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 Amendment
The amendment filed April 23, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7, 10, 12-17 have been amended. Currently, claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026 with respect to Prochazka (US 2010/0016929), also mentioned in the April 23, 2026 Interview, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued Prochazka does not disclose effectors for non-invasively applying nerve stimulation transcutaneously so as to reduce the user’s tremor. Upon further consideration, while Prochazka discloses invasive and non-invasive electrodes, the acknowledgement of disadvantages of stimulation only through electrodes attached to the body surface and the advantages of implanting wire components to route electrical current to the vicinity of target tissues ([0007]) is not a teaching away of using a non-invasive system since preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). A reference ‘teaches away’ when it states that something cannot be done. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026 with respect to Wheeler (US 2006/0047326), also mentioned in the April 23, 2026 Interview, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Upon further consideration, applicant’s arguments (p. 7-8) that Wheeler teaches away from the frequency ranges now recited in claims 1 and 11 (10 Hz – 5000 Hz) because the prior art states, “The corresponding frequency that will provide maximum coupling is 25 kHz. A frequency slightly above or below this frequency will not provide maximum coupling and will not be as effective” ([0046]) is unpersuasive. A reference ‘teaches away’ when it states that something cannot be done. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Disclosed examples and preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). Additionally, this cited portion appears directed only to the high frequency (25kHz) of the frequency range delivered by the prior art. Wheeler states the neuromodulation stimulation delivered to a patient experiencing Parkinson’s disease tremor ([0033]) has a frequency that “is variable over the frequency range that couples effectively into the nodes of Ranvier over a range of myelinated nerve sheath diameters” ([0034]). Wheeler states a sufficiently high frequency (approximately 25 kHz) but also a sufficiently low frequency (approximately 250 Hz) ([0034]). In reciting these frequency ranges and specifically delivering at a frequency of “approximately 250 Hz”, Wheeler discloses “wherein the one or more stimulation parameters comprise a frequency between 10 Hz and 5000 Hz” as required by claims 1 and 11.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “data portal device” in claim 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-8, 13-17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 10-11, 20 of copending Application No. 19/270,963 in view of John (US 2008/0061961).
Claims 1, 3, 5-7, 13-15, 17 recite all of the limitations of copending claims 1 and 11 except for a system that uses both an open loop system and a closed loop system to tailor nerve stimulation, wherein the closed loop system provides automatic self-calibration of the one or more stimulation parameters, wherein the closed loop system comprises application of one or more machine learning algorithms, and wherein the open loop system allows the user to manually modify the one or more stimulation parameters. John teaches a system that uses both an open loop system and a closed loop system to tailor nerve stimulation to a user’s tremor ([0107]), the system comprising: one or more sensors configured to obtain data comprising one or more tremor characteristics of the user (“tremor magnitude” [0116]); one or more effectors 10a that are configured to apply nerve stimulation to the user ([0054]); one or more controllers or processors configured to (i) receive the data from the one or more sensors and to adjust one or more stimulation parameters of the nerve stimulation according to the closed loop system ([0063]; “responsive stimulation is stimulation which is triggered in response to sensed data when analysis of the data results in detection of one or more abnormal medical events” [0095]; [0107]) and (ii) receive one or more user inputs to modify the one or more stimulation parameters of the nerve stimulation according to the open loop system ([0102]), wherein the closed loop system provides automatic self-calibration of the one or more stimulation parameters ([0100]; 92 fig. 6a; 90 fig. 6b), wherein the open loop system allows the user to manually modify the one or more stimulation parameters (90c fig. 6a; 90 fig. 6b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the copending claims 1 and 11 to incorporate the open loop system and closed loop system as taught by John in order to better indicate whether the nerve stimulation is benefiting the treatment through feedback detected by the sensors or to adjust the therapy if a detected tremor size has increased above a certain level for a specified duration ([0107])
Claims 2, 16 correspond to copending claims 10, 20.
Claim 4 corresponds to copending claim 6.
Claim 8 corresponds to copending claims 10, 20.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
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.
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, 3, 8-11, 13-15, 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler (US 2006/0047326) in view of John (US 2008/0061961) and Burdick et al. (US 2014/0180361).
