DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 3/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 11-14, 16-20, and 22-23 are pending in the application. Claims 7, 10, 15, 21, and 24 are cancelled. The amendments to the claims overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 12/22/2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 8, 14, 16, 19, and 23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
-Claim 6, line 4: please correct “the patient” to “the user”
-Claim 8, line 15: please correct “a patient” to “a user”
-Claim 8, lines 21-22: please correct “the wearable drug delivery device” to “the drug delivery device”
-Claim 8, line 23: please correct “the wearable drug delivery device” to “the drug delivery device”
-Claim 14, line 3: please correct “the patient” to “the user”
-Claim 16, line 6: please correct “a patient” to “a user”
-Claim 16, line 7: please correct “the patient” to “the user”
-Claim 16, line 15: please correct “the wearable drug delivery device” to “the drug delivery device”
-Claim 16, line 17: please correct “the wearable drug delivery device” to “the drug delivery device”
-Claim 19, line 4: please correct “the patient” to “the user”
-Claim 23, line 3: please correct “an outer packaging” to “the packaging”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 8-9, 11-14, 16-20, and 22-23 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 8 recites the limitation "the controller" in lines 23-24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether Applicant intends to introduce a controller or whether “the controller” should be deleted. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets the limitation “including the controller” as deleted from claim 8.
Claims 9, 11-14, and 23 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on rejected claim 8.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the controller" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether Applicant intends to introduce a controller or whether “the controller” should be deleted. For examination purposes, the Examiner interprets the limitation “including the controller” as deleted from claim 16.
Claims 17-20 and 22 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on rejected claim 16.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 16, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Alderete, Jr. et al. (US 2016/0367754 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Alderete, Jr. discloses a method (see Figs. 1-4, par. [0076]-[0077]) comprising:
applying a wearable drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) to a skin of a user (see Figs. 1-4, par. [0073]-[0075]), the wearable drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) comprising:
a reservoir (fluid cartridge module 104) configured to store a liquid drug (see par. [0077]);
a pump mechanism (fluid pump mechanism 136) coupled to the reservoir (fluid cartridge module 104) and operable to expel the liquid drug from the reservoir (fluid cartridge module 104) (see Figs. 1-4, par. [0070], [0077], [0079]);
a mechanical triggering device engageable by the user (see par. [0072], [0074], [0093]), the mechanical triggering device operable to change between a first configuration (not triggered/engaged, needle not inserted subcutaneously, see par. [0072], [0074], [0093]) and a second configuration (triggered/engaged, needle inserted subcutaneously, see par. [0072], [0074], [0093]) to control deployment of a needle (subcutaneous conduit 413) to deliver the liquid drug into the user (see par. [0072], [0074], [0093]); and
a controller (processor device 420) programmed with instructions configured to cause the controller (processor 420) to modify a basal delivery rate of the liquid drug via haptic interaction of the user with a tactile input sensor of the wearable drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) (see par. [0098], [0103], a dial, knob, or other adjustment component that the physician or patient can manipulate is considered a tactile input sensor as it senses the manual input/touch from the user) and to control the deployment of the needle (subcutaneous conduit 413) without communication between the wearable drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) and an external interface device (see par. [0093]);
delivering substantially all of the liquid drug using the wearable drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) over a predefined time period (see par. [0076]); and
disposing of an entirety of the wearable drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) including the controller (processor device 420) after the predefined time period (see par. [0076]).
Regarding claim 2, Alderete, Jr. discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the controller (processor device 420) is communicatively coupled to the pump mechanism (fluid pump mechanism 136) and to a delivery rate adjustment device (basal rate adjustment component 422) of the wearable drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100), and further comprising:
receiving, with the controller (processor device 420), an input from the delivery rate adjustment device (basal rate adjustment component 422), wherein the input indicates the basal delivery rate (see par. [0103]); and
based on the basal delivery rate, modifying, with the controller (processor device 420), an amount of the liquid drug to be delivered by the pump mechanism (fluid pump mechanism 136) (see Fig. 4, par. [0103]).
Regarding claim 3, Alderete, Jr. discloses the method of claim 2, further comprising:
receiving, with the controller (processor device 420), an input indicating an automated insulin delivery (AID) application setting (see Fig. 4, par. [0103], based on adjustments from the basal rate adjustment component 422, the processor device 420 adjusts the basal rate settings); and
based on the AID application setting, modifying, with the controller (processor device 420), a behavior of an AID application and a resulting amount of the liquid drug to be delivered by the pump mechanism (fluid pump mechanism 136) (see Fig. 4, par. [0103], based on adjustments from the basal rate adjustment component 422, the processor device 420 adjusts the basal rate settings).
