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 .
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 06/18/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 1-17 are pending for examination.
Claim Interpretation
In regard to claim 8, the claim recites “a memory, wherein the memory stores data points for simulated reflectance curves, the simulated reflectance curves are used in determining an oxygen saturation value for an oxygen saturation measurement and an error value associated with the saturation measurement, and the quality metric is based on the error value”. It is noted that the limitation contains "nonfunctional descriptive materials", e.g. a memory stores “data points” and “an error value”, which do not have sufficient patentable weights. Applicant is reminded that the courts and Patent Office have distinguished between functional and non-functional descriptive materials stored on a memory device, see MPEP 2106.01 & 2111.05; Without further utilizing the stored values in a calculating/ processing element in a manner that would make the values functional, any system that comprises a memory and is capable of transferring the stored value to a device would be considered to meet the claim limitations. It is also noted that the processor recited in claim 16 performs a function using the stored data would make the stored data functional.
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 1-3 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to judicial exceptions of abstract idea without significantly more. Claims 1-3 and 5-7 recite a method, which fall within one of statutory categories (i.e. process) (Step 1: YES).
Step 2A Prong One analysis: Claims 31 and 42 recite “determining, by the oximeter device, at least one absorption coefficient value for the tissue at least by fitting the plurality of detector responses to data points for one or more simulated reflectance curves; determining, with at least the oximeter device, at least one error value associated with fitting the plurality of detector responses to the data points; determining, with at least the oximeter device, a first oxygen saturation value for a first oxygen saturation measurement of the tissue based at least in part upon the at least one absorption coefficient value; determining, by at least the oximeter device, at least one quality metric value for the first oxygen saturation value based at least in part on the at least one error value”. The claims involve calculation/ determination of parameter(s) constitutes an abstract idea of mathematical relationships/ calculations and/or mental process, which fall within at least one of the groupings of abstract ideas enumerated in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (Mathematical Concepts) (Step 2A Prong One: YES).
Step 2A Prong Two analysis: Claim 1 recites “an oximeter device, comprising one or more sources and one or more detectors… a display…”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the recited oximeter device is unaffected by how the calculations/ determinations operate (e.g. merely using a conventional oximetry device to collect data and provide data to the calculation/ determination steps). And the “using an oximeter device” and “rendering a visual indication on a display“ steps are considered as data gathering and presenting steps to be insignificant extra-solution activity. And/ or the abstract idea (mental process) is directed a limitation that can practically be performed in the human mind, with or without the use of a physical aid such as pen and paper, the limitation falls within the mental processes grouping (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.B) “(Step 2A Prong Two: YES).
Step 2B: The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s), when considered separately and in combination, are associated with data gathering/ presenting steps of insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claims merely cover the collection of data obtained from known and existing technology and then using the data to make a correlation for parameter(s) (Step 2B: No). Dependent claims do not recite additional elements/ features and do not add significantly more (i.e. an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claims, and thus claims 1-3 and 5-7 are ineligible.
It is noted that claim 4 recites specific configurations/ arrangements of the optical elements of the oximeter device and is considered as significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claims 8-17 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims that depend directly or indirectly from claim 8 is/are also rejected due to said dependency. In regard to claim 8, the claim recites “at least two of the plurality of detectors being symmetrically arranged with respect to the one or more sources”. It is unclear the metes and bounds of " symmetrically arranged with respect to the one or more sources.” The specification does not provide any limitation definition(s) and one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the number of different configurations is boundless (e.g. two or more detectors being symmetrically arranged with respect to one to more sources). In addition, the specification describes “two of the detector structures that are symmetrically located with respect to each other about a point on a line connecting the first and second source structures” (paragraphs [18], [22] and [61]); “And the position of a detector (above the line) will have point symmetry with another detector (below the line) about a selected point on the line of the two sources” (paragraph [63]). However, it is noted with particularity that narrowing limitations found in the specification cannot be inferred in the claims where the elements not set forth in the claims are linchpin of patentability. To obviate this rejection, applicant is encouraged to amend the claim to recite specific embodiments consistent with the specification.
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.
