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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Response to Amendment
This Action is responsive to the Reply filed 12 January 2026 (“Reply”). As directed in the Reply:
no claims have been amended;
Claims 9 and 20 have been and/or remain cancelled; and
no claims have been added.
Thus, Claims 1-8, 10-19, and 21-23 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed in the Reply have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Sec. 112(f)
Applicant asserts (Reply, pg. 7, last paragraph), without identifying any record evidence to support the assertion, that “orienting member” should not be treated under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). As indicated in prior Actions, an ‘orienter’ is not an art-recognized mechanical element, and therefore “orienting member” is still being treated under sec. 112(f).
Rejections under sec. 103
Applicant argues (Reply, pg. 10, last paragraph) that Castelli’s device does not include both an orienting member and an “actuator” as claimed. At [0052], Castelli states:
The torquing mechanism 116 permits the distal portion of the catheter 100 to be rotated as indicated by the directional arrow 117 by turning a nosecone 118 disposed at the distal end of the handle 112 while holding the proximal end of the handle 112 which contains the remaining controls.
The prior and this Action read the claims’ “orienting member” on Castelli’s element 118, which rotates the catheter; Castelli’s pull wires perform its bending/“actuation” function via its “actuator” 126, 134, which is entirely mechanically independent of the rotation/’orienting’ of the catheter, because the two are attached at bearing 126. Claims 1 and 19 clearly indicate that the actuator is what bends the catheter shaft (“the first elongate member moveable between a first, substantially straight configuration when the actuator is in the actuator first position and a second, curved configuration when the actuator is in the actuator second position”), and thus reads on Castelli’s structures, noted above, which pull on its pull wires to bend its catheter shaft, and not on its nosecone 118 which rotates/torques its catheter shaft.
Applicant then argues (Reply, pg. 11, first full paragraph) that using Grace’s device with/in Castelli’s would “render the Examiner’s mappings to Castelli redundant and inconsistent,” but stops its arguments there, offering no logical, technical, or evidence-based support for that conclusion - it is therefore understandably not persuasive. Applicant then concludes (id.), without further explanation, that Grace’s device would not be rotatably attached to Castelli’s housing; this and the prior Action specifically address this limitation in the paragraph under AnnFig.
Applicant argues (Reply, pg. 11, second full paragraph) that adding a lever to a Castelli/Grace device would “interfere with device profiles and movement of both systems;” yet, again, Applicant fails to prop up this conclusion with any evidence of record, particularly how and why that might be so. That argument is thus also conclusory and unpersuasive.
Concerning Claim 23, Applicant argues (Reply, pg. 12, first full paragraph) that the Action mapped the claim term “lever” onto Lundquist’s shaft 550; this is not true. The Action plainly states in the first paragraph of pg. 13 that the lever is element 540, which is attached to the shaft 550. Furthermore, the Action does not say that the lever is part of an ‘orienting’ system, but rather that it would be obvious to add a lever to Castelli’s orienting system to provide the user with a mechanical advantage, an ancient mechanical solution.
Claim Interpretation
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1 and 19, “orienting member” (Fig. 1, #15; Fig. 13, #315; Fig. 21, #614 - a collar).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-8, 12-19, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Publ. No. 2020/0398026, by Castelli et al. (“Castelli”) in view of U.S. Patent No. 10,136,913, granted to Grace et al. (“Grace”) and U.S. Patent No. 5,254,088, by Lundquist et al. (“Lundquist”).
Castelli describes a catheter system substantially as claimed by Applicant, as follows.
