DETAILED ACTION
Claims 135-159 are currently pending. Claims 135-138, 140-154, 156 and 158-159 are currently under examination.
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 .
Examiner’s Note
Applicant's amendments and arguments filed 10/23/2025 are acknowledged and have been fully considered. The Examiner has re-weighed all the evidence of record. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application. In the Applicant’s response, filed 10/23/2025, it is noted that claim 135-137, 147-148, 156 and 158 are amended and claim 159 is newly added.
New Rejections:
The following rejections are newly applied based on Applicant’s claim amendments and newly added claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 (b)
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 136, 140, 149 and 156 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 136 contains the limitation “said guest polymer comprises a zwitterionic hydrogel comprising a crosslinked network of polymerized monomers comprising one or more of types of monomers comprising zwitterionic monomer”. It is unclear if there are one or more type of monomers with one being zwitterionic or if multiple zwitterionic monomers are required.
Claims 140 and 149 contains the limitation of “said body structure”, which does not have proper antecedent basis. Amended claim 135 is directed to a “tubular body structure”.
Claim 156 contains the limitation “the at least one zwitterionic monomer” which does not have antecedent basis. Instant claim 136, from which it depends contains the limitation of zwitterionic monomer and does not contain reference to “at least one zwitterionic monomer”.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 135-138, 142, 144-146 and 158-159 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/025104 (Applicant provided), US 2010/0040870 (Applicant provided) and US 2008/0181861 (previously applied).
Regarding claim 135, 138 and 158-159, the limitation of a medical tubular device comprising a body structure extending from a first end to a second end of the medical tubular device and having a luminal surface and an external surface, wherein said body structure comprises an interpenetrating polymer network (IPN) comprising a host polymer matrix and at least one hydrogel guest polymer domain of a guest polymer comprising a plurality of interconnected paths of the guest polymer, which is interpenetrating the host polymer matrix, said at least one hydrogel polymer domain comprises a luminal surface guest polymer domain comprising at least one part of the luminal surface, wherein the plurality of the paths of the guest polymer coincide and form at least a part of said luminal surface is met by the ‘104 publication teaching medical device such as a catheter (page 1, first paragraph) wherein in innermost wall surface, wherein at least a section of the inner wall surface constitutes an inner surface of the delivery membrane and comprises an interpenetrating polymer network substrate comprising a host polymer and a guest polymer, wherein the guest polymer is interpenetrating the host polymer to form substantially continuous pathways within the host polymer (page 2, middle of the page). The delivery membrane has an outer surface opposite to the inner surface of the delivery membrane. Substantially continuous pathways of the guest polymer within the host polymer extends from the inner surface to the outer surface of the delivery membrane (page 2, third last paragraph).
Regarding claim 136, 144 and 146, the limitation of wherein said guest polymer comprises a hydrogel comprising a cross-linked network polymerized monomers comprising of one or more type of monomers is met by the ‘104 publication teaching guest polymer comprises homopolymer or copolymers, preferably polymerized from acrylate monomer including functionalized acrylates such as HEMA and PEGylated (meth)acrylates including PEGMEA (page 4, bottom half).
Regarding claim 142, the limitation of wherein the host polymer comprises a crosslinked elastomer is met by the ‘104 publication teaching the host polymer is a cross-linked polymer, such as crosslinked rubber including silicone (page 3, middle of page).
The ‘104 publication does not specifically teach a tubular body structure extending form a first open end to a second open end of the medical tubular device wherein the body structure had an elongate hollow structure (claim 135). The ‘104 publication does not specifically teach an interpenetrating polymer network comprising a tubular host polymer matrix extending in an entire length of the body structure (claim 135).
The ‘104 publication does not specifically teach wherein said luminal surface comprises zwitterionic moieties, said zwitterionic moieties being covalently bonded to said guest polymer (claim 135, 158), specifically sulfobetaines (claim 137, 145).
The ’861 publication teaches super low fouling sulfobetaine and carboxybetaine material, super low fouling surfaces and method of making such surfaces (abstract). IPN films are taught to be formed of sulfobetaine methacrylate, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) monomer [0026]. Sulfobetine methacrylate is taught to be used to resist protein adsorption [0100].
The ’870 publication teaches methods of producing article comprising an interpenetrating polymer network (IPN) and an IPN article. A polymer substrate, e.g. shaped to provide the desired article and applying it in a reaction chamber, providing at least one monomer for an interpenetrating polymer, exposing said polymer substrate in said reaction chamber to said at least one monomer in the presence of an impregnations solvent and polymerizing and optionally crosslinking said at least one monomer to form an interpenetrating polymer (abstract, [0080]). The interpenetrating polymer may be e.g. crosslinked [0018]. The substrate is taught to be a polymer formed from materials such as silicone ([0019]-[0021]). The outer surface layer (a coating) applied onto the substrate and interpenetrating polymer at least in a layer of the substrate and extending to the desired depth [0031], reading on claim 159. Monomers used for the interpenetrating polymer include HEMA, MPC, betaine and methacrylate [0037]. The interpenetrating polymer may be e.g. crosslinked to form a network [0098]. The article comprises a body formed of a rubber substrate and an interpenetrating non-rubber polymer and an outer surface layer on at least part of the surface of said non-rubber polymer. Silicone rubber is taught. The silicone rubber substrate is taught to produce implants such as catheters and stents [0101].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to form the device taught by the ‘104 publication into a stent as the ‘104 publication teaches medical device formed of silicone containing an interpenetrating network and the ‘870 publication teaches a silicone stent with an interoperating network polymer. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success as the ‘870 publication teaches the interchangeability of a stent and catheter structure. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success as the ‘104 publication and the ‘870 publication are both directed to silicone medical device containing acrylate interpenetrating networks.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use poly(sulfobetaine methacrylate) as taught by the ‘861 publication in the guest copolymer taught by the ‘104 publication because the ‘104 publication teaches the desire for antifouling and the ‘861 publication teaches the poly(sulfobetaine methacrylate) provides antifouling properties. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success as the ‘104 publication teaches the guest polymer comprising methacrylic derivatives and the ‘861 publication teaches poly(sulfobetaine methacryate) to be used in IPN networks and to have anti-fouling properties. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success as the ‘870 publication teaches the use of betaines in interpenetrating polymers in a silicone medical device structure, thus providing a reasonable expectation of success in using the poly(sulfobetaine methacrylate) taught by the ‘861 publication in the guest polymer of the interpenetrating network of the ‘104 publication.
Claim(s) 147 and 156 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/025104, US 2010/0040870 and US 2008/0181861 as applied to claims 135-138, 142, 144-146 and 158-159 above, and further in view of Salamone (Salamone, J.C., et al., Polymer, 1977, Vol 18, October, previously applied).
As mentioned in the above 103 rejection, all the limitations of claims 135-138, 142, 144-146 and 158-159 are taught by the combination of the ‘104 publication, the ‘870 publication and the ‘861 publication.
The combination of references does not specifically teach wherein the at least one guest polymer domain comprises a clot promoting domain and/or a cell proliferation promoting located at the external surface of the body structure and/or located at an intermediate guest polymer domain which does not comprise the luminal surface or the external surface (claim 147).
The combination of references does not specifically teach wherein the at least one zwitterionic monomer is selected from the list which includes the elected 1-Ethenyl-3-(4-sulfonatobuty)-1H-imidazol-3-ium (claim 156).
Salamone teaches preparation and properties of ampholytic polymers. Synthesis of monomeric vinylimidazolium sulphobetaines, a class of aromatic inner salt monomers, their free radial polymerization and properties resulting from the polymers. The ampholytic polymers prepared were shown to have hydrogel characteristics (abstract). Preparation of zwitterionic sulphobetaine monomers derived from the ring-opening of a sulfone by nucleophilic vinylimidazole, followed by their free radical polymerization to the corresponding poly(vinylimidazolium sulphobetaines).
PNG
media_image1.png
346
627
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein R is H and n = 4 is the elected compound (page 1060, first column).
Regarding one guest polymer domain comprises a clot promoting domain and/or a cell proliferation promoting located at the external surface of the body structure and/or located at an intermediate guest polymer domain which does not comprise the luminal surface or the external surface, the combination of references teaches the elected monomers PHEMA-co-PEGMEA, sulfobetaine and CK1573, and thus would have the claimed properties absent factual evidence to the contrary.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the zwitterionic monomers taught by Salamone in the guest polymer taught by the ‘104 publication because the ‘104 publication teaches the guest copolymer may include imidazole derivatives and Salamone specifically teaches an imidazole compound. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to include the compound of Salamone in the guest copolymer of the ‘104 publication because Xiang teaches the desirability to use zwitterionic monomers to obtain antifouling properties and Salmone teaches zwitterionic monomers.
Claim(s) 140-141 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/025104, US 2010/0040870 and US 2008/0181861 as applied to claims 135-138, 142, 144-146 and 158-159 above, and further in view of US 2015/0273117 (previously applied).
As mentioned in the above 103(a) rejection, all the limitations of claims 135-138, 142, 144-146 and 158-159 are taught by the combination of the ‘104 publication, the ‘870 publication and the ‘861 publication.
The ‘117 publication teaches drug coated catheters which preferably includes anti-inflammatory drugs and antiproliferative drugs including rapamycin or paclitaxel (abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a first medicinal agent, rapamycin, as taught by the ‘104 publication with a second medicinal agent, paclitaxel, as taught by the ‘117 publication with a reasonable expectation of success because the simple substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. M.P.E.P. §2144.07 states "The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).” When substituting equivalents known in the prior art for the same purpose, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). M.P.E.P. §2144.06.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success in substituting paclitaxel as taught by the ‘117 publication for the active agent such as rapamycin as taught by the ‘104 publication because the ‘117 publication teaches the interchangeability of rapamycin and paclitaxel in drug coated medical devices and the ‘104 publication is directed to an active agent containing medical device including rapamycin.
Claim(s) 148-150 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/025104, US 2010/0040870 and US 2008/0181861 as applied to claims 135-138, 142, 144-146 and 158-159 above, and further in view of US 2009/0018501 (previously applied).
As mentioned in the above 103(a) rejection, all the limitations of claims 135-138, 142, 144-146 and 158 are taught by the combination of the ‘104 publication, the ’870 publication and the ‘861 publication.
The combination of references does not specifically teach wherein the host polymer comprises two or more guest polymer domains, wherein the two or more guest polymer domains comprises a luminal surface guest polymer domain comprising at least a part of the luminal surface and an external surface guest polymer domain comprising at least part of the external surface, wherein two or more guest polymer domains are separated by a polymer portion essentially free of guest polymer (claim 148), wherein the body structure is layered body structure comprising two or more layers, wherein at least one of said layers comprises the IPN (claim 149).
The combination of references does not specifically teach wherein at least one layer without an IPN is PTFE (claim 150).
The ‘501 publication teaches drug coated balloon catheters for treating a luminal system of a patient. The catheter is taught as flexible membrane capable of delivering a therapeutic agent (abstract). The catheter may be constructed of any suitable material including PTFE [0048]. The inner and outer shafter membranes may be further coated with any materials and techniques to enhance performance if desired. The possible coating material include lubricous materials such as silicone and hydrogel materials [0051]. The therapeutic agent is taught to include antiproliferative agents including rapamycin and paclitaxel [0063]. The ‘501 publication teaches various modifications of the device may be made including a different medical device such as a vascular graft [0096].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use PTFE for the medical device construction with inner and outer coating layers of the IPN network as the ‘104 publication teaches a catheter medical device wherein the delivery device comprises coating on the inner and outer surface of the part or parts of the device and the ‘501 publication teaches a catheter device formed of PTFE containing a coating containing an active agent. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention that it was known to form catheters of PTFE comprising drug releasing coatings and the IPN network taught by the ‘104 publication is taught to be a drug releasing layer and the use of inner and outer coating on the device is taught. It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that alternative medical devices such as grafts and stents may be used to form the device as the ‘501 publication teaches the device may be modified and includes grafts and the 870 publication teaches implants include catheters, stents, medical articles for use in humans, thus teaching interchangeability of the medical devices between catheter and stents.
Claim(s) 154 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/025104, US 2010/0040870 and US 2008/0181861 as applied to claims 135-138, 142, 144-146 and 158-159 above, and further in view of US 7,459,438 (previously applied).
As mentioned in the above 103 rejection, all the limitations of claims 135-138, 142, 144-146 and 158-159 are taught by the combination of the ‘104 publication and Xiang.
The combination of references does not specifically teach the elected dialysis graft (claim 154).
The ‘438 patent teaching coatings on medical devices (abstract). Medical devices are taught to be selected from the group including catheter and dialysis graft (claim 16). The medical devices are taught to contain a hydrogel coating comprising a methacrylic polymer (claims 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute a first medical device as taught by the ‘104 publication with a second medicinal, i.e. dialysis graft, as taught by the ‘438 patent with a reasonable expectation of success because the simple substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. M.P.E.P. §2144.07 states "The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supported a prima facie obviousness determination in Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945).” When substituting equivalents known in the prior art for the same purpose, an express suggestion to substitute one equivalent component or process for another is not necessary to render such substitution obvious. In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 213 USPQ 532 (CCPA 1982). M.P.E.P. §2144.06. One of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success as the ‘438 patent teaches the interchangeability of dialysis grafts and catheters as medical devices.
Claim(s) 143 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/025104, US 2010/0040870 and US 2008/0181861 as applied to claims 135-138, 142, 144-146 and 158-159 above, and further in view of US 2017/0027682 (previously applied).
As mentioned in the above 103(a) rejection, all the limitations of claims 135-138, 142, 144-146 and 158-159 are taught by the combination of the ‘104 publication and Xiang.
The combination of references does not specifically teach the claimed shore A hardness, tera strength and stress (claim 143).
The ‘682 publication teaches elastomeric tube including an inner and outer diameter (abstract). Elastomeric materials that have high temperature stability and thus can withstand high temperatures without melting are preferred. For example, silicone has the properties, among others, of high temperature stability, low volatile content, being capable of varying its hardness or softness and chemical inertness that make it useful. Elastomeric tubes are taught to include silicone that have mechanical properties of shore hardness from 15 to 25 Shore A, Tensile strength in the range of 4.8 MPA to 9.7 MPa, stress at 200% strain of 0.8 to 0.72 MPa and a tear strength of 22.9 kN/m [0121].
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use the elastomer taught by the ‘682 publication for the host polymer taught by the ‘104 publication because the ‘104 publication teaches the use of silicone elastomers for forming a medical device and the ‘682 publication teaches specific silicone elastomers known to form medical devices. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would be motivated to use the polymers of the ‘682 publication for the device of the ‘104 publication because the ‘682 publication teaches high temperature stability and optimizable of varying hardness.
Claim(s) 151-153 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017/025104, US 2010/0040870, US 2008/0181861 and US 2009/0018501 as applied to claims 135-138, 142, 144-146, 148-150 and 158-159 above, and further in view of US 2004/0043052 (previously applied).
As mentioned in the above 103 rejection, all the limitations of claims 135-138, 142, 144-146, 148-150 and 158-159 are taught by the combination of the’104 publication, the ’870 publication and the ‘861 publication.
Regarding claim 151, the limitation of a tubular support structure located concentrically with the body structure, wherein the support structure being of a polymer material comprising PTFE is met by the ‘501 publication teaches catheter formed of PTFE.
The combination of references does not specifically teach wherein the support structure comprises a cuff close-fitting to the external surface of the body structure (claim 151) wherein the cuff comprises an IPN material loaded with one or more drugs selected from cell proliferating promoting drugs (claim 152), wherein the internal diameter of from about 2mm to about 6cm and/or a compliance of from about 1 to about 10.
The ‘052 publication teaches medical implants (abstract) comprising catheters [0029] wherein catheter cuffs are taught [0095]. Subcutaneous “cuff” around the catheter [0124] or stents ([0019], [0096]). The coating is taught to be applied over the subcutaneous “cuff” around the insertion site ([0169], [0270]). Catheters is taught to include diameters of 3mm [0356]. As MPEP 2144.05 recites “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine optimization”. Regarding the compliance, the combination of references teaches the catheter formed of the elected host and guest polymeric materials and thus would have the compliance absent factual evidence to the contrary.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to include a cuff on the external surface of the device taught by the ‘104 publication because the ‘104 publication teaches a catheter and the ‘052 publication teaches cuff around a catheter wherein coating is taught to be applied over the cuff ([0029], [0095]). One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success as the ‘052 publication teaches it was known to use cuffs on catheters and the ‘104 publication teaches a drug coated catheter.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered and are not deemed to be persuasive.
Applicant argues the ‘104 publication (Thomsen) is directed to a balloon catheter and does not teach the tubular body structure extending form a first open end to a second open end of the medical tubular device. Applicant argues the ‘104 publication teaches a catheter shaft that does not comprise an IPN, rather the balloon catheter forming the closed cavity is the IPN material. The IPN material is glued onto the outer wall of the shaft. The balloon does not form a tubular device having body with a structure extending from the first end to a second end of the medical tubular device and having a luminal surface.
In response, Applicant is referred to the newly applied rejection above, wherein the ‘870 publication teaches a stent structure formed of rubber substrate which forms an IPN with the non-rubber polymer [0101].
Applicant argues an the ‘104 publication does not disclose or suggest the luminal surface comprises zwitterionic moieties, said zwitterionic moieties being covalently bonded to said guest polymer. Applicant argues the teachings of Xiang. Applicant argues Stenger. Applicant argues the ‘861 publication (Jiang). Applicant argues the ‘861 publication IPN is very thin film where there is an indication that some of the poly(SBMA) has penetrated into the SPU film. It would not be possible to make the film into a device.
In response, Xiang and Stenger as not used in the instant rejections. The ‘861 publication teaches sulfobetiane and carboxybetiane material are super low fowling and may be used in IPN films with HEMA monomers ([0026], [0100]). The ‘870 publication teaches a stent structure formed of rubber substrate which forms an IPN with the non-rubber polymer [0101]. Thus the ‘870 publication teaches forming an IPN into a medical device such as a stent and the ‘861 publication teaches a motivation to use sulfobetaine in the device, for its super low fouling properties. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to use poly(sulfobetaine methacrylate) as taught by the ‘861 publication in the guest copolymer taught by the ‘104 publication because the ‘104 publication teaches the desire for antifouling and the ‘861 publication teaches the poly(sulfobetaine methacrylate) provides antifouling properties. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success as the ‘104 publication teaches the guest polymer comprising methacrylic derivatives and the ‘861 publication teaches poly(sulfobetaine methacryate) to be used in IPN networks and to have anti-fouling properties. One of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention would have a reasonable expectation of success as the ‘870 publication teaches the use of betaines in interpenetrating polymers in a silicone medical device structure, thus providing a reasonable expectation of success in using the poly(sulfobetaine methacrylate) taught by the ‘861 publication in the guest polymer of the interpenetrating network of the ‘104 publication.
Applicant argues the dependent claims define additional distinguishing aspects associated with this application and allowable as pendent on the independent claim.
In response, Applicant has presented no substantive arguments regarding the dependent claims and thus they are maintained for reasons for record.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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.
Examiner Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LYNDSEY MARIE BECKHARDT whose telephone number is (571)270-7676. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9am to 4pm and Friday 9am to 2pm.
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, Brian-Yong Kwon can be reached at 571-272-0581. 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.
/LYNDSEY M BECKHARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 1613
/ANDREW S ROSENTHAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1613