Claims 8 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ochs (USPGPUB 2015/0230758 – applicant cited) in view of Meyer et al. (USPGPUB 2015/0141780). In regard to claim 8, Ochs discloses a system (Figs. 1-11 and associated descriptions) comprising: one or more sources (elements 130/316/402, Figs. 1 and 3-4 and associated descriptions) and one or more detectors (elements 140/142, 318/338, and/or 404/406, Figs. 1 and 3-4 and associated descriptions), wherein the system makes at least one oxygen saturation measurement of tissue (blood oxygen saturation, abstract; Figs. 3-11 and associated descriptions) by emitting light from the one or more sources into a tissue, and receiving light reflected by the tissue at the one or more detectors in response to the emitted light (Figs, 1-4 and associated descriptions); a quality metric indicator, wherein the quality metric indicator represents an indication of a quality metric associated with an oxygen saturation measurement (display 184 and/or speaker 186, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; “display an indication of the low confidence measure (e.g., a warning or alert)…Rmin values may be displayed to indicate confidence or as a quality index”, [0097]); and a memory (element 174, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; [0058]), wherein the memory stores data points for simulated reflectance curves, the simulated reflectance curves are used in determining an oxygen saturation value for an oxygen saturation measurement and an error value associated with the saturation measurement, and the quality metric is based on the error value (the limitations are directed to “nonfunctional descriptive materials” defined in the claim interpretation section above, which do not have sufficient patentable weights).
Ochs does not specifically disclose at least two of the plurality of detectors being symmetrically arranged with respect to the one or more sources.
Meyer teaches a regional/ tissue oximetry sensor (Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; regional/ tissue oximetry, [0014]) comprises at least two of detectors being symmetrically arranged with respect to one or more sources (detectors 136A and 136B symmetrically arranged with respect to sources 138A and 138B, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; It is noted that the limitations are rejected as best understood, referring to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection above), wherein the sources and detectors create different optical paths for regional/ tissue oximetry measurements (Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; [0014]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the configuration(s) of the sources and detectors (Ochs) with the configuration(s) as taught by Meyer to yield predictable results, since both devices are regional/ tissue oximetry systems and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the configuration(s) as taught by Meyer is an alternative equivalent configurations for obtaining regional/ tissue oximetry information at different optical paths. The rationale would have been the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results (obvious to substitute elements, devices, etc.), KSR, 550, U.S. at 417.
In regard to claim 11, Ochs as modified by Meyer discloses the quality metric indicator comprises a screen (display 184, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions of Ochs).
In regard to claim 12, Ochs as modified by Meyer discloses an oxygen saturation value indicator, wherein the oxygen saturation value indicator represents the oxygen saturation value for an oxygen saturation measurement (display 184, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; display rSO2, Fig. 6 and associated descriptions of Ochs).
In regard to claim 13, Ochs as modified by Meyer discloses the oxygen saturation value and the quality metric are displayed on a screen (display 184, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; display rSO2 and confidence 612, Fig. 6 and associated descriptions; [0097] of Ochs).
In regard to claim 14, Ochs as modified by Meyer discloses a handheld oximeter probe comprises the system (elements 100/102; 314/312; and/or 400, Figs. 1-4 and associated descriptions of Ochs).
In regard to claim 15, Ochs as modified by Meyer discloses a battery, coupled to the one or more sources and one or more detectors, quality metric indicator, and memory (battery, [0065] and battery, [0069] of Ochs).
In regard to claim 16, Ochs as modified by Meyer discloses a processor (element 172, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions), wherein the processor determines the oxygen saturation value by performing a fitting of responses of one or more detectors to the data points for simulated reflectance curves (Figs. 5- 7 and associated descriptions; determine a best fit reference set … reference absorption curves…, [0077]; [0081-0084] of Ochs).
In regard to claim 17, Ochs as modified by Meyer discloses the memory is a nonvolatile memory (memory types, [0058] of Ochs).