Regarding claim 4, Alderete, Jr. discloses the method of claim 2, the wearable drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) further comprising a housing (housing 106) containing the reservoir (fluid cartridge module 104) and the pump mechanism (fluid pump mechanism 136) (see Figs. 1-4, par. [0077]), wherein the mechanical triggering device (see par. [0072], [0074], [0093]) is a ripcord or a removable tab extending outside the housing (housing 106) (see par. [0074]).
Regarding claim 6, Alderete, Jr. discloses the method of claim 4, the wearable drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) further comprising a needle deployment component (insertion mechanism 412), wherein engagement of the ripcord or the removable tab (see par. [0074]) causes the needle deployment component (insertion mechanism 412) to insert the needle (subcutaneous conduit 413) into the patient (see Fig. 4, par. [0072], [0074], [0088], [0093]).
Regarding claim 16, Alderete, Jr. discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium embodied with programming code executable by a processor (processor device 420), and the processor (processor 420) when executing the programming code is operable to perform functions (see Figs. 1-4, par. [0094]-[0097]), including functions to:
receive an input from a mechanical triggering device (see par. [0072], [0074], [0093]) communicably connected with a reservoir (fluid cartridge module 104) and a pump mechanism (fluid pump mechanism 136) of a drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100), wherein the input indicates deployment of a needle (subcutaneous conduit 413) to deliver a liquid drug from the reservoir (fluid cartridge module 104) to a patient (see par. [0070], [0077], [0079], [0093], [0098], [0103]);
based on the input, deliver the liquid drug into the patient by the pump mechanism (fluid pump mechanism 136) (see par. [0093], [0098], [0103]);
receive a modification to a basal delivery rate of the liquid drug from a haptic interaction of the user with a tactile input sensor of the drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) (see par. [0103], a dial, knob, or other adjustment component that the physician or patient can manipulate is considered a tactile input sensor as it senses the manual input/touch from the user); and
modify the basal delivery rate of the liquid drug based on the modification, and control the deployment of the needle (subcutaneous conduit 413), without communication between the drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) and an external interface device (see par. [0093], [0098], [0103]);
deliver substantially all of the liquid drug using the drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) over a predefined time period (see par. [0076]); and
dispose of an entirety of the drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) after the predefined time period (see par. [0076]).
Regarding claim 19, Alderete, Jr. discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16, wherein the processor (processor device 420) when executing the programming code is further operable to release, in response to engagement of the mechanical triggering device (see par. [0072], [0074], [0093]), a needle deployment component (insertion mechanism 412) to insert the needle (subcutaneous conduit 413) into the patient (see Fig. 4, par. [0072], [0074], [0088], [0093]).
Regarding claim 20, Alderete, Jr. discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16, wherein the processor (processor device 420) when executing the programming code is further operable to:
receive an input from a delivery rate adjustment device (basal rate adjustment component 422) of a user interface (dial or knob, see par. [0103]) of the drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100), wherein the input from the delivery rate adjustment device (basal rate adjustment component 422) indicates the basal delivery rate (see par. [0103]); and
modify, based on the basal delivery rate, an amount of the liquid drug to be delivered by the pump mechanism (fluid pump mechanism 136) (see Fig. 4, par. [0103]).
Claims 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Vazquez et al. (US 2015/0265768 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Vazquez discloses a method (see Figs. 1-10 and 18), comprising:
providing a drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) including a reservoir (fluid cartridge module 104) operable to store a liquid drug (see par. [0044], [0046]), wherein the providing comprises:
receiving an order or a prescription for the drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100), where the order or prescription specifies a basal delivery rate for the drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) (see par. [0058], the manufacturer can set the basal rate based on received orders), and
preconfiguring the basal delivery rate for the drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) to correspond to the specified basal delivery rate at a manufacturer of the drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) or at a pharmacy, the preconfiguring comprising transmitting an instruction including the basal delivery rate through a packaging of the drug delivery device (drug delivery device 100) (see par. [0058], [0094], the manufacturer can set the basal rate based on received orders through the housing/packaging of the device since the basal rate adjustment component 422 is an external dial/knob);
coupling a pump mechanism (fluid pump mechanism 136) to the reservoir (fluid cartridge module 104), the pump mechanism (fluid pump mechanism 136) operable to expel the liquid drug from the reservoir (fluid cartridge module 104) (see par. [0067], [0072]-[0073]);
biasing a mechanical triggering device (see par. [0048], [0050]-[0051], [0084]) between a first configuration (not triggered/engaged, needle not inserted subcutaneously, see par. [0048], [0050]-[0051], [0084]) and a second configuration (triggered/engaged, needle inserted subcutaneously, see par. [0048], [0050]-[0051], [0084]) to control deployment of a needle (subcutaneous conduit 160) to deliver the liquid drug into a patient (see par. [0048], [0050]-[0051], [0084]);
modifying a basal delivery rate of the liquid drug via a haptic interaction of the user with a tactile input sensor of the drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) (see par. [0094], a dial or knob can be provided on the device to adjust the basal rate) and controlling the deployment of the needle (subcutaneous conduit 160) without communication between the drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) and an external interface device (see par. [0048], [0050]-[0051], [0084]);
delivering substantially all of the liquid drug using the drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) over a predefined time period (see par. [0005], [0055], [0122], [0130]); and
disposing of an entirety of the drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) after the predefined time period (see par. [0005], [0055], [0122], [0130]).