Claim 1: A deflectable catheter system (Fig. 5) comprising:
a housing (114) defining a passageway (Fig. 5, unlabeled, interior of the housing 114);
an orienting member (118) attached to the housing and moveable relative to the housing between an orienting member first position and an orienting member second position (nosecone 118 is rotatable, [0052]);
an actuator (Fig. 5, 126, 134) attached to the orienting member (via fingers 124a,b) and moveable between an actuator first position and an actuator second position (elements 126, 136 rotate and move longitudinally);
a first elongate member (catheter 102 ; Fig. 18) attached to the orienting member (0052]) and defining a lumen ([0051]; shown at proximal end 104 in Fig. 8A), the first elongate member moveable between a first, substantially straight configuration when the actuator is in the actuator first position and a second, curved configuration when the actuator is in the actuator second position ([0052]);
a second elongate member (guidewire, not illustrated, see [0056]) disposed within the passageway defined by the housing and extending through the lumen defined by the first elongate member (id.), the second elongate member rotatable relative to the first elongate member (the guidewire is free to move within the catheter’s lumen, [0056] and is thus rotatable relative to the catheter 102); and
a wire member (Fig. 19, 146) having a first end attached to the actuator (at 148) and a second end attached to the first elongate member ([0068]);
wherein the orienting member is movable relative to the housing (nosecone 118 rotates relative to the housing).
Castelli does not, however, describe that:
its second elongate member is rotatably attached to its housing, or that its second elongate member comprises a tubular member (Claim 1);
the orienting member comprises a lever, and the orienting member is movable around a circumference of the second elongate member (Claim 1);
the second elongate member comprises a tubular member, a distal tip, a ring member, and a retaining member, the tubular member having a distal end, disposed within the lumen defined by the first elongate member, and rotatable relative to the first elongate member, the distal tip attached the distal end of the tubular member and having a first end and a second end, the ring member rotatably disposed on the distal tip between the second end of the distal tip and the retaining member, the retaining member attached to the distal tip between the first end of the distal tip and the ring member (Claim 3); or
the distal tip defines a plurality of teeth at the second end of the distal tip (Claim 4).
Grace relates to intravascular catheter devices and is therefore from an art which is the same as, or very closely analogous to, those of Applicant’s claims. Grace’s device is, according to Grace, to be navigated into a patient’s heart chambers via a transluminal approach (see Fig. 1), and thus must be navigated through the curves of that path, for which it provides no mechanism itself. A person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that Grace’s device would thus benefit by use with a guiding structure itself - such as that of Castelli - with Grace’s device being mounted in that of Castelli. Additionally, Grace expressly incorporates by reference the entire disclosure of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0105796, by Grace (already of record; see Grace at col. 10, lines 10-18; “Grace796”), which therefore forms an integral part of Grace’s disclosure.
Grace teaches that such a device can include (with reference to the annotated, cropped, and cleaned version of its Fig. 5A, below - AnnFig):
PNG
media_image1.png
238
451
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: textbox (AnnFig)][AltContent: textbox (TM)][AltContent: textbox (DT)][AltContent: textbox (RingM)][AltContent: textbox (RetM)][AltContent: textbox (1stEnd)][AltContent: textbox (2nd End)][AltContent: textbox (Teeth)]
a second elongate member with a tubular member (TM), a distal tip (DT), a ring member (RingM), and a retaining member (RetM), the tubular member having a distal end (at 1st End), disposed within the lumen defined by the first elongate member (when positioned in Castelli’s device, the distal end of TM will be within the first elongate member’s lumen), rotatably attached to the housing (see Grace796, Fig. 45A, showing the second elongate member 4516 rotatably attached at the unlabeled bearing immediately below the ref. no. 4510; Claim 1), rotatable relative to the first elongate member (as noted above, Castelli’s device allows its second elongate member to rotate within its catheter’s lumen), and comprising a tubular member (Grace796’s ref. no. 4516; Claim 1), the distal tip attached [sic: at] the distal end of the tubular member (at 1st End) and having a first end (1st End) and a second end (2nd End), the ring member rotatably disposed on the distal tip between the second end of the distal tip and the retaining member (as indicated in AnnFig, ring 546 rotates relative to the shaft 106, see col. 14, lines 24-33, and thus that portion between the second end and the RM rotates), the retaining member attached to the distal tip between the first end of the distal tip and the ring member (see AnnFig) (Claim 3); and
that the distal tip defines a plurality of teeth (AnnFig: Teeth) at the second end of the distal tip (Claim 4).
