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 .
Claim Status
The amendment filed November 30th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13, and 15-20 remain pending in the application. Claim 1 have been amended. Claim 5 has been newly cancelled. Claims 6, 12, and 14 remain cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed November 30th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that “it is clear that the articulated sections of Morris are simply included to improve movement, as opposed to causing any form of debridement”, examiner does not find this argument persuasive. Morris states that the “articulated sections 14as have a sufficient number of articulations 14as’ to allow robust movement of surface in one or more directions”. This statement does not disclose that the articulations themselves are included to improve movement, as suggested by applicant, but rather that the number of articulations be sufficient in order to allow robust movement of surface in one or more direction. This statement suggests that the articulations themselves to not improve movement but rather a certain number of articulations must be included in order for movement to be robust in one or more directions. There is no indication within the disclosure of Morris that these articulations would not be capable of causing debridement of the surface if moved across the surface and this statement by the applicant that the articulated sections are opposed to causing any form of debridement is found to lack support. While the disclosure of Morris does not expressly state that the articulated sections, that form protrusions on the surface of 14, are utilized to assist in mechanical removal of biofilm and/or devitalized tissue, this limitation is considered functional in nature and the articulations are considered to be capable of performing this function (see rejection below. Furthermore, the required applied force to cause bending and deflection of the articulated sections is disclosed by Morris to be selectable suggesting that the articulations can be configured to have a particular resistance to bending within the range of 0.01 to 2lbs depending on the required application (¶0097 articulated sections can be configured to bend or deflect with a selectable amount of applied force which can be in the range of 0.01 to 2lbs). This selection ability allows for the protrusions to be rigid enough to resist bending during movement and thus apply a certain amount of frictional force to the tissue surface in which it is in contact with. As such this argument is found to be unpersuasive.
Regarding applicant’s argument that the articulated sections of Morris “are NOT provided in the recited form of claim 1, which recites that such protrusions are in the form of “contoured studs””, examiner does not find this argument persuasive. The definition of “contoured” and “studs” are defined as “to shape the contour of” and “any of various infixed pieces projecting from a machine and serving chiefly as a support or axis” according to Merriam Webster with contour being defined as “an outline especially of a curving or irregular figure”. The articulated sections of Morris are seen to fit the definition of countoured studs as they comprise pieces projecting from the surface of 14 and are curved outward and inwardly from the surface to form hills and valleys.
Regarding applicant’s argument pertaining to the recitation “a conductive element in the form of a bipolar helical coil disposes entirely within the interior cavity and separate from the place” and that Morris cannot be modified that the energy delivery is changed from the extension of energy delivery devices 18 (generally in the form of penetrating needle electrodes) to thereby directly contact and penetrate tissue to a non-extendable, non-contacting arrangement and entirely disposed within the apparatus, examiner does not find this argument persuasive and disagrees with the applicant’s analysis of Morris for the same reasoning presented in the Response to Arguments section of the Non-Final Rejection mailed on March 26th, 2024, in that the embodiment relied upon in the rejection of Figure 10 shows element as a ring or plate element that does not include a sharp distal end and is not intended to extend into or penetrate tissue. This is further supported in the disclosure of Morris in ¶0098 which states “one or more RF electrodes, such as plate or ring shaped RF electrodes 18, may be positioned within section 14p to both cool the electrode and conduct RF energy to section 14P to allow section 14p to act as an RF electrode to deliver RF energy to tissue surface 5s and underlying tissue” which discloses that the RF energy is being supplied to the tissue through section 14p rather than through the penetration of electrode 18 into the tissue as may be suggested by different embodiments disclosed by Morris. The fact that different embodiments disclose electrode 18 penetrating tissue is inconsequential to the current rejection as these embodiments are not relied upon. As such the argument that this penetration would prevent modification of the device based on the teachings of Papaioannou is not found to be persuasive.
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 1 is 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.
The term “sufficiently rigid” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “sufficiently rigid” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. There is no disclosure in the specification that suggests what degree of rigidity is necessary for a structure to be capable of the function of assisting in mechanical removal of biofilm and/or devitalized tissue of the target tissue as the exterior surface of the plate contacts and moves over the target tissue. For example, water is capable of assisting in mechanical removal of biofilm and/or devitalized tissue through propulsion onto a select area, with metal also being capable of such removal, as such there is no way to ascertain to what degree the term “sufficiently rigid” defines the structure of the claim rendering the claim 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.
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morris (U.S. Publication 2008/0125775) in view of Wang et al. (U.S. Publication 2017/0215951) and Papaioannou et al. (U.S. Publication 2016/0184008).
