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 .
Claims Pending
Applicant's arguments, filed 11/13/2025, have been fully considered. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
Applicants have amended their claims, filed 11/13/2025, and therefore rejections newly made in the instant office action have been necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s previous cancellation of claims 1, 4, 7-9, 14-17, and 20-24, 27, and 28 is acknowledged.
Claims 2-3, 5-6, 10-13, 18-19, 25-26, and 29-34 are the current claims hereby under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 - Withdrawn
Applicant’s arguments, filed 03/28/2025 have been fully considered, and the previous rejection withdrawn.
The applicant’s argument, that Fig. 6A of McMillan does not have a center leg, and instead has two retention means -34 with a central gap due to the presence of the stacked vertical line markings on each retention means -34 in Fig. 6A that indicate shading, has been fully considered and deemed as persuasive.
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.
Claim(s) 11-10, 18-19, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillan (US Pat. No. 4951684) hereinafter McMillan.
Regarding claim 11, McMillan discloses a swab for collecting biological samples (Abstract), the swab comprising:
a handle having a first end (Fig. 12, shaft – 70 (the first end is considered to be the left end with collection means 71));
a head (Fig. 12, collection means – 71) coupled to the handle at the first end thereof (Fig. 12, (observable that the collection means 71 is connected to the shaft -70)), wherein the head includes:
a base proximate the first end of the handle (Fig. 12, collection means – 71 (the base of the collection means 71 is the right end of the collection means towards the shaft – 70)),
a tip spaced a distance from the base opposite the handle (Fig. 12 (the tip is considered to be the very left end of the collection means 71 furthest from the shaft – 70)), and
a plurality of legs each extending between the base and the tip (Fig. 12, (first and second leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below), retention means – 74) each extending between the base and the tip (Fig. 12, (observable that the first and second legs as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below and retention means 74 extend between the tip and base of collection means 71)); and
wherein the plurality of legs includes a center leg (Fig. 12, retention means -74), a first exterior leg (Fig. 12, (first leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below)), and a second exterior leg (Fig. 12, (second as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below)),
wherein the head defines a first gap between the center leg and the first exterior leg (Fig. 12, (observable gap between retention means 74 and the first leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below)), and a second gap between the center leg and the second exterior leg (Fig. 12, (observable gap between retention means 74 and the second leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below)),
wherein the first gap is enclosed by the center leg, the first exterior leg, the base, and the tip (Fig. 12, (observable gap between retention means 74 and the first leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below, and is between the tip and base of collection means - 71)),
wherein the second gap is enclosed by the center leg, the second exterior leg, the base, and the tip (Fig. 12, (observable gap between retention means 74 and the second leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below, and is between the tip and base of collection means - 71)),
wherein the head includes an exterior (Fig. 12,12A, trailing edge – 73 (observable that trailing edge – 73 is exposed to the environment)), and wherein both the first gap and the second gap are open to the exterior of the head in at least one location (Fig. 12, 12A (observable that the above indicated first and second gaps are exposed to the trailing edge – 73, which faces the above indicated first and second gaps)).
McMillan fails to explicitly disclose a handle having a second end opposite the first end. (Examiner's Note: McMillan fails to explicitly indicate the structure on the opposite end of shaft – 70)
However, McMillan does teach in an alternate embodiment a handle having a second end (Fig. 1 (distal end -22)) opposite the first end (Col. 6, lines 17-24) (Fig. 1 (proximal end -23)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of McMillan with an alternate embodiment of McMillan to include a handle having a second end opposite the first end through the combination of embodiments as differing shaft structures are known (McMillan (Col. 4, lines 36-49) (Col. 6, lines 17-24)) and it would have yielded the predictable result of explicitly providing a location to grasp the device.
PNG
media_image1.png
284
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McMillan Modified Fig. 12A
Regarding claim 10, modified McMillan further discloses wherein the head includes at least one protrusion extending radially outwardly therefrom (Fig. 12A, members – 76)(Col. 7, lines 58-59) (Col. 8, lines 55-65).
Regarding claim 18, modified McMillan further discloses wherein the head includes at least one location on the exterior having a first roughness and at least one location on the exterior having a second roughness different than the first roughness (Fig. 12A, (one side with scraping means – 76 and the other without))(Col. 7, lines 58-59) (Col. 8, lines 55-65 ).