It 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, to combine Castelli’s guide catheter system with Grace’s cutting device, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Grace’s cutting device would benefit from intravascular, transluminal guiding (as that is the stated use of Grace’s cutting device; see, e.g., Fig. 1 and Background) and Castelli’s guide system is constructed for this purpose; the result of the combination is read on, in pertinent part, by Claims 1, 3, and 4, as demonstrated above, including that the orienting member is movable around a circumference of the second elongate member, because the second elongate member is located within the first elongate member.
Lundquist relates to steerable intravascular catheter devices and is therefore from an art which is the same as, or very closely analogous to, those of Applicant’s claims. Lundquist teaches that, when constructing such a catheter, which includes rotatable controls (Fig. 7: 550) that control the orientation of the distal end of the catheter, a lever (540) can be advantageously provided on the exterior of the control, for the extremely well-known reason (see above) of providing leverage to the user when manipulating the device, which in turn makes the device easier to use and thus less tiresome. Lundquist also teaches, as shown in Fig. 7, that the orientation of that lever should be aligned with that of the orientation of the catheter’s distal tip that it controls, which a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand provides visual feedback to the user of the orientation of the catheter tip without reliance on fluoroscopic methods.
It 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, to construct Castelli/Grace’s guide catheter system such that the orienting member comprises a lever, because Lundquist teaches doing so in a closely related catheter for the extremely well-known reason (see above) of providing leverage to the user when manipulating the device, which in turn makes the device easier to use and thus less tiresome.
Claim 2: (The deflectable catheter system of claim 1,) wherein the actuator has a main body (134) and a hub (126) disposed within the main body (Fig. 5), the hub mating with the main body of the actuator such that movement of the actuator between the actuator first position and the actuator second position results in movement of the hub between a first position and a second position (hub 126 rotates); and
wherein the first end of the wire member is attached to the hub (Fig. 19, at 148).
In addition, concerning Claim 5, Castelli discloses that the distal tip of its second elongate member is rotatable relative to the first elongate member (as noted above concerning Claim 1 - as the entire second elongate member is rotatable relative to the first elongate member, so is its tip).
Claim 6: (The deflectable catheter system of claim 3,) wherein the second end of the wire member is attached to the ring member (Castelli, [0068]: “. . . the pull wire 146 is formed from stainless steel and a metal band or ring (not shown) is utilized to attach the distal end 150 of the pull wire 146 to the shaft 102.”).
Claim 7: (The deflectable catheter system of claim 1,) wherein the wire member is disposed between the first elongate member and the second elongate member (wire 146 extends within the lumen of catheter body 102 and does not extend into the guidewire).
Claim 8: (The deflectable catheter system of claim 1,) wherein the first elongate member has an inner member (102) and an outer member (balloon 105, expandable member 101), the inner member comprising a tubular member formed of a first material, the outer member comprising a tubular member formed of a second material that is different than the first material ([0058], materials from which the catheter may be formed are different from those from which the balloon may be formed).
Claim 12: (The deflectable catheter system of claim 1,) further comprising a third elongate member slideably disposed on the first elongate member (Figs. 20, 21, 2087).
Claim 13: (The deflectable catheter system of claim 1,) wherein the second elongate member is moveable between a first, substantially straight configuration when the actuator is in the actuator first position and a second, curved configuration when the actuator is in the actuator second position (the guidewire will take the shape of the catheter 102, when deflected a de minimus amount).
Claim 14: (The deflectable catheter system of claim 1,) wherein movement of the orienting member (Castelli, 118) results in rotation of the first elongate member and wire member relative to the second elongate member (Castelli [0052], [0055]).
Claim 15: (The deflectable catheter system of claim 1,) wherein the actuator (Fig. 5, 126, 134) is rotatably attached to the orienting member (via fingers 124a,b).
