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 June 24th, 2025 has been entered. Claims 43, 45, 48, 50-54, 60-63 are amended. Claims 1-42, 44, 46-47, 49, & 55-59 are canceled. Claims 43, 45, 48, 50-54, & 60-63 remain pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 24th, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding independent claim 43, applicant argues that Latterell nor Hart disclose the elastomeric layer, as required by the amended claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees, Hart provides a teaching for an insulating layer below a seal electrode ([0048]; Figure 4C—element 126), wherein the insulator 126 may be formed from a “resiliently compressible material” to facilitate achieving a desired gap distance between sealing electrodes ([0048]); it is the examiner position that the “resiliently compressible” material is an elastomeric layer as Merriam Webster defines resilience as “the capability of a strained body to recover its size and shape after deformation caused especially by compressive stress”, further, it is the examiner position that the elastomeric layer would be capable of at least partially generating an elastic force to resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure, as the insulator is resilient and so as to prevent the second jaw structure from collapsing and breaking during use of the device of Hart.
Regarding independent claim 54, applicant argues that the insulator 225 of Collings is not an elastomeric strip, as claimed; as Collings describes the insulator as a compressible material, such as silicon, and silicon is not an elastomeric material rather a material that is hard and brittle and breaks under stress; and that even though Collings describes that the insulator is compressible, compressibility is not synonymous with elastomeric behaviors, as a compressible material may deform under load but may not exhibit the resilient elastic recovery required of an elastomer; and that the claimed elastomeric strip is functionally configured to generate an elastic force that actively resists movement and requires both: a material with genuine elastic properties and a structural configuration that utilizes those properties to produce a directional restoring force. The examiner respectfully disagrees, the Collings reference discloses an insulator that is formed of not just a compressible material but a “resiliently compressible material” that is “configured to be compressed from an initial state to a compressed state upon positioning of the jaw housing about the seal plate and the insulator. As such, the biasing force acting of the insulator, e.g., biasing the insulator back toward the initial state, frictionally retains the jaw housing, the seal plate, and the insulator in fixed relation relative to one another, once the jaw member is assembled” ([0018], [0051], & [0071]; “insulator 225 is similar to insulator 215”); Collings explicitly discloses that the insulator is resilient and that the insulator is configured to attempt to resiliently return to its initial non-compressed state; although, Collings discloses that the insulator may be partially formed of silicon ([0046]), Collings does not disclose that the entirety of the insulator must be formed of silicon, and rather, the insulator of the Collings reference must have resilient characteristics so as to function for its intended purpose; it is the examiner position that if the insulator of Collings was only compressible (e.g. did not comprise a resilient characteristic) or formed fully of a material that is “hard and brittle and breaks under stress”, as argued by applicant, the Collings reference would be rendered inoperative for its intended purposes as Collings explicitly requires for the insulator to be “resiliently compressible”. Further the examiner notes that it is known in the art that “resilient” implies the ability to recover shape quickly when the deforming force or pressure is removed; therefore as Collings teaches that the insulator is resilient and capable of being compressed from an initial state but also provide a biasing force to bias the insulator back to the initial state the examiner is considering the insulator to be elastomeric, as the insulator structurally and functionally acts as an elastomer that is capable of: exhibits the resilient elastic recovery required of an elastomer, a material with genuine elastic properties, and a structural configuration that utilizes those properties to produce a directional restoring force, as argued by applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 54, & 60-61 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Collings et al. (previously presented-US 20140128867 A1), hereinafter “Collings”.
Regarding claim 54, Collings discloses a surgical instrument comprising: an end effector comprising a first jaw and a second jaw ([0037]; Figures 13A-14B—elements 110 & 120), wherein at least one of the first jaw and the second jaw is movable between an open position and a closed position ([0037]); a cutting element on the first jaw ([0043]; Figure 13B & 14B—element 261); a seal electrode on an outer surface of the second jaw, the seal electrode being laterally spaced from the cutting element ([0047] & [0053]; Figure 13B & 14B—element 229); an elastomeric layer below the seal electrode opposite the first jaw, the elastomeric layer being configured to generate an elastic force to resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure ([0018], [0051], [0052], & [0071]; Figure 13B & 14B—element 225; see figure below; the examiner is considering the elastomeric layer to be the portion of the insulator 225 that is positioned underneath the electrode 229; wherein the insulator 225 may be formed of a resiliently compressible material that is configured to be compressed from an initial state to a compressed state and is configured to have a bias to attempt to resiliently return to its initial non-compressed state; it is the examiner position that the elastomeric layer would be capable of generating an elastic force to at least partially resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure, so as to prevent the second jaw structure from collapsing and breaking during use); and an elastomeric strip on the second jaw opposite the cutting element laterally spaced from the seal electrode, the elastomeric strip being configured to generate an elastic force to resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure ([0018], [0050], [0051], [0053], & [0071]; Figures 13B & 14B—element 225; See figure below; the examiner is considering the “elastomeric strip” to be the portion of insulator 225 located near the channel 237 and directly opposite of the cutting element 261; wherein the insulator 225 may be formed of a resiliently compressible material that is configured to be compressed from an initial state to a compressed state and is configured to have a bias to attempt to resiliently return to its initial non-compressed state; it is the examiner position that the elastomeric strip would be capable of generating an elastic force to at least partially resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure).