Regarding claim 19, modified McMillan further discloses wherein at least one leg of the plurality of legs includes a protrusion extending therefrom (Fig. 12A, (the scraping means 76 are on the external surface of the section of collection means 71))(Col. 7, lines 58-59) (Col. 8, lines 55-65).
Regarding claim 30, modified McMillan further discloses further comprising one or more gullets formed into at least one of the first exterior leg and the second exterior leg (Fig. 12A, (members – 76 form gullets between each member))(Col. 7, lines 58-59) (Col. 8, lines 55-65).
Claim(s) 12-13, 2-3, 5, and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillan as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Frandsen (US Pub. No. 20220054317) hereinafter Frandsen.
Modified McMillan teaches the device of claim 11 above.
Regarding claims 12 and 31, modified McMillan fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Frandsen teaches wherein the handle and the head are formed from a single piece of material (Par. 57).
McMillan and Frandsen are considered to be analogous art as they are both involved with biological sample collection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of McMillan with that of Frandsen to include wherein the handle and the head are formed from a single piece of material through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of improving the resiliency of the swab (Frandsen (Par. 57)).
Regarding claim 2, modified McMillan fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Frandsen further teaches wherein the single piece of material includes medical-grade polypropylene (Frandsen (Par. 56 (Thermoplastic elastomers))).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to modify the device of McMillan and Frandsen with that of Frandsen to include wherein the single piece of material includes medical-grade polypropylene through the combination of references as varying thermoplastics are known in the art and it would have yielded the predictable result of improving the resiliency of the swab (Frandsen (Par. 57)).
Regarding claim 3, modified McMillan fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Frandsen further teaches wherein the single piece of material is a non-fibrous and non-foam type material (Frandsen (Par. 56 (Thermoplastic elastomers))).
Therefore, it would have been further obvious to modify the device of McMillan and Frandsen with that of Frandsen to include wherein the single piece of material is a non-fibrous and non-foam type material through the combination of references as varying thermoplastics are known in the art and it would have yielded the predictable result of improving the resiliency of the swab (Frandsen (Par. 57)).
Regarding claim 5, modified McMillan fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Frandsen teaches wherein the head portion and the handle portion are molded together during a single molding step (Par. 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of McMillan with that of Frandsen to include wherein the head portion and the handle portion are molded together during a single molding step through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of improving the resiliency of the swab (Frandsen (Par. 57)).
Regarding claim 13, modified McMillan fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim.
However, Frandsen teaches wherein the handle and the head are formed separately (Par. 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of McMillan with that of Frandsen to include wherein the handle and the head are formed separately through the combination of references as forming the handle and head separately and together are known manufacturing variations and it would have yielded predictable results of improving reusability (Frandsen (Abstract)(Par. 57)).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillan as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Olsen (US Pub. No. 20130338533) hereinafter Olsen.
Modified McMillan discloses the device of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 6, modified McMillan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the handle portion includes a grip portion and a neck portion extending from the grip portion,
However, McMillan does teach in an alternate embodiment wherein the handle portion includes a grip portion (McMillan (Col. 6, lines 21-24) (Fig. 1, means – 17)) and a neck portion extending from the grip portion (McMillan (Fig. 1 (unlabeled area of shaft – 10 between the means 17 and collection means -11))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of McMillan with an alternate embodiment of McMillan to include wherein the handle portion includes a grip portion and a neck portion extending from the grip portion through the combination of embodiments as differing shaft structures are known (McMillan (Col. 4, lines 36-49) (Col. 6, lines 17-24)) and it would have yielded the predictable result of explicitly providing a location to grasp the device.
Modified McMillan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the grip portion has a greater area moment of inertia than the neck portion.
However, Olsen teaches wherein the grip portion (Par. 47, handle - 2 (handle body)) has a greater area moment of inertia than the neck portion (Par. 47, handle – 2 (neck portion)).
McMillan and Olsen are considered to be analogous art as they are both involved with biological sample collection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of McMillan with that of Olsen to include wherein the grip portion has a greater area moment of inertia than the neck portion through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of improving the grip and rotational control (Olsen (Par. 47)).
Claim(s) 32, 25-26, 33, 29, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMillan as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Olson (US Pat. No. 9278030) hereinafter Olson.
