et al. (US-2012/0136221), Martin et al. (US-8,510,126) and Johnson (US-9,848,058) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Williams (US-2011/0125866).
In regards to claim 2, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin and Johnson, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the one or more continuous sensors include a continuous glucose sensor [see Patel par. 0038 L. 4-7].
The combination does not teach that the one or more continuous sensors include a heart rate monitor, and a GPS sensor.
On the other hand, Williams teaches that sensors monitoring a host can include a heart rate monitor and a GPS sensor [fig. 1 element 79 and 80, par. 0026 L. 1-5 and L. 11-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Williams’ teachings of including a heart rate monitor and a GPS sensor in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to access other health parameters of the hosts.
In regards to claim 12, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin, Johnson and Williams, as shown in the rejection of claim 2 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-2008/0119705) in view of Killen et al. (US-2012/0136221), Martin et al. (US-8,510,126) and Johnson (US-9,848,058) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Williams (US-2011/0125866) and Dobbles et al. (US-9,452,258).
In regards to claim 3, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin and Johnson, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches that the measurements generated for each corresponding host include an analyte concentration of the host [see Patel par. 0038 L. 4-7], a temperature measurement of the host [see Killen par. 0210 L. 1-5], a blood pressure measurement of the host [see Killen par. 0210 L. 1-5].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Killen’s teachings of measuring temperature and blood pressure of the hosts in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to better know a health state of a host.
The combination of Patel and Killen does not teach that the measurements include a heart rate measurement of the host and a geographic location of the host.
On the other hand, Williams teaches that measurements of a host can include a heart rate measurement of the host and a geographic location of the host [fig. 1 element 79 and 80, par. 0026 L. 1-5 and L. 11-17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Williams’ teachings of including a heart rate monitor and a GPS sensor in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to access other health parameters of the hosts.
The combination of Patel, Killen, Martin and Johnson and Williams does not teach that the measurements include a state of the host, the state including one of exercising, sleeping, and working.
On the other hand, Dobbles teaches that a host can also comprise an accelerometer which measurements are used to determine whether the host is exercising, sleeping or working [col. 48 L. 61-64, col. 49 L. 13-17]. This teaching means that the measurements include a state of the host, the state including one of exercising, sleeping, and working.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Dobbles’ teachings of sensing an activity of a host in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to know the activity level of each host.
In regards to claim 13, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin, Johnson, Williams and Dobbles, as shown in the rejection of claim 3 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 7-8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-2008/0119705) in view of Killen et al. (US-2012/0136221), Martin et al. (US-8,510,126) and Johnson (US-9,848,058) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Wallace (US-7,026,929).
In regards to claim 7, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin and Johnson, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that that the cells can include icons that show the status of the host device [see Johnson fig. 5B elements 844 and 845]. However, the combination does not teach that the cells are grouped based on the status of the devices.
On the other hand, Wallace teaches that a status of a cell can be used to group the cells based on the status [col. 5 L. 24-28].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Wallace’s teachings of grouping cells based on status in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to easily know which host is active, inactive and sharing his/her data.
The combination of Patel, Killen, Martin, Johnson and Wallace teaches that the cells in the dashboard can include icons that shows the status of the host device [see Johnson fig. 5B elements 844 and 845], and that the status of cells can be used to group the cells based on the status [see Wallace col. 5 L. 24-28]. These teaching means that the at least one processor presents, in a predetermined portion of the dashboard view, one group of cells that contains the cells that have an online status (a subset of the plurality of cells that meet predetermined criteria).
In regards to claim 8, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin, Johnson and Wallace, as applied in the rejection of claim 7 above, teaches that the cells that have an online status will include an icon that shows an online status [see Johnson fig. 5B element 845], and the cells that have an offline status will include an icon that shows an offline status [see Johnson fig. 5B element 844]. Also, the combination teaches that the cells are grouped based on the status [see Wallace col. 5 L. 24-28]. These teachings mean that the cells in the group that has cells with an online status will have an online icon while the cells in the group that has cells with an offline status will have a different icon indicating an offline status. In other words, each of the plurality of cells includes an icon, and the subset of the plurality of cells that meet predetermined criteria are presented using icons different from the icons used for the remaining cells.
In regards to claim 17, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin, Johnson and Wallace, as shown in the rejections of claims 7 and 8 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-2008/0119705) in view of Killen et al. (US-2012/0136221), Martin et al. (US-8,510,126), Johnson (US-9,848,058) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Kaula et al. (US-8,983,616) and Lewin et al. (US-2005/0261062).
In regards to claim 9, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin and Johnson, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, further teaches that the information for each of the plurality of hosts includes a textual identifier of the associated host [see Killen fig. A26]. The combination further teaches that the information can include an analyte concentration value for the associated host and a rate of change of an analyte concentration value for the associated host [see Martin fig. 16 ninth column (analyte concentration value) and tenth column (rate of change), col. 7 L. 37-40, col. 11 L. 33-37]. Also, the combination teaches that the information includes an analyte concentration value for the associated host [see Martin fig. 16 ninth column (analyte concentration value)], and that monitored values can be displayed with the time at which the values were recorded [see Killen par. 00150 L. 4-6]. These teachings mean that the information includes an analyte concentration value for the associated host and a time when the analyte concentration value was measured. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the information can include indicating whether a host device is online or not (a functional status of a monitoring system of the host) [see Johnson fig. 5B elements 844 and 845].
The combination does not teach that the information includes a visual identifier of the associated host.