Regarding claims 1, 13, Wheeler discloses a system to tailor nerve stimulation to a user’s tremor ([0033]), the system comprising: a plurality of effectors 40-42 (fig. 4) that are configured to apply the nerve stimulation to at least a median nerve ([0052]) of the user and a second nerve of the user (“a series of nerves that connect to the median nerve” [0052]), wherein the plurality of effectors are configured to be positioned on a skin surface of the user to non-invasively apply the nerve stimulation transcutaneously so as to reduce the user’s tremor ([0033]), wherein the nerve stimulation has a frequency between 10 Hz and 5000 Hz ([0034]); one or more controllers or processors 66 ([0058]), and wherein the plurality of effectors comprises at least one effector 41 for contact with the user at a first skin surface to stimulate the median nerve ([0052]) and at least one effector 40 for contact with the user at a second skin surface to stimulate the second nerve ([0052]).
Wheeler does not expressly disclose the system uses both an open loop system and a closed loop system to tailor nerve stimulation comprising one or more sensors configured to obtain data comprising one or more tremor characteristics of the user; the one or more controllers or processors configured to (i) receive the data from the one or more sensors and to adjust one or more stimulation parameters of the nerve stimulation according to the closed loop system and (ii) receive one or more user inputs to modify the one or more stimulation parameters of the nerve stimulation according to the open loop system, wherein the closed loop system provides automatic self-calibration of the one or more stimulation parameters, and wherein the open loop system allows the user to manually modify the one or more stimulation parameters. John teaches a system that uses both an open loop system and a closed loop system to tailor nerve stimulation to a user’s tremor ([0107]), the system comprising: one or more sensors configured to obtain data comprising one or more tremor characteristics of the user (“tremor magnitude” [0116]); one or more effectors 10a that are configured to apply nerve stimulation to the user ([0054]); one or more controllers or processors configured to (i) receive the data from the one or more sensors and to adjust one or more stimulation parameters of the nerve stimulation according to the closed loop system ([0063]; “responsive stimulation is stimulation which is triggered in response to sensed data when analysis of the data results in detection of one or more abnormal medical events” [0095]; [0107]) and (ii) receive one or more user inputs to modify the one or more stimulation parameters of the nerve stimulation according to the open loop system ([0102]), wherein the closed loop system provides automatic self-calibration of the one or more stimulation parameters ([0100]; 92 fig. 6a; 90 fig. 6b), wherein the open loop system allows the user to manually modify the one or more stimulation parameters (90c fig. 6a; 90 fig. 6b). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to incorporate the open loop system and closed loop system as taught by John in order to better indicate whether the nerve stimulation is benefiting the treatment through feedback detected by the sensors or to adjust the therapy if a detected tremor size has increased above a certain level for a specified duration ([0107]).
Wheeler does not expressly disclose wherein the closed loop system comprises application of one or more machine learning algorithms. Burdick et al. teaches applying a machine learning algorithm to a closed loop system where adjustments to neurostimulation are performed based on information received from sensors is known in the art ([0191-0194]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to apply one or more machine learning algorithms to the closed loop system as taught by Burdick et al. in order to more efficiently search for effective parameter combinations ([0196]).
Regarding claims 3, 14, Wheeler in view of Burdick et al. disclose wherein at least a first one of the one or more controllers or processors is on a cloud computing network or a server (“remote computer 49… remote computer 49 may be another computer, a server, a router, a network PC, a client, a memory storage device, a peer device or other common network node, and typically includes many or all of the elements described above relative to the computing device 12” [0215-0217]).
Regarding claims 8, 19, the limitation, “wherein the system is configured to provide the nerve stimulation for up to 24 hours in a day” is a matter of intended use, and does not result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art. “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Regarding claims 9, 18, Wheeler in view of John discloses wherein the one or more tremor characteristics comprise at least one of an amplitude or a frequency of the user’s tremor (“tremor magnitude” [0116]).
Regarding claim 10, Wheeler in view of John disclose wherein the modification of the one or more stimulation parameters in the closed loop system is based on a comparison between the one or more tremor characteristics received from the one or more sensors and desired tremor characteristics ([0107]).
Regarding claim 11, Wheeler in view of John disclose wherein, if a predetermined tremor condition is not exceeded, then the one or more stimulation parameters are not adjusted ([0107]; no alert is generated, no stimulation parameter is triggered for adjustment).