Regarding claim 32, McMillan discloses a swab for collecting biological samples (Abstract), the swab comprising:
a handle having a first end (Fig. 12, shaft – 70 (the first end is considered to be the left end with collection means 71));
a head (Fig. 12, collection means – 71) coupled to the handle at the first end thereof (Fig. 12, (observable that the collection means 71 is connected to the shaft -70)), wherein the head includes:
a base proximate the first end of the handle (Fig. 12, collection means – 71 (the base of the collection means 71 is the right end of the collection means towards the shaft – 70)),
a tip spaced a distance from the base opposite the handle (Fig. 12 (the tip is considered to be the very left end of the collection means 71 furthest from the shaft – 70)), and
a plurality of legs (Fig. 12, (first and second leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below), retention means – 74) each extending between the base and the tip (Fig. 12, (observable that the first and second legs as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below and retention means 74 extend between the tip and base of collection means 71)); and
wherein the plurality of legs includes a center leg (Fig. 12, retention means -74), a first exterior leg (Fig. 12, (first leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below)), and a second exterior leg (Fig. 12, (second as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below)),
wherein the head defines a first gap between the center leg and the first exterior leg (Fig. 12, (observable gap between retention means 74 and the first leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below)), and a second gap between the center leg and the second exterior leg (Fig. 12, (observable gap between retention means 74 and the second leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below)),
wherein the first gap is enclosed by the center leg, the first exterior leg, the base, and the tip (Fig. 12, (observable gap between retention means 74 and the first leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below, and is between the tip and base of collection means - 71)),
wherein the second gap is enclosed by the center leg, the second exterior leg, the base, and the tip (Fig. 12, (observable gap between retention means 74 and the second leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below, and is between the tip and base of collection means - 71)),
wherein the head includes an exterior (Fig. 12,12A, trailing edge – 73 (observable that trailing edge – 73 is exposed to the environment)), and wherein both the first gap and the second gap are open to the exterior of the head in at least one location (Fig. 12, 12A (observable that the above indicated first and second gaps are exposed to the trailing edge – 73, which faces the above indicated first and second gaps)),
wherein the first gap (Fig. 12, (observable gap between retention means 74 and the first leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below)) and the second gap (Fig. 12, (observable gap between retention means 74 and the second leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below)) pass completely through the head (Fig. 12, (observable that the indicated gaps between retention means -74 and the indicated legs pass through the head)).
McMillan fails to explicitly disclose a handle having a second end opposite the first end. (Examiner's Note: McMillan fails to explicitly indicate the structure on the opposite end of shaft – 70)
However, McMillan does teach in an alternate embodiment a handle having a second end (Fig. 1 (distal end -22)) opposite the first end (Col. 6, lines 17-24) (Fig. 1 (proximal end -23)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of McMillan with an alternate embodiment of McMillan to include a handle having a second end opposite the first end through the combination of embodiments as differing shaft structures are known (McMillan (Col. 4, lines 36-49) (Col. 6, lines 17-24)) and it would have yielded the predictable result of explicitly providing a location to grasp the device.
Modified McMillan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the center leg, first exterior leg, and second exterior leg lie on a first reference plane oriented parallel to the handle; wherein the center leg extends beyond at least one of the first exterior leg and the second exterior leg in a direction measured perpendicular to the first reference plane.
However, Olson teaches wherein the center leg (Fig. 3-4, longitudinal wall – 30), first exterior leg (Fig. 3-4, longitudinal wall- 32), and second exterior leg (Fig. 3-4, (structure – 33)) (Fig. 4, (three observable longitudinal walls)) lie on a first reference plane oriented parallel to the handle (Abstract (“The bulbous cleaner has two or more spaced, longitudinal walls disposed outward of the inner core that are configured to remove debris with turning of the ear cleaning device about a longitudinal axis of the device”)) (Col. 4, lines 5-23 (longitudinal walls)) (Fig. 4, (three observable longitudinal walls)); wherein the center leg extends beyond at least one of the first exterior leg and the second exterior leg in a direction measured perpendicular to the first reference plane (Fig. 3-4, longitudinal wall – 30, 32, structure – 33 (observable that longitudinal wall – 30 extends further than wall 32 and structure – 33)) (Abstract (“The bulbous cleaner has two or more spaced, longitudinal walls disposed outward of the inner core that are configured to remove debris with turning of the ear cleaning device about a longitudinal axis of the device”)) (Col. 4, lines 5-23 (longitudinal walls)) (Fig. 4, (three observable longitudinal walls)).
McMillan and Olson are considered to be analogous art to the claimed invention as they are both involved with collection of biological materials.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of McMillan with that of Olson to include wherein the center leg, first exterior leg, and second exterior leg lie on a first reference plane oriented parallel to the handle; and wherein the center leg extends beyond at least one of the first exterior leg and the second exterior leg in a direction measured perpendicular to the first reference plane through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of providing additional edges for sample collection (Olson (Col. 3, lines 17-35)).
PNG
media_image1.png
284
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McMillan Modified Fig. 12
Regarding claim 25, modified McMillan fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim. However, Olson further teaches wherein the center leg has a first dimension measured perpendicular to the first reference plane (Olson (Fig. 4, (the length of center leg 30 that extends from the perimeter of the circle, including support shaft 62, and extends to the opposite side of the circle))) and a second dimension measured parallel to the first reference plane (Olson (Fig. 4, (the width of center leg 30 that extends from the perimeter of the circle, including support shaft 62, and extends to the opposite side of the circle, where the width is taken in the Left to right direction))), and wherein the first dimension is larger than the second dimension (Olson (Fig. 4, (as the first dimension extends the entire diameter of the circle, whereas the second dimension does not, the first dimension is larger than the second))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of McMillan and Olson with that of Olson to include wherein the center leg has a first dimension measured perpendicular to the first reference plane and a second dimension measured parallel to the first reference plane, and wherein the first dimension is larger than the second dimension through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of providing edges for sample collection (Olson (Col. 3, lines 17-35)).
Regarding claim 26, modified McMillan fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim. However, Olson further teaches wherein the handle and the head are formed from a single piece of material (Olson (Col. 2-3, lines 66-3) (Col. 8, lines 5-9, “The ear cleaning device 10 can be made from a variety of materials such as plastic, steel, wood, and paper pulp-fibrous. The device 10 can be made of one or more materials. In one form, the ear cleaning device 10 is made of plastic and formed using an injection molding procedure.”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of McMillan and Olson with that of Olson to include wherein the handle and the head are formed from a single piece of material through the combination of references as differing material compositions are known in the art and it would have yielded the same or similar results (Olson (Col. 8, lines 5-9)).
Regarding claim 33, modified McMillan fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim. However, Olson further teaches wherein the center leg extends beyond both the first exterior leg and the second exterior leg in a direction measured perpendicular to the first reference plane (Olson (Fig. 3-4, longitudinal wall – 30, 32, structure – 33 (observable that longitudinal wall – 30 extends further than wall 32 and structure – 33)) (Abstract (“The bulbous cleaner has two or more spaced, longitudinal walls disposed outward of the inner core that are configured to remove debris with turning of the ear cleaning device about a longitudinal axis of the device”)) (Col. 4, lines 5-23 (longitudinal walls)) (Fig. 4, (three observable longitudinal walls))).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of McMillan and Olson with that of Olson to include wherein the center leg extends beyond both the first exterior leg and the second exterior leg in a direction measured perpendicular to the first reference plane for the reasoning as indicated in claim 32 above.
Modified McMillan teaches the device of claim 11 above.
Regarding claim 29, modified McMillan fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim. However, Olson teaches wherein the center leg (Fig. 3-4, longitudinal wall – 30), first exterior leg (Fig. 3-4, longitudinal wall- 32), and second exterior leg (Fig. 3-4, (structure – 33)) (Fig. 4, (three observable longitudinal walls)) lie on a first reference plane oriented parallel to the handle (Abstract (“The bulbous cleaner has two or more spaced, longitudinal walls disposed outward of the inner core that are configured to remove debris with turning of the ear cleaning device about a longitudinal axis of the device”)) (Col. 4, lines 5-23 (longitudinal walls)) (Fig. 4, (three observable longitudinal walls)), and wherein a rib extends inwardly from the first leg and the second leg in a direction parallel to the plane (Fig. 2-3, (lateral wall – 50 extends on the lateral plane)) (Col. 3, lines 25-35)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of McMillan with that of Olson to include wherein the center leg, first exterior leg, and second exterior leg lie on a first reference plane oriented parallel to the handle; and wherein a rib extends inwardly from the first leg and the second leg in a direction parallel to the plane through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of improving sample collection by providing additional edges (Olson (Col. 3, lines 17-35)).