PNG
media_image1.png
270
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 60, Collings discloses all of the limitations of claim 54, as described above.
Collings further discloses wherein the elastomeric strip is configured to apply upward pressure on tissue between the first jaw and the second jaw when the first and second jaws are in the closed position ([0018], [0050], [0051], [0053], & [0071]; Figures 13B & 14B—element 225; see figure in above rejection of claim 24; it is the examiners position that the elastomeric strip would be capable of applying upward pressure on tissue between the first jaw and the second jaw when the first and second jaws are in the closed position, as the elastomeric strip is formed of a resiliently compressible material).
Regarding claim 61, Collings discloses all of the limitations of claim 54, as described above.
Collings further discloses wherein the seal electrode is a first seal electrode, the surgical instrument further comprising a second seal electrode on the first jaw laterally spaced from the cutting element ([0047]; Figures 13B & 14B—element 219).
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 43, 45, 48, 50-54, & 60-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Latterell et al. (previous presented-US 20050171533 A1), hereinafter “Latterell”, in view of Hart et al. (previously presented-US 20120265241 A1), hereinafter “Hart”.
Regarding claim 43, Latterell discloses a surgical instrument comprising: an end effector comprising a first jaw and a second jaw ([0052]; Figures 7, 9, & 10—elements 57 & 58), wherein at least one of the first jaw and the second jaw is movable between an open position and a closed position ([0053]); a cutting element on the first jaw (0054]; Figures 8 & 9—element 63); a seal electrode on the second jaw, the seal electrode being laterally spaced from the cutting element ([0055]; Figures 7 & 10—element 70); a layer below the seal electrode opposite the first jaw ([0055]; Figure 10—element 69); an elastomeric strip on the second jaw opposite the cutting element, the elastomeric strip being configured to generate an elastic force to resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure ([0055]; Figure 10—element 72; it is the examiner position that the strip of resilient material such as an elastomer, would be capable of generating an elastic force to at least partially resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure); and a spacer ([0055]; Figure 7—element 73).
Latterell does not disclose wherein the layer is an elastomeric layer below the seal electrode opposite the first jaw, the elastomeric layer being configured to generate an elastic force to resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure; wherein the spacer comprises a plurality of elastomeric spacers extending through openings in the seal electrode towards the first jaw.
Hart teaches an end effector comprising a first jaw and a second jaw ([0032]; Figure 3—elements 110 & 120), comprising a seal electrode on the second jaw ([0032]; Figure 3 & 4C—element 122), a layer below the seal electrode opposite the first jaw ([0041]; Figure 4C—element 126), and a spacer ([0042], [0043], [0047], [0048], & [0050]); Figure 3 & 4C—element 126c); wherein the layer is an elastomeric layer below the seal electrode opposite the first jaw, the elastomeric layer being configured to generate an elastic force to resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure ([0048]; Figure 4C—element 126; the insulator 126 may be formed from a resiliently compressible material to facilitate achieving a desired gap distance between sealing electrodes; the examiner is considering a “resiliently compressible” layer to be an elastomeric layer, as Merriam webster defines resilience as “the capability of a strained body to recover its size and shape after deformation caused especially by compressive stress”; further it is the examiner position that the elastomeric layer 126 would be capable of at least partially generating an elastic force to resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure, so as to prevent the second jaw structure from collapsing and breaking during use); wherein the spacer comprises a plurality of elastomeric spacers extending through openings in the seal electrode towards the first jaw ([0042], [0043], [0047], [0048], & [0050]); Figure 3 & 4C—elements 126c & 122b).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the insulator layer and the spacer, as disclosed by Latterell, to include wherein the layer is an elastomeric layer below the seal electrode opposite the first jaw, the elastomeric layer being configured to generate an elastic force to resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure and wherein the spacer comprises a plurality of elastomeric spacers extending through openings in the seal electrode towards the first jaw, as taught by Hart, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward end effectors with electrodes for sealing tissue and spacers for regulating the gap distance between the jaws. As disclosed by Latterell, an insulating element is positioned beneath the electrode and a spacer may be mounted to one of the jaws to regulate the gap distance between the jaws ([0055]). As disclosed by Hart, an insulating element is positioned beneath the electrode and one or more spacers may extend from the insulating member through holes in the electrode to regulate the gap distance between the jaws, the insulting element and the spacers may be formed of a resiliently compressible material to facilitate achieving a desired gap distance between the sealing electrodes of the jaw members in accordance with the closure pressure between the jaw members ([0003]-[0004], [0042], [0044], & [0048]). 