Claim 16: (The deflectable catheter system of claim 1,) wherein the housing has a drive mechanism (racks 140) and a trigger (158) moveable between a first position and a second position (trigger 158 moves longitudinally), the drive mechanism moveable between an inactive state when the trigger is in the first position and an active state when the trigger is moved between the first and second positions (the drive mechanism is movable regardless of the state of the trigger, and is thus movable between an inactive state when it is not creating tension on the wire, with the trigger in the first position, and an active state, tensioning the wire, when the trigger is moved between the first and second positions); and
wherein the second elongate member is rotatable relative to the housing and the first elongate member when the drive mechanism is in the active state (it is always rotatable relative to the housing and the first elongate member).
Claim 17: (The deflectable catheter system of claim 1,) wherein the housing has an exterior surface (Fig. 5) and an anchor member (158), the anchor member having a first post (162) extending from the exterior surface of the housing and away from the actuator (Fig. 5, element 162 extends distally away from the actuator 126, 134).
Concerning Claim 18, Castelli describes that its housing has a lengthwise axis (Fig. 1, LA), but does not describe that:
the housing has a first portion and a second portion, the first portion moveable relative to the second portion axially along the lengthwise axis of the housing between a housing first position and a housing second position;
wherein the distal end of the second elongate member is disposed outside of the lumen defined by the first elongate member when the first portion of the housing is in the housing first position; and
wherein the distal end of the second elongate member is entirely disposed within the lumen defined by the first elongate member when the first portion of the housing is in the housing second position.
In the foregoing combination of Castelli and Grace, Castelli’s housing 114 is a first portion and Grace’s housing 104 is a second portion; the first portion is moveable relative to the second portion axially along the lengthwise axis of the housing between a housing first position and a housing second position (the two are movable along axis LA, which is read on by this clause); wherein the distal end of the second elongate member (Grace’s) is disposed outside of the lumen defined by the first elongate member when the first portion of the housing is in the housing first position (Grace’s device is in a deployment position); and wherein the distal end of the second elongate member is entirely disposed within the lumen defined by the first elongate member when the first portion of the housing is in the housing second position (Grace’s device is in a retracted position).
Claim 19: A deflectable catheter system comprising:
a housing (114) defining a passageway (Fig. 5, unlabeled, interior of the housing 114);
an orienting member (118) attached to the housing;
an actuator (Fig. 5, 126, 134) attached to the orienting member (via fingers 124a,b) and moveable between an actuator first position and an actuator second position (elements 126, 136 rotate and move longitudinally), the actuator having a main body (134) and a hub (126) disposed within the main body (Fig. 5), the hub mating with the main body of the actuator such that movement of the actuator between the actuator first position and the actuator second position results in movement of the hub between a first position and a second position (hub 126 rotates);
a first elongate member (catheter 102; Fig. 18) attached to the orienting member (0052]) and defining a lumen ([0051]; shown at proximal end 104 in Fig. 8A), the first elongate member moveable between a first, substantially straight configuration when the actuator is in the actuator first position and a second, curved configuration when the actuator is in the actuator second position ([0052]);
a second elongate member (guidewire, not illustrated, see [0056]) disposed within the passageway defined by the housing and extending through the lumen defined by the first elongate member (id.), the second elongate member rotatable relative to the first elongate member (the guidewire is free to move within the catheter’s lumen, [0056] and is thus rotatable relative to the catheter 102), the second elongate member moveable between a first, substantially straight configuration when the actuator is in the actuator first position and a second, curved configuration when the actuator is in the actuator second position (the guidewire will take the shape of the catheter 102, when deflected a de minimus amount); and
a wire member (Fig. 19, 146) disposed between the first elongate member and the second elongate member (wire 146 extends within the lumen of catheter body 102 and does not extend into the guidewire), the wire member having a first end attached to the hub (at 148) and a second end attached to the first elongate member ([0068]);
wherein the orienting member is movable relative to the housing (nosecone 118 is rotatable, [0052]);
wherein movement of the orienting member (118) results in rotation of the first elongate member and wire member ([0052], [0055]).