Regarding claim 34, modified McMillan fails to explicitly disclose the limitations of the claim. However, Olson teaches wherein the center leg (Fig. 3-4, longitudinal wall – 30), first exterior leg (Fig. 3-4, longitudinal wall- 32), and second exterior leg (Fig. 3-4, (structure – 33)) (Fig. 4, (three observable longitudinal walls)) lie on a first reference plane oriented parallel to the handle (Abstract (“The bulbous cleaner has two or more spaced, longitudinal walls disposed outward of the inner core that are configured to remove debris with turning of the ear cleaning device about a longitudinal axis of the device”)) (Col. 4, lines 5-23 (longitudinal walls)) (Fig. 4, (three observable longitudinal walls)), and wherein a rib extends outwardly from the first leg and the second leg in a direction parallel to the plane (Fig. 2-3, (lateral wall – 50 extends on the lateral plane)) (Col. 3, lines 25-35)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device of McMillan with that of Olson to include wherein the center leg, first exterior leg, and second exterior leg lie on a first reference plane oriented parallel to the handle; and wherein a rib extends outwardly from the first leg and the second leg in a direction parallel to the plane through the combination of references as it would have yielded the predictable result of improving sample collection by providing additional edges (Olson (Col. 3, lines 17-35)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/13/2025, regarding the previous 103 rejection, have been fully considered and deemed as not persuasive.
The applicant’s argument, that McMillan does not disclose a first exterior leg, second exterior leg, and center leg has been fully considered and deemed as not persuasive. The applicant further states that rather than there being a center leg present, there are instead a pair of “fins” present as indicated in the applicant’s annotated version of Fig. 12 of McMillan (Page 7 of applicant’s remarks, filed 11/13/2025).
The applicant indicates that support for this conclusion is present in Col. 7, lines 32-35 of McMillan, which states “As illustrated in FIG. 6A, retention means 34 may include one or more ridges of fins mounted on internal surface 47 of at least one section 45 or 46 of collection means 31.”. However, this is not relevant as this merely states that there are fins present within the embodiment of Fig. 6a, which is not used to teach the indicated limitation of the claim. Additionally, McMillan further states within the same paragraph “As shown in FIG. 11, retention means 54 include a wall or septum mounted within collection means 51, or as shown in FIG. 12 retention means 74 may be substantially parallel to a reference plane passing through the distal end of the shaft and the perimeter of collection means 71…” (McMillan (Col. 7, lines 35-40)), which does not indicate that retention means - 74 is a fin.
The applicant provides further support for the above conclusion by indicating Col. 5, lines 7-17 of McMillan, which states “Further, the device may include sample retention means mounted within the collection means. The retention means may be attached to the internal surface of at least one section of the collection means. Retention means include by way of example, but not by way of limitation, a grate-like structure, a web-like structure, a fin-like structure, tooth-like or toadstool-like means, ridges, or a septum protruding from at least one internal surface of the collection means and means including at least one member extending between opposed sides of the internal surface of the collection means” (McMillan (Col. 5, lines 7-17)). However, this merely further indicates that the retention means may be a plurality of different structures, and does not indicate that retention means 74 is a fin.
The applicant’s argument, that the leader line for retention means – 74 is pointed towards an edge of a fin, has been fully considered and deemed as not persuasive. The examiner disagrees with the applicant, as the line for retention means 74 (observable in modified Fig. 12 of McMillan below) is observably pointed towards a center leg structure.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant’s arguments regarding retention means 74 of McMillan. As indicated in the 103 rejection above, McMillan discloses wherein the plurality of legs includes a center leg (Fig. 12, retention means -74), a first exterior leg (Fig. 12, (first leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below)), and a second exterior leg (Fig. 12, (second as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below)). As such, the applicant’s arguments are deemed as not persuasive.
The applicant’s arguments, regarding the dependent claims, rely on the arguments of the independent claim, and as such are also deemed as not persuasive.
The applicant’s argument, that the prior art does not teach the added limitations to claim, have been fully considered and deemed as not persuasive. As the limitation was not previously addressed, the limitation has been addressed in the 103 rejection as indicated above. As indicated in claim 32 above, McMillan discloses wherein the first gap (Fig. 12, (observable gap between retention means 74 and the first leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below)) and the second gap (Fig. 12, (observable gap between retention means 74 and the second leg as indicated in modified Fig. 12 below)) pass completely through the head (Fig. 12, (observable that the indicated gaps between retention means -74 and the indicated legs pass through the head)).
PNG
media_image1.png
284
413
media_image1.png
Greyscale
McMillan Modified Fig. 12
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 ARI SINGH KANE PADDA whose telephone number is (571)272-7228. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Jason Sims can be reached at (571) 272-7540. 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.
/ARI S PADDA/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JASON M SIMS/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791