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 insulator layer and the spacer, as disclosed by Latterell, to include wherein the layer is an elastomeric layer below the seal electrode opposite the first jaw, the elastomeric layer being configured to generate an elastic force to resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure and wherein the spacer comprises a plurality of elastomeric spacers extending through openings in the seal electrode towards the first jaw, as taught by Hart, as such a modification would provide for a known and suitable material for an insulating element located beneath a sealing electrode a known spacer arrangement which produces the predictable result of regulating the gap distance between the jaws and would provide a configuration that facilitates achieving a desired gap distance between the sealing electrodes of the jaw members in accordance with the closure pressure between the jaw members.
Regarding claim 45, Latterell in view of Hart disclose all of the limitations of claim 43, as described above.
Latterell does not disclose wherein the plurality of elastomeric spacers extend from the elastomeric layer through the openings in the seal electrode.
Hart further teaches wherein the plurality of elastomeric spacers extend from the elastomeric layer through the openings in the seal electrode ([0042], [0044], & [0048]; Figure 4C—elements 122b, 126, & 126c).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the insulator element the spacer, as disclosed by Latterell, to include the elastomeric element and the plurality of elastomeric spacers extending from the elastomeric element through openings in the seal electrode towards the first jaw, as further taught by Hart, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward end effectors with electrodes for sealing tissue and spacers for regulating the gap distance between the jaws. As disclosed by Latterell, an insulating element is positioned beneath the electrode and a spacer may be mounted to one of the jaws to regulate the gap distance between the jaws ([0055]). As disclosed by Hart, an insulating element is positioned beneath the electrode and one or more spacers may extend from the insulating member through holes in the electrode to regulate the gap distance between the jaws, the insulting element and/or the spacers may be formed of a resiliently compressible material to facilitate achieving a desired gap distance between the sealing electrodes of the jaw members in accordance with the closure pressure between the jaw members ([0042], [0044], & [0048]). A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the insulator element the spacer, as disclosed by Latterell, to include the elastomeric element and the plurality of elastomeric spacers extending from the elastomeric element through openings in the seal electrode towards the first jaw, as further taught by Hart, as such a modification would provide a configuration that facilitates achieving a desired gap distance between the sealing electrodes of the jaw members in accordance with the closure pressure between the jaw members.
Regarding claim 48, Latterell in view of Hart disclose all of the limitations of claim 43, as described above.
Latterell further discloses wherein the seal electrode is a first seal electrode ([0055]; Figure 10—element 70), the surgical instrument further comprising a second seal electrode on the first jaw laterally spaced from the cutting element ([0054]; Figure 9—elements 57 & 62).
Regarding claim 50, Latterell in view of Hart disclose all of the limitations of claim 43, as described above.
Hart further teaches wherein the plurality of elastomeric spacers are sized to maintain an air gap between the first jaw and the second jaw in the closed positions ([0004] & [0048]).
Regarding claim 51, Latterell in view of Hart disclose all of the limitations of claim 43, as described above.
Hart further teaches wherein the cutting element comprises an electrode ([0054]; Figures 8 & 9—element 63 & 66).
Regarding claim 52, Latterell in view of Hart disclose all of the limitations of claim 43, as described above.
Latterell further teaches an insulating cap positioned at a distal end of the second jaw ([0043] & [0055]; Figures 7, 8, & 10—element 72; the examiner is considering the insulating cap to be the distal end of the resilient trip that extends opposite to the cutting element 63).
Regarding claim 53, Latterell in view of Hart disclose all of the limitations of claim 43, as described above.
Hart further teaches wherein the seal electrode comprises a substantially U shape ([0055]; Figure 10—element 70).
Regarding claim 54, Latterell discloses a surgical instrument comprising: an end effector comprising a first jaw and a second jaw ([0052]; Figures 7, 9, & 10—elements 57 & 58), wherein at least one of the first jaw and the second jaw is movable between an open position and a closed position ([0053]); a cutting element on the first jaw (0054]; Figures 8 & 9—element 63); a seal electrode on an outer surface of the second jaw, the seal electrode being laterally spaced from the cutting element ([0055]; Figures 7 & 10—element 70); a layer below the seal electrode opposite the first jaw ([0055]; Figure 10—element 69); and an elastomeric strip on the second jaw opposite the cutting element laterally spaced from the seal electrode, the elastomeric strip being configured to generate an elastic force to resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure ([0055]; Figure 10—element 72; it is the examiner position that the strip of resilient material such as an elastomer, would be capable of generating an elastic force to at least partially resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure).
Latterell does not disclose wherein the layer is an elastomeric layer below the seal electrode opposite the first jaw, the elastomeric layer being configured to generate an elastic force to resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure
Hart teaches an end effector comprising a first jaw and a second jaw ([0032]; Figure 3—elements 110 & 120), comprising a seal electrode on the second jaw ([0032]; Figure 3 & 4C—element 122), a layer below the seal electrode opposite the first jaw ([0041]; Figure 4C—element 126), and a spacer ([0042], [0043], [0047], [0048], & [0050]); Figure 3 & 4C—element 126c); wherein the layer is an elastomeric layer below the seal electrode opposite the first jaw, the elastomeric layer being configured to generate an elastic force to resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure ([0048]; Figure 4C—element 126; the insulator 126 may be formed from a resiliently compressible material to facilitate achieving a desired gap distance between sealing electrodes; the examiner is considering a “resiliently compressible” layer to be an elastomeric layer, as Merriam webster defines resilience as “the capability of a strained body to recover its size and shape after deformation caused especially by compressive stress”; further it is the examiner position that the elastomeric layer 126 would be capable of at least partially generating an elastic force to resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure, so as to prevent the second jaw structure from collapsing and breaking during use).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the insulator layer, as disclosed by Latterell, to include wherein the layer is an elastomeric layer below the seal electrode opposite the first jaw, the elastomeric layer being configured to generate an elastic force to resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure, as taught by Hart, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward end effectors with electrodes for sealing tissue and spacers for regulating the gap distance between the jaws. As disclosed by Latterell, an insulating element is positioned beneath the electrode ([0055]). As disclosed by Hart, an insulating element is positioned beneath the electrode, the insulting element may be formed of a resiliently compressible material to facilitate achieving a desired gap distance between the sealing electrodes of the jaw members in accordance with the closure pressure between the jaw members ([0042], [0044], & [0048]). 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 insulator layer, as disclosed by Latterell, to include wherein the layer is an elastomeric layer below the seal electrode opposite the first jaw, the elastomeric layer being configured to generate an elastic force to resist movement away from the first jaw under pressure, as taught by Hart, as such a modification would provide for a known and suitable material for an insulating element located beneath a sealing electrode that would also facilitate achieving a desired gap distance between the sealing electrodes of the jaw members in accordance with the closure pressure between the jaw members.
Regarding claim 60, Latterell in view of Hart disclose all of the limitation of claim 54, as described above.
Latterell further discloses wherein the elastomeric strip is configured to apply upward pressure on tissue between the first jaw and the second jaw when the first and second jaws are in the closed position ([0055]; Figure 10—element 72; as the elastomeric strip 72 is formed of a resilient material such as an elastomer, it is the examiner position that the elastomeric strip would be capable of applying upward pressure on tissue between the first jaw and the second jaw when the first and second jaws are in the closed position).
Regarding claim 61, Latterell in view of Hart disclose all of the limitation of claim 54, as described above.
Latterell further discloses wherein the seal electrode is a first seal electrode, the surgical instrument further comprising a second seal electrode on the first jaw laterally spaced from the cutting element ([0054]; Figure 9—element 62).
Regarding claim 62, Latterell in view of Hart disclose all of the limitation of claim 54, as described above.
Latterell further discloses one or more projections extending from the seal electrode towards the first jaw ([0055]; Figure 7—element 73; a stop member 73 is mounted on one of the jaws).
Regarding claim 63, Latterell in view of Hart disclose all of the limitation of claim 62, as described above.