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 1-13 and 16-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5-16 and 18-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,786,187 in view of Meyer. In regard to claim 1-13 and 16-17, claims 1, 5-16 and 18-20 of ‘187 recite all the claimed limitations except “receiving the light emitted from at least one source of the one or more sources at a first detector that is spaced at a distance from the at least one source; and receiving the light emitted from the at least one source at a second detector that is spaced at the distance from the at least one source/ at least two of the plurality of detectors being symmetrically arranged with respect to the one or more sources”. Meyer teaches an oximetry sensor (Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; oximetry…rSO2/ SpO2, [0014]) comprises receiving the light emitted from at least one source of the one or more sources at a first detector that is spaced at a distance from the at least one source; and receiving the light emitted from the at least one source at a second detector that is spaced at the distance from the at least one source/ at least two of the plurality of detectors being symmetrically arranged with respect to the one or more sources (detectors 136A and 136B and sources 138A and 138B, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the configuration(s) of the sources and detectors (claims 1, 5-16 and 18-20 of ‘187) with the configuration(s) as taught by Meyer to yield predictable results, since both devices are regional/ tissue oximetry systems and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the configuration(s) as taught by Meyer is an alternative equivalent configurations for obtaining regional/ tissue oximetry information at different optical paths. The rationale would have been the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results (obvious to substitute elements, devices, etc.), KSR, 550, U.S. at 417.
Claims 1-13 and 16-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-18 and 20-21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,589,784 in view of Meyer. In regard to claim 1-13 and 16-17, claims 1, 4-18 and 20-21 of ‘784 recite all the claimed limitations except “receiving the light emitted from at least one source of the one or more sources at a first detector that is spaced at a distance from the at least one source; and receiving the light emitted from the at least one source at a second detector that is spaced at the distance from the at least one source/ at least two of the plurality of detectors being symmetrically arranged with respect to the one or more sources”. Meyer teaches an oximetry sensor (Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; oximetry…rSO2/ SpO2, [0014]) comprises receiving the light emitted from at least one source of the one or more sources at a first detector that is spaced at a distance from the at least one source; and receiving the light emitted from the at least one source at a second detector that is spaced at the distance from the at least one source/ at least two of the plurality of detectors being symmetrically arranged with respect to the one or more sources (detectors 136A and 136B and sources 138A and 138B, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the configuration(s) of the sources and detectors (claims 1, 4-18 and 20-21 of ‘784) with the configuration(s) as taught by Meyer to yield predictable results, since both devices are regional/ tissue oximetry systems and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the configuration(s) as taught by Meyer is an alternative equivalent configurations for obtaining regional/ tissue oximetry information at different optical paths. The rationale would have been the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results (obvious to substitute elements, devices, etc.), KSR, 550, U.S. at 417.
Claims 1-13 and 16-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 10-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,800,999 in view of Meyer. In regard to claim 1-13 and 16-17, claims 10-19 of ‘999 recite all the claimed limitations except “receiving the light emitted from at least one source of the one or more sources at a first detector that is spaced at a distance from the at least one source; and receiving the light emitted from the at least one source at a second detector that is spaced at the distance from the at least one source/ at least two of the plurality of detectors being symmetrically arranged with respect to the one or more sources”. Meyer teaches an oximetry sensor (Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; oximetry…rSO2/ SpO2, [0014]) comprises receiving the light emitted from at least one source of the one or more sources at a first detector that is spaced at a distance from the at least one source; and receiving the light emitted from the at least one source at a second detector that is spaced at the distance from the at least one source/ at least two of the plurality of detectors being symmetrically arranged with respect to the one or more sources (detectors 136A and 136B and sources 138A and 138B, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the configuration(s) of the sources and detectors (claims 10-19 of ‘999) with the configuration(s) as taught by Meyer to yield predictable results, since both devices are regional/ tissue oximetry systems and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the configuration(s) as taught by Meyer is an alternative equivalent configurations for obtaining regional/ tissue oximetry information at different optical paths. The rationale would have been the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results (obvious to substitute elements, devices, etc.), KSR, 550, U.S. at 417.
Claims 1-13 and 16-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-18 and 20-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,070,311 in view of Meyer. In regard to claim 1-13 and 16-17, claims 1, 4-18 and 20-21 of ‘311 recite all the claimed limitations except “receiving the light emitted from at least one source of the one or more sources at a first detector that is spaced at a distance from the at least one source; and receiving the light emitted from the at least one source at a second detector that is spaced at the distance from the at least one source/ at least two of the plurality of detectors being symmetrically arranged with respect to the one or more sources”. Meyer teaches an oximetry sensor (Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; oximetry…rSO2/ SpO2, [0014]) comprises receiving the light emitted from at least one source of the one or more sources at a first detector that is spaced at a distance from the at least one source; and receiving the light emitted from the at least one source at a second detector that is spaced at the distance from the at least one source/ at least two of the plurality of detectors being symmetrically arranged with respect to the one or more sources (detectors 136A and 136B and sources 138A and 138B, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the configuration(s) of the sources and detectors (claims 1, 4-18 and 20-21 of ‘311) with the configuration(s) as taught by Meyer to yield predictable results, since both devices are regional/ tissue oximetry systems and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the configuration(s) as taught by Meyer is an alternative equivalent configurations for obtaining regional/ tissue oximetry information at different optical paths. The rationale would have been the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results (obvious to substitute elements, devices, etc.), KSR, 550, U.S. at 417.