Regarding claim 9, Vazquez discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising:
communicatively coupling a controller (processor device 420) of the drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) to the pump mechanism (fluid pump mechanism 136) and to a delivery rate adjustment device (basal rate adjustment component 422) of the drug delivery device (fluid infusion device 100) (see Fig. 18, par. [0080]-[0081], [0094]);
receiving, at the controller (processor device 420), an input from the delivery rate adjustment device (basal rate adjustment component 422), wherein the input indicates the basal delivery rate (see par. [0094]); and
modifying, based on the basal delivery rate, an amount of the liquid drug to be delivered by the pump mechanism (fluid pump mechanism 136) (see par. [0094]).
Regarding claim 11, Vazquez discloses the method of claim 8, further comprising extending the mechanical triggering device outside a housing (housing 106) containing the reservoir (fluid cartridge module 104) and the pump mechanism (fluid pump mechanism 136) (see Figs. 1-10 and 18, par. [0047], [0061]), wherein the mechanical triggering device (see par. [0048], [0050]-[0051], [0084]) is a ripcord or a removable tab (see par. [0050]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alderete, Jr. et al. (US 2016/0367754 A1), as applied to claims 4 and 16 above, in view of Griffin (US 2008/0051738 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Alderete, Jr. discloses the method of claim 4. However, Alderete, Jr. fails to state the wearable drug delivery device further comprising a timer, the method further comprising, at an expiration of a timing cycle, automatically deploying the needle, wherein engagement of the ripcord or the removable tab causes the timer to begin the timing cycle.
Griffin teaches a method (see Figs. 7-8), the wearable drug delivery device (see Figs. 7-8) further comprising a timer (see par. [0094]), the method further comprising, at an expiration of a timing cycle, automatically deploying the needle (needle 172) (see par. [0094]), wherein engagement of the needle actuator causes the timer to begin the timing cycle (see par. [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Alderete, Jr. to include a timer which causes automatic deployment of the needle at an expiration of a timing cycle which begins at an engagement of the actuator, as taught by Griffin, in order to allow a user to program the device to insert the needle at a particular time (see Griffin par. [0094]). Since Alderete, Jr.'s device can be actuated by pulling a tab or removing a pin (see Alderete, Jr. par. [0074]), this modification would provide that engagement of the ripcord or the removable tab (see Alderete, Jr. par. [0074]) causes the timer to begin the timing cycle (see Griffin par. [0094]).
Regarding claim 17, Alderete, Jr. discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16. However, Alderete, Jr. fails to state wherein the processor when executing the programming code is further operable to perform functions to automatically deploy the needle at an expiration of a timing cycle.
Griffin teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (see Figs. 7-8), wherein the processor when executing the programming code is further operable to perform functions to automatically deploy the needle (needle 172) at an expiration of a timing cycle (see par. [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-transitory computer readable medium of Alderete, Jr. to include wherein the processor when executing the programming code is further operable to perform functions to automatically deploy the needle at an expiration of a timing cycle, as taught by Griffin, in order to allow a user to program the device to insert the needle at a particular time (see Griffin par. [0094]).
Regarding claim 18, modified Alderete, Jr. teaches the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 17 substantially as claimed. Modified Alderete, Jr. further teaches wherein the processor (Alderete, Jr. processor device 420) when executing the programming code is further operable to initiate the timing cycle in response to engagement of the mechanical triggering device (Alderete, Jr. par. [0072], [0074], [0093]) (see previous modifications in rejection of claim 17 above; since Alderete, Jr.'s device can be actuated by pulling a tab or removing a pin (see Alderete, Jr. par. [0074]), the modification of claim 17 would provide that engagement of the ripcord or the removable tab (see Alderete, Jr. par. [0074]) causes the processor to initiate the timing cycle (see Griffin par. [0094])).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez et al. (US 2015/0265768 A1), as applied to claim 11 above, in view of Griffin (US 2008/0051738 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Vazquez discloses the method of claim 11. However, Vazquez fails to state automatically deploying the needle at an expiration of a timing cycle.