On the other hand, Kaula teaches that the information can include a visual identifier of the associated host [fig. 3].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Kaula’s teachings of including a visual identifier of the host in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to know how the host looks like.
The combination of Patel, Killen, Martin, Johnson and Kaula does not teach that the information includes an indication of one or more permissions to access predetermined data for the host.
On the other hand, Lewin teaches that the system can gray out data that the user has no authorization to access [par. 0043 L. 3-8]. This teaching means that the information includes an indication of one or more permissions to access predetermined data for the host.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Lewin’s teachings of graying out data that a user has no authorization to access in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to know if he/she has authorization to access data from a host.
In regards to claim 18, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin, Johnson, Kaula and Lewin, as shown in the rejections of claim 9 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 10 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-2008/0119705) in view of Killen et al. (US-2012/0136221), Martin et al. (US-8,510,126), Johnson (US-9,848,058) as applied to claim(s) 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Goodnow et al. (US-2006/0010098).
In regards to claim 10, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin and Johnson, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, teaches that host can set one or more alert notification settings that are used to deliver notifications to a caregiver [see Patel par. 0058 L. 1-3, par. 0064 L. 1-12]. The combination teaches that notifications can be displayed at the remote monitor of the caregiver [see Killen fig. A36]. However, the combination does not teach that the alert notification settings set by the host can be modified by the user of the remote monitor.
On the other hand, Goodnow teaches that a host can authorize a caregiver to modify settings set initially by the host [par. 0235, par. 0238, par. 0409].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Goodnow’s teachings of letting a caregiver modify settings initially set by the host in the system taught by the combination because the caregiver has more knowledge about how to set proper settings values.
The combination of Patel, Killen, Martin and Johnson and Goodnow teaches when a cell is selected, the system will display more specific information about the host of the selected cell including an option to show alert notification settings that can be modified [see Killen fig. A33, fig. A34, fig. A37a, par. 0134 L. 1-5 and L. 11-12, par. 0138 L. 1-3, par. 0152 L. 1-3 and L. 7-8, par. 0156 L. 7-12]. This teaching means that the at least one processor is configured to identify a selection of one of the plurality of cells and present a settings page including one or more alert notification settings for the host corresponding to the selected cell. The combination also teaches that the alert notification settings are initially set by the host [see Patel see Patel par. 0058 L. 1-3, par. 0064 L. 1-12, see Goodnow par. 0235, par. 0238]. Furthermore, the combination teaches that the remote device can let a user modify the alert notification settings set by the host [see Goodnow par. 0409 L. 9-11, see Killen par. 0156 L. 7-12]. This teaching means that the at least one processor is configured to receive one or more modifications of the one or more alert notification settings. The combination further teaches that the at least one processor is configured to transmit the one or more modifications to the server for storage [see Killen par. 0154 L. 13-20, par. 0156 L. 7-12].
In regards to claim 19, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin, Johnson, and Goodnow, as shown in the rejection of claim 10 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
In regards to claim 20, the combination of Patel, Killen, Martin, Johnson, and Goodnow, as shown in the rejections of claims 1, 10 and 11 above, teaches the claimed limitations.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patel et al. (US-2008/0119705) in view of Killen et al. (US-2012/0136221), Martin et al. (US-8,510,126), Johnson (US-9,848,058) as applied to claim(s) 1 above, and further in view of Robertson et al. (US-2013/0117696) and Lewin et al. (US-2005/0261062).
In regards to claim 21, the combination of Patel and Killen, as applied in the rejection of claim 1 above, does not teach that the notifications comprise a sharing status message.
On the other hand, Robertson teaches that hosts have the ability to stop sharing of data as desired [fig. 7, par. 0101 L. 1-14]. This teaching means that the host can temporarily or permanently stop the sharing of data with a remote device. In other words, that the remote device comprises a plurality of status including a removed status indicating that the remote monitor has been removed from accessing the host's data by the host and a not sharing status indicating that the host has paused the sharing of data to the remote monitor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Robertson’s teachings of letting a host control the sharing of his/her data with the remote monitor in the system taught by the combination because it will permit the host to decide when to share his/her data and when to stop sharing his/her data.
The combination of Patel, Killen, Martin, Johnson and Robertson does not teach that when a host stops sharing data either temporarily or permanently, the notifications include that status.
On the other hand, Lewin teaches that when a device is not authorized to access data, can gray out data that the device is not authorized to access [par. 0043 L. 4-8].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to use Lewin’s teachings of graying out data that the device is not authorized to access in the system taught by the combination because it will permit a caregiver to know when a host stopped sharing its data.
The combination of Patel, Killen, Johnson, Robertson and Lewin teaches that the remote device can gray out data that is not authorized to access [see Lewin par. 0043 L. 4-8], and that the host control as desired when data is shared with the remote device [see Robertson fig. 7, par. 0101 L. 1-14]. These teachings mean that when data is displayed at the remote device the notifications include a sharing status message comprising a removed status indicating that the remote monitor has been removed from accessing the host's data by the host (data is greyed out), an active status message indicating that the host’s system is providing data to the remote monitor (host is sharing data and data is not greyed out) and a not sharing status indicating that the host has paused the sharing of data to the remote monitor (data is greyed out).
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 FRANKLIN D BALSECA whose telephone number is (571)270-5966. The examiner can normally be reached 6AM-4PM EST M-F.
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, STEVEN LIM can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/FRANKLIN D BALSECA/Examiner, Art Unit 2688
Prosecution Insights