Claims 1-13 and 16-17 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-18 and 20-21 of U.S. Patent No. 12,376,769 in view of Meyer. In regard to claim 1-13 and 16-17, claims 1, 4-18 and 20-21 of ‘769 recite all the claimed limitations except “receiving the light emitted from at least one source of the one or more sources at a first detector that is spaced at a distance from the at least one source; and receiving the light emitted from the at least one source at a second detector that is spaced at the distance from the at least one source/ at least two of the plurality of detectors being symmetrically arranged with respect to the one or more sources”. Meyer teaches an oximetry sensor (Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; oximetry…rSO2/ SpO2, [0014]) comprises receiving the light emitted from at least one source of the one or more sources at a first detector that is spaced at a distance from the at least one source; and receiving the light emitted from the at least one source at a second detector that is spaced at the distance from the at least one source/ at least two of the plurality of detectors being symmetrically arranged with respect to the one or more sources (detectors 136A and 136B and sources 138A and 138B, Fig. 1 and associated descriptions; [0014]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the configuration(s) of the sources and detectors (claims 1, 4-18 and 20-21 of ‘769) with the configuration(s) as taught by Meyer to yield predictable results, since both devices are regional/ tissue oximetry systems and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the configuration(s) as taught by Meyer is an alternative equivalent configurations for obtaining regional/ tissue oximetry information at different optical paths. The rationale would have been the simple substitution of one known, equivalent element for another to obtain predictable results (obvious to substitute elements, devices, etc.), KSR, 550, U.S. at 417.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if overcome the double patenting rejections and rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 5 of Remarks, filed on 06/18/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-13 and 16-17 under double patenting have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejections have been withdrawn. Updated DP rejections are made in response to the amendments (see above).
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to the claim interpretation, applicant alleged that “computer program” recited in conjunction with a memory should be treated as product claim and functional descriptive material. In response, the claim 8 merely recite “a memory, wherein the memory stores data points for simulated reflectance curves”, which do not contain any computer programs. It is noted that the additional functions recited are considered as intended uses have insufficient patentable weights. As indicated in the claim interpretation section above, a calculating/ processing element utilizing the stored values would make the values functional. It is suggested “a processor determines at least one absorption coefficient value and an error value associated with the oxygen saturation measurement based on fitting the data points of simulated reflectance curves; and determines an oxygen saturation value for an oxygen saturation measurement based on the at least one absorption coefficient value, wherein the quality metric is determined based on the error value” or similar functions as corresponding to the steps recited in claim 1 should be set forth.
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In regard to the 35 USC 101 rejection, applicant alleged that a human mind can not emit light or received reflected light in Step 2A Prong One analysis. In response, Step 2A Prong One analysis indicates which step(s) is/ are considered as an abstract idea of mathematical relationships/ calculations and/or mental process. The use of optical elements (e.g. emit light and receive reflected light) have been analyzed in Step 2A Prong Two analysis which are considered as using a conventional oximeter for data gathering and a display for presenting steps to be insignificant extra-solution activity. Step 2B analysis further indicates the claims does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element(s), when considered separately and in combination, are associated with data gathering/ presenting steps of insignificant extra-solution activity. As indicated in the 35 USC 101 rejection section, claim 4 recites specific configurations of the oximeter device which are considered as significantly more than the judicial exception.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 9 of Remarks, filed on 06/18/2026, with respect to claims 1-7, 9-10, 12, and 16 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 USC 112(b) rejections of claims 1-7, 9-10, 12, and 16 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendment and argument with respect to claims 8 and 11-17 filed on 06/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are deemed to be moot in views of the new grounds of rejection.
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 CHU CHUAN LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5507. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th (6am-6pm).
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, Jennifer Robertson can be reached at (571) 272-5001. 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.
/CHU CHUAN LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights