DETAILED ACTION
The following is a Final Office Action on the merits.
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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
Acknowledgment is made to the amendment received 6/3/2026.
Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the claim objections set forth in the previous office action.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the pulse trains” to -the plurality of pulse trains- in ll. 3-4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: amend “the respective module” to -a respective module- in ll. 4. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-10, 13, 16-17 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a fast switch configured to switch the routing between the odd-even numbered pairs and the even-odd numbered pairs in less than 3 microseconds”. However, the originally filed disclosure states: “A typical switching time for fast switches FOi is shorter than 0.3 μs, not 3 μs…”. There is no support in the originally filed disclosure for “3 μs or less”.
Claims 2-10, 13, 16-17 & 21 depend from claim 1 are thus also rejected.
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 1-10, 13, 16-17 & 21 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the bipolar pulses" in ll. 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites “bipolar pulses” in ll. 16 & 20. It is unclear if the “bipolar pulses” of these lines are the same as or different from those of ll. 10.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “an electrode from the array” in ll. 24-25; however, ll. 5-6 recite “the array having a proximal electrode…a distal electrode…a plurality of intermediary electrodes”. It is unclear if the “electrode from the array” is the same as or different from any of the “proximal electrode”, “a distal electrode” or “a plurality of intermediary electrodes”.
Claims 2-10, 13, 16-17 & 21 depend from claim 1 are thus also rejected.
Claim 17 depends from “claim 15” which is now cancelled. It is unclear from which claim 17 should depend from. For purposes of examination, it will be interpreted as being dependent on -claim 1-.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 13 & 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (2017/0035499, previously cited) in view of Deem et al. (2010/0049178, previously cited), Francischelli et al. (2010/0023004, previously cited) and Viswanathan et al. (2019/0336207) or Park et al. (2008/0114350).
Concerning claims 1, 13 & 21, as illustrated in at least Figs. 1 & 4, Stewart discloses a medical apparatus, comprising:
a probe having a distal end, a proximal end and a length configured for insertion into a body of a patient (medical device 12; [0039]) and comprising an array of electrodes disposed successively along the length of the probe and configured to contact tissue within the body, the array having a proximal electrode at the proximal end of the probe and a distal electrode at the distal end of the probe and a plurality of intermediary electrodes between the proximal electrode and the distal electrode, wherein the array of electrodes is numbered sequentially (plurality of electrodes 24 can have a linear configuration and be numbered sequentially; [0040]); and
an electrical signal generator comprises: a pulse generation assembly configured to generate the bipolar pulses during a first and second period of time, bipolar pulses between immediately adjacent pairs of electrodes of the array of electrodes (pulse field ablation generator 14 is configured to apply four pulse trains that each include 20-1000 pulses during first and second periods of time to immediately adjacent electrodes; [0039], [0046], [0051]).
Stewart et al. in view of Francischelli et al. fail to disclose the pulse generation assembly configured to, during a first period of time, deliver bipolar pulses between odd-even numbered pairs of electrodes in the array, wherein each of the odd-even numbered pairs are pairs of immediately adjacent electrodes of the array of electrodes, and, during a second period of time, delivery bipolar pulses between even-odd pairs of electrodes in the array, wherein each of the even-odd numbered pairs are pairs of immediately adjacent electrodes in the array of electrodes and wherein the odd-even pairs are different than the even-odd pairs. However, Deem et al. disclose a medical apparatus configured to electroporate the tissue and comprising a linear array of electrodes (1236-1240) with respect to treating tissue, where a first and third sequence of pulses is applied to odd-even (1236-1237 & 1238-1239) numbered pairs of electrodes and a second and fourth sequence of pulses is applied to even-odd (1237-1238 & 1239-1240) numbered pairs of electrodes, wherein the odd-even pairs are different than the even-odd pairs, wherein the odd-even numbered pairs are pairs between an odd numbered electrode and an immediately adjacent electrode of the array on a distal side of the odd numbered electrode and wherein the even-odd numbered pairs are pairs between an even numbered electrode and an immediately adjacent electrode of the array on a distal side of the even numbered electrode. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Stewart et al. such that the first sequence of bipolar pulses applied to all odd-even numbered pairs of electrodes simultaneously and the second sequence of bipolar pulses applied to all even-odd numbered pairs of electrodes, wherein the odd-even pairs are different than the even-odd pairs and wherein the odd-even numbered pairs are pairs between an odd numbered electrode and an immediately adjacent electrode of the array on a distal side of the odd numbered electrode and wherein the even-odd numbered pairs are pairs between an even numbered electrode and an immediately adjacent electrode of the array on a distal side of the even numbered electrode in order to provide the benefit of achieving a treatment effect between specific electrodes as taught by Deem et al. ([0264]; Fig. 53)
Stewart et al. in view of Deem et al. fail to disclose a pulse routing and metrology assembly comprising multiple output modules configured to route the bipolar pulses through multiple output channels to the electrode pairs, wherein each of the multiple output channels is coupled to an electrode from the array with an output module of the multiple output modules, wherein the output module includes a fast switch configured to switch the routing between the pairs of electrodes, wherein the output, wherein the output module comprises a network of switches configured to switch within 3 milliseconds between applying the first sequence and applying the second sequence of the bipolar pulses. However, Francischelli et al. further disclose a controller (84) configured to transmit control signals to an electrical signal generator (22), and wherein the electrical signal generator (22) comprises a pulse routing and metrology assembly (S/W circuit, sensor(s) 28), comprising multiple output modules configured to route the bipolar pulses through multiple output channels each of which are coupled to an electrode from the array with an output module that comprises a network of multiple, mutually connected fast switches (32) configured to switch between electrode pairs applying bipolar pulses. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Stewart et al. to further comprise disclose a pulse routing and metrology assembly comprising multiple output modules configured to route the bipolar pulses through multiple output channels, wherein each of the multiple output channels is coupled to an electrode from the array with an output module of the multiple output modules, wherein the output module includes a fast switch configured to switch the routing between the pairs of electrodes in order to provide the benefit of delivering effective electroporation ablation energy to optimize electroporation resulting in narrow transmural lesions with minimal damage to surrounding tissue as taught by Francischelli et al. (Abstract; [0029], [0033- 0036], [0038-0040]; Fig. 1-2A).
Stewart et al. in view of Deem et al. and Francischelli et al. fail to disclose the switching to be in less than 3 microseconds. However, Viswanathan et al. disclose a medical apparatus comprising a pulse routing and metrology assembly comprising multiple output modules having a plurality of multiple output channels, wherein each of the multiple output channels is coupled to an electrode (electrode) from the array with an output module of the multiple output modules, wherein the output module includes a fast switch configured to switch the routing between the first numbered pairs of electrodes (electrode set 1) and second numbered pairs of electrodes (electrode set 2) in less than 10 microseconds ([0088]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Stewart et al. in view of Francischelli et al. and Deem et al. such that each of the multiple output channels is coupled to an electrode from the array with an output module of the multiple output modules, wherein the output module includes a fast switch configured to switch the routing between the odd-even numbered pairs and the even-odd numbered pairs in less than 3 microseconds as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (“A typical switching time for fast switches FOB is shorter than 0.3 ms”) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the alternative, Park et al. disclose a medical apparatus comprising an energy generating assembly configured to switch energy delivery between electrode pairs (816 & 817, 818 & 819) to be about instantaneous or near instantaneous ([0051]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Stewart et al. in view of Francischelli et al. and Deem et al. such that each of the multiple output channels is coupled to an electrode from the array with an output module of the multiple output modules, wherein the output module includes a fast switch configured to switch the routing between the odd-even numbered pairs and the even-odd numbered pairs in less than 3 microseconds, since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Stewart et al. in view of Francischelli et al. and Deem et al. would not operate differently with the claimed timing and Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the switching time “for fast switches FOB is shorter than 0.3 ms”.
Concerning claim 2¸Stewart discloses the bipolar pulses have an amplitude sufficient to cause irreversible electrophoresis (IRE) in the tissue ([0050]).
Concerning claim 3¸Stewart discloses the amplitude of each of the bipolar pulses in the sequence is at least 200 V, and a duration of each of the bipolar pulses is less than 20 ms ([0046], [0050]).
Concerning claim 5¸ Stewart discloses the electrical signal generator (14) is configured to generate a plurality of pulse trains comprising the first and second sequences of the bipolar pulses, wherein the pulse trains are separated by intervals (pulse trains do not last into T-wave) in which the bipolar pulses are not applied ([0053]).
Concerning claim 6, Stewart discloses the probe (12) is configured to apply the first and second sequences of the bipolar pulses so as to ablate the tissue in the heart ([0039]; Fig. 1).
Concerning claims 7-8, Stewart discloses the electrical signal generator (14) configured to apply the first and second sequences asynchronously or synchronously with respect to a beating of the heart ([0025]).
Claim(s) 4 & 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (2017/0035499, previously cited) in view of Deem et al. (2010/0049178, previously cited), Francischelli et al. (2010/0023004, previously cited) and Viswanathan et al. (2019/0336207) or Park et al. (2008/0114350), as applied to claims 1-2, in further view of Sherman (2014/0066913, previously cited).
Concerning claim 4¸Stewart in view of Deem et al. Francischelli et al. and Viswanathan et al. or Park et al. fail to disclose wherein the electrical signal generator is further configured to apply to the electrodes radio-frequency (RF) signals having a power sufficient to thermally ablate the tissue contacted by the array of electrodes. However, Sherman discloses a medical apparatus (10) comprising a probe having a plurality of electrodes (26) and an electrical signal generator (16) configured to apply both IRE and RF signals to the electrodes (26). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Stewart in view of Deem et al. Francischelli et al. and Viswanathan et al. or Park et al. such that the electrical signal generator is further configured to apply to the electrodes radio-frequency (RF) signals having a power sufficient to thermally ablate the tissue contacted by the array of electrodes in order to provide the benefit of a more effective and efficient ablation since electroporation may not result in immediate ablation of the treated tissue (that is, the treated cells may continue to function somewhat normally for a time after electroporation) and thus immediate current blockage as taught by Sherman ([0021-0022], [0026-0028]).
Concerning claim 9¸ Stewart in view of Deem et al. Francischelli et al. and Viswanathan et al. or Park et al. fail to disclose the probe comprises a plurality of temperature sensors adjacent to the array of electrodes, and wherein the electrical signal generator is configured to apply the bipolar pulses responsively to temperatures measured by the temperature sensors. However, Sherman discloses a medical apparatus for tissue ablation comprising a probe (14) having a plurality of temperature sensors (29) adjacent to the electrodes (26), and wherein the electrical signal generator is configured first and second sequences of bipolar pulses responsively to a temperature measured by the temperature sensors (29). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Stewart in view of Deem et al. Francischelli et al. and Viswanathan et al. or Park et al. such that the probe comprises a plurality of temperature sensors adjacent to the array of electrodes, and wherein the electrical signal generator is configured to apply the first and second sequences of bipolar pulses responsively to a temperature measured by the temperature sensors in order to provide the benefit of adjusting energy delivery to avoid unintended tissue damage as taught by Sherman. ([0018]; Fig. 1 & 4)
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (2017/0035499, previously cited) in view of Deem et al. (2010/0049178, previously cited), Francischelli et al. (2010/0023004, previously cited) and Viswanathan et al. (2019/0336207) or Park et al. (2008/0114350), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Howard et al. (2018/0214202, previously cited).
Concerning claim 10¸ while Stewart discloses applying multiple pulse trains ([0046]), Stewart in view of Deem et al. Francischelli et al. and Viswanathan et al. or Park et al. fail to disclose the electrical signal generator is configured to apply a third sequence of the bipolar pulses between pairs of electrodes in the array of electrodes that are separated by at least one other electrode in the array. However, Howard et al. disclose an electrical signal generator configured to apply a third sequence of bipolar pulses between pairs of electrodes in an array of electrodes that are separated by at least one other electrode in the array. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Stewart in view of Deem et al. Francischelli et al. and Viswanathan et al. or Park et al. such that the electrical signal generator is configured to apply a third sequence of the bipolar pulses between pairs of electrodes in the array of electrodes that are separated by at least one other electrode in the array in order to provide the benefit of allowing for larger electrode separation distances between active electrodes thereby driving the electric field deeper into the underlying tissue and creating a deeper ablation lesion as taught by Howard et al. ([0097]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (2017/0035499, previously cited) in view of Deem et al. (2010/0049178, previously cited), Francischelli et al. (2010/0023004, previously cited) and Viswanathan et al. (2019/0336207) or Park et al. (2008/0114350), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Sherman et al. (2008/0281322, previously cited).
Concerning claim 16 Stewart in view of Deem et al. Francishelli et al. and Viswanathan et al. or Park et al. fail to disclose each of the modules comprises a transformer, which couples each of the multiple output modules to the pulse generation assembly. However, Sherman et al. disclose a medical apparatus and method where channel modules each comprise a transformer, which couple each module to the pulse generation assembly (34). At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Stewart in view of Deem et al. Francishelli et al. and Viswanathan et al. or Park et al. such that each of the modules comprises a transformer, which couples the module to the pulse generation assembly in order to provide the benefit of providing patient electrical isolation as taught by Sherman et al. ([0138]; Fig. 1-2)
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stewart (2017/0035499, previously cited) in view of Deem et al. (2010/0049178, previously cited), Francischelli et al. (2010/0023004, previously cited) and Viswanathan et al. (2019/0336207) or Park et al. (2008/0114350), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Simpson et al. (6,752,804, previously cited).
Concerning claim 17, Stewart in view of Deem et al. Francishelli et al. and Viswanathan et al. or Park et al. fail to disclose each of the modules comprises a metrology module coupled to measure a voltage and a current applied to the output channel that is coupled to the respective module, and wherein the apparatus comprises a controller, which is coupled to control the pulse generation assembly responsively to the measured voltage and current. However, Simpson et al. disclose a medical apparatus and method comprising an electrical signal generator comprising (18) multiple modules including a metrology module (68) which is coupled to measure a voltage and a current applied to the output channel that is coupled to the respective module, and wherein the apparatus comprises a controller (42), which is coupled to control a signal generation assembly (54) responsive to the measured voltage and current. At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Stewart in view of Deem et al. Francishelli et al. and Viswanathan et al. or Park et al. such that each of the modules comprises a metrology module coupled to measure a voltage and a current applied to the output channel that is coupled to the respective module, and wherein the apparatus comprises a controller, which is coupled to control the pulse generation assembly responsively to the measured voltage and current in order to provide the benefit of feedback to the controller as taught by Simpson et al. (Col. 13, ll. 47-59; Fig. 1 & 3)
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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 11,540,877 in view of Viswanathan et al. (2019/0336207) or Park et al. (2008/0114350). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both recite a medical apparatus and method for tissue ablation comprising a probe and an electrical signal generator configured to apply first and second sequences of bipolar pulses between all odd-even pairs of electrodes and all even-odd pairs of electrodes of an array during first and second periods of time, where the odd-even pairs are different than the even-odd pairs. The patent fails to disclose the switching to be in less than 3 microseconds. However, Viswanathan et al. disclose a medical apparatus comprising a pulse routing and metrology assembly comprising multiple output modules having a plurality of multiple output channels, wherein each of the multiple output channels is coupled to an electrode (electrode) from the array with an output module of the multiple output modules, wherein the output module includes a fast switch configured to switch the routing between the first numbered pairs of electrodes (electrode set 1) and second numbered pairs of electrodes (electrode set 2) in less than 10 microseconds ([0088]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the patent such that each of the multiple output channels is coupled to an electrode from the array with an output module of the multiple output modules, wherein the output module includes a fast switch configured to switch the routing between the odd-even numbered pairs and the even-odd numbered pairs in less than 3 microseconds as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (“A typical switching time for fast switches FOB is shorter than 0.3 ms”) and since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists”. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). In the alternative, Park et al. disclose a medical apparatus comprising an energy generating assembly configured to switch energy delivery between electrode pairs (816 & 817, 818 & 819) to be about instantaneous or near instantaneous ([0051]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of the patent such that each of the multiple output channels is coupled to an electrode from the array with an output module of the multiple output modules, wherein the output module includes a fast switch configured to switch the routing between the odd-even numbered pairs and the even-odd numbered pairs in less than 3 microseconds, since it has been 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” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984). In the instant case, the device of Stewart et al. in view of Francischelli et al. and Deem et al. would not operate differently with the claimed timing and Applicant places no criticality on the range claimed, indicating simply that the switching time “for fast switches FOB is shorter than 0.3 ms”.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 JAYMI E DELLA whose telephone number is (571)270-1429. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th 6:00 am - 4:45 pm.
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, Joanne Rodden can be reached on (303) 297-4276. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAYMI E DELLA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
JAYMI E. DELLA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3794
Prosecution Insights