Regarding claim 1, Morris teaches a wound treatment system (Figure 10) comprising:
a treatment device 10 comprising:
a handle 24 (Figure 32A);
an interior cavity 14p for receiving a conductive fluid 27;
a plate 14 configured to contact target tissue (¶0085, tissue contacting surface) wherein the plate 14 encloses the interior cavity 14p to thereby retain conductive fluid 27 within the interior cavity 14p,
a conductive element (18, plate or ring electrodes ¶0098 within porous material) that is bipolar (¶0158 bipolar) disposed within the interior cavity 14p and separate from the plate (element 18 a separate element from plate 14), the conductive element 18 being positioned so as to be surrounded (positioned within the interior cavity which contains the conductive fluid) by conductive fluid within the interior cavity when the interior cavity is filled with conductive fluid (interior cavity contains conductive fluid and thus surrounds conductive element when filled with conductive fluid);
a plurality of apertures (pores) in ¶0098 the plate 14 and wherein each of the plurality of apertures (pores) extend unobstructed (pores inherently empty by definition) from an interior surface of the plate (surface of internal pore facing the cavity formed by pores) adjacent to (continuous with) the interior cavity 14p and to an exterior surface 14ps of the plate 14 which is configured to contact target tissue (¶0085, tissue contacting surface);
a plurality of protrusions 14as in the form of contoured studs (“contoured” and “studs” are defined as “to shape the contour of” and “any of various infixed pieces projecting from a machine and serving chiefly as a support or axis” comprise pieces projecting from the surface of 14 and are curved outward and inwardly from the surface to form hills and valleys), extending from the exterior surface of the plate (Fig. 9a shows extension away from exterior surface); and
a non-conductive pad 12ip coupled to the exterior surface 14ps of the plate 14, the non-conductive pad 12ip comprising an opening (see illustrative diagram of Figure 4A), the non-conductive pad 12ip being detachable or movable in order to allow the insulative area to be selectable ¶0089;
a suction device 26 in fluid connection with the interior cavity via tubing 13 coupled to the interior cavity (Examiner notes that coupling to the interior cavity is described in ¶0123 and ¶0137 which states that lumens 13 are coupled to fluid delivery which is coupled to interior cavity and vacuum is in turn coupled to lumen 13) operable to remove debris, including biofilm and/or devitalized tissue (operates to aspirate tissue ¶0140 and thus operable to suction away debris including biofilm and/or devitalized tissue present with the tissue); and
a generator 20 configured to generate and transmit energy ¶0085 to the conductive element 18 such that the conductive element 18 conducts energy ¶0098 to be carried by the conductive fluid 27 passing through one or more of the plurality of apertures (porous) to thereby form a plasma field about the one or more of the plurality of apertures (¶0098 conductive fluid produces a fluid electrode that uniformly delivers RF energy to the selected tissue surface) to thereby treat a target tissue contacted by that conductive fluid 27.
Examiner notes that plasma is being defined as a state of matter I which an ionized substance becomes highly electrically conductive, therefore by delivering RF energy through the conductive fluid the device is forming a plasma field in the conductive fluid.
Morris does not expressly teach the wound treatment system or generator being portable, the opening of the nonconductive pad being shaped or sized to correspond to a surface area of the target tissue or a dressing applied to the target tissue, the treatment device being disposable, the conductive element being a helical coil, being disposed entirely within the interior cavity, the plurality of apertures extending entirely through the plate, or the protrusions being sufficiently rigid to thereby assist in mechanical removal of biofilm and/or devitalized tissue of the target tissue as the exterior surface of the plate contacts and moves over the target tissue.
However, regarding the protrusions the limitation of “sufficiently rigid to thereby assist in mechanical removal of biofilm and/or devitalized tissue of the target tissue as the exterior surface of the plate contacts and moves over the target tissue” is considered functional language as it simply requires the structure to be capable of assisting in mechanical removal of biofilm and/or devitalized tissue. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus 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)). Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Morris teaches all the structure as claimed, and the protrusions are further used to create robust movement ¶0097 during the ablation (surgical removal) of tissue and their rigidity selectable suggesting that the articulations can be configured to have a particular resistance to bending within the range of 0.01 to 2lbs depending on the required application (¶0097 articulated sections can be configured to bend or deflect with a selectable amount of applied force which can be in the range of 0.01 to 2lbs) . As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is capable of assisting in the mechanical removal of biofilm and/or devitalized tissue of the target tissue as the exterior surface of the plate contacts and moves over the target tissue).
Regarding the portability of the device, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the device to have been made portable, since making a device portable does not change the ability of the device to function and does not provide any new or unexpected results. The Federal Circuit has held that the fact that a claimed device being portable is not sufficient by itself to patentably distinguish over an otherwise old device unless there are new or unexpected results. In re Lindberg, 195 F.2d 732, 93 USPQ 23 (CCPA 1952).