As with Claim 1, Castelli does not describe that:
its orienting member comprises a lever,
its second elongate member is rotatably attached to its housing;
movement of its orienting member results in rotation of the first elongate member and wire member relative to the second elongate member; or
its second elongate member comprises a tubular member.
Grace teaches that a second elongate member can be rotatably attached to the housing (see Grace796’s Fig. 45A, showing the second elongate member 4516 rotatably attached at the unlabeled bearing immediately below the ref. no. 4510) and comprise a tubular member (Grace796’s 4516).
It 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, to combine Castelli’s guide catheter system with Grace’s cutting device, because a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Grace’s cutting device would benefit from intravascular, transluminal guiding (as that is the stated use of Grace’s cutting device; see, e.g., Fig. 1 and Background) and Castelli’s guide system is constructed for this purpose; the result of the combination is read on by Claim 19, as demonstrated above.
See above concerning Lundquist’s disclosure.
It 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, to construct Castelli/Grace’s guide catheter system such that the orienting member comprises a lever, because Lundquist teaches doing so in a closely related catheter for the extremely well-known reason (see above) of providing leverage to the user when manipulating the device, which in turn makes the device easier to use and thus less tiresome.
Claim 21: (The deflectable catheter system of claim 1,) wherein the second elongate member is axially fixed relative to the housing (as discussed concerning Grace796).
Claim 22: (The deflectable catheter system of claim 1,) wherein a rotational orientation of the second, curved configuration aligns with the lever of the orienting member (Fig. 7 shows co-orientation of the lever and the second configuration; see discussion above with respect to Claim 1).
Claim 23: (The deflectable catheter system of claim 1,) wherein the lever of the orienting member (Lundquist, 540) extends radially outward from the orienting member (Lundquist, 550 in Fig. 7) and away from a lengthwise axis of the orienting member (same).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castelli, Grace, and Lundquist as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Publ. No. 2007/0112370, by Andrews et al. (“Andrews”).
Castelli, Grace, and Lundquist together describe a catheter system substantially as claimed by Applicant; see above. They do not, however, describe that the outer member includes a braided material disposed within the second material.
Andrews relates to transluminal surgical devices and is therefore from an art which is the same as, or very closely analogous to, those of Applicant’s claims. Andrews teaches that a stent deploying balloon 2 may be constructed with a reinforcing braid to limit balloon expansion ([0012]).
It 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, to construct the balloon of a Castelli / Grace / Lundquist device (“the outer member”) with a braided material disposed within the second material, because Andrews teaches embedding a braid in a stent-deployment balloon to limit balloon expansion.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Castelli, Grace, and Lundquist as applied above, and further in view of U.S. Patent No. 5,228,453, issued to Sepetka (“Sepetka”).
Castelli, Grace, and Lundquist together describe a catheter system substantially as claimed by Applicant; see above. They do not, however, describe that the second elongate member comprises a plurality of flat wire members formed as coils.
Sepetka relates to interventional guidewires and is therefore from an art which is the same as, or very closely analogous to, those of Applicant’s claims. Sepetka teaches that such a second elongate member, such as the guidewire of Castelli’s device, can be constructed with a plurality of flat wire members formed as coils (22, 29; col. 3, lines 55-61), which adds radiopacity to the guidewire body and makes the flexibility of the tip more uniform.
It 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, to construct the second elongate member of a Castelli / Grace / Lundquist device with a plurality of flat wire members formed as coils, because Sepetka teaches doing so, to add radiopacity to the guidewire body and make the flexibility of the tip more uniform.
Conclusion
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 Adam J. Cermak whose telephone number is 571.272.0135. The Examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:00 Eastern Time.
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, Bhisma Mehta, can be reached on 571.272.3383. 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.
/ADAM J. CERMAK/
Assistant Patent Examiner
Art Unit 3783
/BHISMA MEHTA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783