Regarding claim 15, Wheeler in view of Burdick et al. disclose wherein at least a first one of the one or more controllers or processors is on a cloud computing network or a server (“remote computer 49… remote computer 49 may be another computer, a server, a router, a network PC, a client, a memory storage device, a peer device or other common network node, and typically includes many or all of the elements described above relative to the computing device 12” [0215-0217]; “remote computing device 157” [0101]) and further discloses at least a second one of the one or more processors is on a data portal device (“computing device 152 may be implemented as a cellular telephone, tablet computing device” [0101]).
Claim(s) 2, 6, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler (US 2006/0047326) in view of John (US 2008/0061961) and Burdick et al. (US 2014/0180361) and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2007/0185409) and Prochazka (US 2010/0016929).
Regarding claims 2, 6, 16-17, Wheeler does not expressly disclose wherein the plurality of effectors are on a wearable device comprising a band that is configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of the user. Wu et al. teaches it is known in the art to focus stimulation to the median nerve ([0057]) with the use of a band (fig. 4) configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of a user for positioning effectors E1-E4 at a skin surface above targeted nerves ([0028], [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to position the effectors on a wearable device, wherein the wearable device comprises a band configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of the user as taught by Wu et al. as such a configuration is known in the art to obtain predictable results, and would not alter the overall operation of the device.
Wheeler also does not expressly disclose wherein the second nerve comprises at least one of a radial nerve or an ulnar nerve. Prochazka teaches a device for the analogous treatment of movement disorders ([0076]). While Prochazka discloses invasive and non-invasive electrodes, the acknowledgement of disadvantages of stimulation only through electrodes attached to the body surface and the advantages of implanting wire components to route electrical current to the vicinity of target tissues ([0007]) is not a teaching away of using a non-invasive system since preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments. In re Susi, 440 F.2d 442, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971). A reference ‘teaches away’ when it states that something cannot be done. In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Regardless, Prochazka teaches it is known in the art to treat tremors through the stimulation of both the median nerve 46 and the radial nerve 50 (fig. 4; [0100]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to try stimulating the radial nerve as the second nerve as taught by Prochazka as it is a known combination of nerves to stimulate to activate neural impulses for the effective treatment of movement disorders ([0100]), the results of such a stimulation being reasonably predictable in the art.
Claim(s) 4-5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler (US 2006/0047326) in view of John (US 2008/0061961) and Burdick et al. (US 2014/0180361) and further in view of Wu et al. (US 2007/0185409).
Regarding claims 4-5, Wheeler does not expressly disclose wherein at least a first one of the one or more controllers or processors is on a wearable device that comprises the plurality of effectors that comprise a plurality of electrodes. Wu et al. teaches wherein at least one of one or more controllers or processors 114 (fig. 1) is on a wearable device (fig. 2) that comprises the one or more effectors comprising a plurality of electrodes E1-E4 (fig. 4). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to position the first one of the one or more controllers or processors on a wearable device that comprises the plurality of effectors/electrodes as taught by Wu et al. as such a configuration is known in the art to obtain predictable results, and would not alter the overall operation of the device.
Regarding claim 7, Wheeler does not expressly disclose wherein the system comprises a wearable device that comprises a band that is configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of the user, and wherein the wearable device comprises the one or more sensors and the plurality of effectors. Wu et al. teaches it is known in the art to focus stimulation to the median nerve ([0057]) with the use of a band (fig. 4) configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of a user for positioning effectors E1-E4 and sensors S1-S4 at a skin surface above targeted nerves ([0028], [0057]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to position the effectors and sensors on a wearable device, wherein the wearable device comprises a band configured to wrap partially or completely around a wrist of the user as taught by Wu et al. as such a configuration is known in the art to obtain predictable results, and would not alter the overall operation of the device.
Claim(s) 12, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wheeler (US 2006/0047326) in view of John (US 2008/0061961) and Burdick et al. (US 2014/0180361) and further in view of Werder et al. (US 2007/0255323).
Regarding claims 12 and 20, Wheeler does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more effectors comprises at least one effector configured to provide at least one of a vibrotactile stimulation or an ultrasonic excitation. Werder et al. teaches application of vibrational stimulation is known into the art to be an equivalent to electrical stimulation of the skin for treatment of tremors (“Parkinson’s disease”) ([0009]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Wheeler to substitute and try vibrational stimulation for electrical stimulation to the user as taught by Werder et al. as it is a known equivalent in the art and would yield predictable results.
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 ERICA S LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1480. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-7pm, flex.
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, David Hamaoui can be reached at (571) 270-5625. 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.
/ERICA S LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796
Prosecution Insights