Latterell further discloses the one or more projections sized to maintain an air gap between the first jaw and the second jaw in the closed positions ([0055]; Figure 7—element 73).
Latterell does not disclose wherein the one or more projections comprise elastomeric spacers sized to maintain an air gap between the first jaw and the second jaw in the closed positions.
Hart further teaches one or more projections extending from the seal electrode towards the first jaw, wherein the one or more projections comprise elastomeric spacers sized to maintain an air gap between the first jaw and the second jaw in the closed positions ([0042]-[0043], [0047], [0048], & [0050]; Figure 3 & 4C—elements 126c).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the one or more projections, as disclosed by Latterell, to include wherein the one or more projections comprise elastomeric spacers sized to maintain an air gap between the first jaw and the second jaw in the closed positions, as taught by Hart, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward end effectors with electrodes for sealing tissue and spacers for regulating the gap distance between the jaws. As disclosed by Latterell, a spacer may be mounted to one of the jaws to regulate the gap distance between the jaws ([0055]). As disclosed by Hart, one or more spacers may be provided to regulate the gap distance between the jaws, the spacers may extend through apertures of the electrode and may be formed of resiliently compressible material to set the gap distance between the jaw members in accordance with a closure pressure between the jaw members ([0003]-[0004], [0044], & [0048]). A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the one or more projections, as disclosed by Latterell, to include wherein the one or more projections comprise elastomeric spacers sized to maintain an air gap between the first jaw and the second jaw in the closed positions, as taught by Hart, as such a modification would provide for a known spacer arrangement which produces the predictable result of regulating the gap distance between the jaws and would provide for spacers that set a gap distance between the jaw members in accordance with closure pressure between the jaw members.
Claims 62-63 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Collings in view of Hart.
Regarding claims 62-63, Collings discloses all of the limitations of claim 54, as described above.
Collings does not disclose one or more projections extending from the seal electrode towards the first jaw (claim 62); wherein the one or more projections comprise elastomeric spacers sized to maintain an air gap between the first jaw and the second jaw in the closed positions (claim 63).
Hart discloses an end effector comprising a first jaw and a second jaw ([0032]; Figure 3—element 110 & 120); a cutting element ([0034]); a seal electrode position on the second jaw and being laterally spaced from the cutting element ([0032]; Figure 3 & 4C—element 122); and one or more projections extending from the seal electrode towards the first jaw (claim 62)([0042]-[0043], [0047], [0048], & [0050]; Figure 3 & 4C—elements 126c); wherein the one or more projections comprise elastomeric spacers sized to maintain an air gap between the first jaw and the second jaw in the closed positions (claim 63) )([0042]-[0043], [0047], [0048], & [0050]; Figure 3 & 4C—elements 126c).
A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to modify the seal electrode, as disclosed by Collings, to include one or more projections comprising elastomeric spacers extending from the seal electrode towards the first jaw to maintain an air gap between the first jaw and the second jaws, as taught by Hart, as both references and the claimed invention are directed toward end effectors with electrodes for sealing tissue. As disclosed by Collings, certain surgical procedures rely on the unique combination of clamping pressure, precise electrosurgical energy control and gap distance (i.e., distance between opposing jaw members when closed about tissue) to seal tissue ([0003]). As disclosed by Hart, certain procedures rely on the unique combination of clamping pressure, precise electrosurgical energy control and gap distance (i.e., distance between opposing jaw members when closed about tissue) to "seal" tissue, in order to regulate the gap distance between the jaws, one or more elastomeric spacers may extend from the seal electrode to set the gap distance between the jaw members in accordance with a closure pressure between the jaw members, the gap distance between the jaws helps to ensure that an effective tissue seal is achieved ([0002]-[0004], [0044], [0048], & [0051]). A person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have been motivated to modify the seal electrode, as disclosed by Collings, to include one or more projections comprising elastomeric spacers extending from the seal electrode towards the first jaw to maintain an air gap between the first jaw and the second jaws, as taught by Hart, as such a modification would prevent short-circuiting and arcing between sealing plates, as known in the art, and would allow for a gap distance between the jaw members to be regulated in accordance with a closure pressure between the jaw members which helps to ensure that an effective seal is achieved.
Conclusion
Accordingly, claims 43, 45, 48, 50-54, & 60-63 are rejected.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 MARINA D TEMPLETON whose telephone number is (571)272-7683. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00am to 5:00pm EST.
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, Joseph Stoklosa can be reached at (571) 272-1213. 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.
/M.D.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/JOSEPH A STOKLOSA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3794