Regarding, the limitation of “shaped or sized to correspond to a surface area of the target tissue or a dressing applied to the target tissue” is considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus 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)). Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Morris teaches all the structure as claimed and furthermore the non-conductive pad is detachable or movable. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is capable of being moved to correspond to a surface area of the target tissue).
Regarding the treatment device being disposable, the limitation of “disposable” is considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus 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)). Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Morris teaches all the structure as claimed. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is capable of being disposed of).
Regarding the conductive element being a helical coil and entirely within the interior cavity, Papaioannou, in the same field of endeavor of treating a target tissue using a conductive fluid supplied with energy, teaches a conductive fluid (Fig. 4F) comprising a conductive element 48 formed in a helical coil placed entirely within an interior cavity 37 that retains conductive fluid (¶0051 electrically conductive fluid into the chamber 37) for the purpose of increasing surface area exposure and contact with the conductive fluid present in the chamber for greater conduction between the lead wire and the fluid.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the conductive element of Morris to have been a helical coil entirely within the interior cavity, as taught by Papaioannou for the purpose of increasing surface area exposure and contact with the conductive fluid present in the chamber for greater conduction between the lead wire and the fluid which would allow for the device to more efficiently transfer energy to the patient.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to try to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the conductive element entirely within the interior cavity since there are only a finite number of predictable solutions. Either the conductive element is entirely within or partially. Morris teaches to place ring or plate shaped electrodes ¶0098 within the internal cavity 14p for the purpose of cooling the conductive element as well as allowing element 14 to be the conductive element ¶0160. Thus, making the conductive element entirely within would have been obvious because “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp”. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product was not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103."KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding the plurality of apertures extending entirely through the plate, Wang, in the same field of endeavor of tissue ablation systems, teaches a plate 26 having a plurality of apertures (44-46) extending entirely through the plate for the purpose of allowing a conductive fluid (¶0094, saline) to weep from an internal cavity through the apertures and to an outer surface ¶0094.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the plate apertures of Morris to have extended entirely through the plate, as taught by Wang, for the purpose of allowing the conductive fluid to weep from the internal cavity through the apertures and to an outer surface (¶0094 of Wang). Furthermore, Morris teaches the ability to adjust the rate of flow of fluid from the internal cavity 14p and it has been held that when a particular known technique was recognized as part of the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art. The known technique of having a plurality of apertures in a plate extending entirely through the plate to allow for fluid to weep from an internal cavity through the apertures and to an outer surface would have yielded the predictable results varying the fluid flow characteristics from the internal cavity to the outer surface allowing for the selectivity of how much fluid is dispensed from the device to the area of treatment. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 2, Morris in view of Wang and Papaioannou suggest the portable wound treatment system of claim 1. Morris further teaches the plurality of apertures (pores) are sized (¶0098 porosity controlled) such that the conductive fluid 27 does not flow ¶0100 from the plurality of apertures (pores) due to gravity alone (porosity adjusted to retain fluid which therefore remains inside and does not flow out due to gravity alone).
Regarding claim 3, Morris in view of Wang and Papaioannou suggest the portable wound treatment system of claim 1. Morris further teaches the plate 14 being coupled to a distal end (see illustrative diagram of Figure 32A below) of the handle 24.
PNG
media_image1.png
280
489
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Illustrative diagram of Figure 32A of Morris (U.S. Publication 2008/0125775).
Regarding claim 4, Morris in view of Wang and Papaioannou suggest the portable wound treatment system of claim 1. Morris further teaches the exterior surface 14ps of the plate 14 being contoured 14c to facilitate engagement ¶0094 with the target tissue.
Regarding claim 7, Morris in view of Wang and Papaioannou suggest the portable wound treatment system of claim 1. Morris, Wang, and/or Papaioannou does not expressly teach or suggest the opening of the non-conductive pad being shaped or sized such that the treatment device selectively treats only a portion of the target tissue.
However, the limitation of “shaped or sized such that the treatment device selectively treats only a portion of the target tissue” is considered functional language. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function, because apparatus 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)). Thus, if a prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recited the claim, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the device of Morris teaches all the structure as claimed and furthermore the non-conductive pad is used to insulate against transmission of RF treatment and is detachable or movable. As such, it is capable of performing the functions as claimed (i.e. it is capable of being shaped or sized to selectively treat only a portion of the target tissue).
Regarding claim 8, Morris in view of Wang and Papaioannou suggest the portable wound treatment system of claim 1. Morris further teaches a reservoir 30 operable to contain the conductive fluid 27 and to convey the conductive fluid 27 to the conductive element 18.
Regarding claim 9, Morris in view of Wang and Papaioannou suggest the portable wound treatment system of claim 8. Morris further teaches an actuator 28 operable to control pressurized flow ¶0100 of the conductive fluid 27 to the conductive element 18 from the reservoir 30.
Regarding claim 10, Morris in view of Wang and Papaioannou suggest the portable wound treatment system of claim 1. Morris further teaches the conductive fluid 27 passing through one or more of the plurality of apertures (pores) when pressurized flow of the conductive fluid 27 to the conductive element 18 is provided (¶0098 describes conductive fluid passing through apertures, ¶0100 describes pressurized fluid delivery).
Regarding claim 11, Morris in view of Wang and Papaioannou suggest the portable wound treatment system of claim 1. Morris further teaches the portable generator 20 generates radiofrequency (RF) energy ¶0086.
Regarding claim 13, Morris in view of Wang and Papaioannou suggest the portable wound treatment system of claim 1. Morris further teaches a foam dressing 14p that is applied to cover the target tissue prior to treatment with the wound treatment system ¶0095 and to thereby improve conductivity ¶0098 to the target tissue, through the foam dressing 14p (¶0095 describes that the contact surface element 14 maintains contact before ablation).
Regarding claim 15, Morris in view of Wang and Papaioannou suggest the portable wound treatment system of claim 1. Morris further teaches a controller 338 operable to govern the removal of aspirated tissue. The current embodiment of Morris does not expressly teach the controller doing this through the adjustment of negative pressure produced by the suction device, however in another embodiment Morris teaches a separate vacuum device 16v being controlled by actuation 24” by a control valve 24cv which would adjust the amount of negative pressure produced.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted aspiration controller of Morris that performs the function of controlling aspiration of tissue through suction for the vacuum controller taught by Morris since these elements perform the same function of controlling suction elements. Simply substituting on suction control means for another would yield the predictable result of allowing the control of a suction device. See MPEP 2143.
Regarding claim 16, Morris in view of Wang and Papaioannou suggest the portable wound treatment system of claim 1. Morris further teaches the suction device 26 being operable to remove debris from the target tissue (See ¶0137 aspiration of tissue).
Regarding claim 17, Morris in view of Wang and Papaioannou suggest the portable wound treatment system of claim 1. Morris, Wang, and/or Papaioannou does not expressly teach the portable generator having a weight of about 5 pounds or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the portable generator a weight of about 5 pounds or less in order to fit the particular application since this claimed dimension of 5 pounds or less does not change the ability of portable generator to generate RF energy. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see Page 3 lines 18-24 of applicant specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding claim 18, Morris in view of Wang and Papaioannou suggest the portable wound treatment system of claim 1. Morris, Wang, and/or Papaioannou does not expressly teach the portable generator having dimensions of about 5 inches in height, 10 inches in length, and 8 inches in depth, or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the portable generator a height of about 5 inches, a length of about 10 inches, and a depth of about 8 inches, or less in order to fit the particular application since this claimed dimension of a height of about 5 inches, a length of about 10 inches, and a depth of about 8 inches, or less does not change the ability of portable generator to generate RF energy. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see Page 3 lines 18-24 of applicant specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding claim 19, Morris in view of Wang and Papaioannou suggest the portable wound treatment system of claim 1. Morris further teaches the portable generator 20 being coupled to the conductive element 18 by a power cable 20c. Morris, Wang, and/or Papaioannou does not expressly teach the power cable having a length of about 5 feet or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the power cable a length of about 5 feet or less in order to fit the particular application since this claimed dimension of a length of about 5 feet or less does not change the ability of power cord to couple the portable generator to the conductive element. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see Page 3 lines 25-31 and Page 4 lines 1-2 of applicant specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
Regarding claim 20, Morris in view of Wang and Papaioannou suggest the portable wound treatment system of claim 19. Morris, Wang, and/or Papaioannou does not expressly teach the power cable having a length of about 3 feet or less.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the power cable a length of about 3 feet or less in order to fit the particular application since this claimed dimension of a length of about 3 feet or less does not change the ability of power cord to couple the portable generator to the conductive element. Since applicant has not given any criticality to why the dimension disclosed has any importance to the function of the claimed device (see Page 3 lines 25-31 and Page 4 lines 1-2 of applicant specification), the Federal Circuit held that, where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. In Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777.
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 PETER DANIEL SMITH whose telephone number is (571)272-8564. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30am-5:00pm.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/PETER DANIEL SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/JESSICA ARBLE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781