Griffin teaches a method (see Figs. 7-8) comprising automatically deploying the needle (needle 172) at an expiration of a timing cycle. (see par. [0094]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vazquez to include automatically deploying the needle at an expiration of a timing cycle, as taught by Griffin, in order to allow a user to program the device to insert the needle at a particular time (see Griffin par. [0094]).
Regarding claim 13, modified Vazquez teaches the method of claim 12 substantially as claimed. Modified Vazquez further teaches initiating the timing cycle in response to engagement of the ripcord or removable tab (see Vazquez par. [0048], [0050]-[0051], [0084]) (see previous modifications in rejection of claim 12 above; since Vazquez's device can be actuated by pulling a tab or removing a pin (see Vazquez par. [0050]), the modification of claim 12 would provide that engagement of the ripcord or the removable tab (see Vazquez par. [0050]) causes the timing cycle to be initiated (see Griffin par. [0094])).
Regarding claim 14, modified Vazquez teaches the method of claim 12 substantially as claimed. Vazquez further teaches releasing, in response to engagement of the ripcord or the removable tab (see par. [0050]), a needle deployment component (insertion mechanism 412) to insert the needle (subcutaneous conduit 160) into the patient (see par. [0050], [0079], [0084]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alderete, Jr. et al. (US 2016/0367754 A1), as applied to claim 16 above, in view of Nielsen et al. (US 2013/0172695 A1).
Regarding claim 22, Alderete, Jr. discloses the non-transitory computer readable medium of claim 16. However, Alderete, Jr. fails to expressly state wherein the processor when executing the programming code is further operable to communicate a status of the pump mechanism to an external device, wherein the external device has access to a communication interface of the drug delivery device.
Nielsen teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium (see Fig. 30B, par. [0166]) wherein the processor (processor of medical drug delivery device 1810) when executing the programming code is further operable to communicate a status of the pump mechanism to an external device (wireless remote control unit 1830), wherein the external device (wireless remote control unit 1830) has access to a communication interface (wireless transmitter of medical drug delivery device 1810) of the drug delivery device (medical drug delivery device 1810) (see Fig. 30B, par. [0166]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-transitory computer readable medium of Alderete, Jr. to include wherein the processor when executing the programming code is further operable to communicate a status of the pump mechanism to an external device, wherein the external device has access to a communication interface of the drug delivery device, as taught by Nielsen, in order to improve energy efficiency of communication transfer within the system (see Nielsen par. [0166]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vazquez et al. (US 2015/0265768 A1), as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Aklog et al. (US 2011/0251579 A1).
Regarding claim 23, Vazquez discloses the method of claim 8. However, Vazquez fails to state wherein the order or prescription is a prescription received at the pharmacy, and preconfiguring the basal delivery rate comprises programming the drug delivery device through an outer packaging of the drug delivery device or programming a smart box or insulin vial that conveys the basal delivery rate to the drug delivery device as the drug delivery device is awakened.
Aklog teaches a method comprising wherein the order or the prescription is a prescription received at the pharmacy (see par. [0090] and [0103], the device receives a prescription of the basal delivery rate at the pharmacy), and preconfiguring the basal delivery rate comprises programming the drug delivery device through an outer packaging of the drug delivery device (see par. [0090] and [0103], the device includes an outer housing/packaging and the basal delivery rate device is directly programmed onto the device at the pharmacy) (note: only one of "programming the drug delivery device through an outer packaging of the drug delivery device" or "programming a smart box or insulin vial that conveys the basal delivery rate to the drug delivery device as the drug delivery device is awakened" is required by the claim since this limitation is written in the alternative).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Vazquez to include wherein the order or prescription is a prescription received at the pharmacy, and preconfiguring the basal delivery rate comprises programming the drug delivery device through an outer packaging of the drug delivery device, as taught by Aklog, in order to ensure the device is completed and ready for use prior to delivering it to the patient (see Aklog par. [0090], [0101], and [0103]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/13/2016 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Alderete, Jr. fails to teach modification of a basal delivery rate via a haptic interaction with a tactile input sensor as recited in claims 1 and 16. Specifically, Applicant argues that Alderete, Jr.’s teaching of “methods to adjust the basal rate utilize a dial, a knob, or other adjustment component that the physician or patient can manipulate” (see Alderete, Jr. par. [0103]) would not be considered haptic/tactile input especially since the instant Specification distinguishes knobs/dials/mechanical inputs from tactile/haptic inputs in par. [0036]. This argument is not found persuasive. The instant specification (including the aforementioned par. [0036]) does not clearly define that dials/knobs cannot be considered haptic/tactile input devices. Par. [0036] mentions each of dials, knobs, and tactile input sensors, but does not further describe what a tactile input sensor is and especially does not limit that “tactile input sensors” cannot include dials or knobs. The broadest reasonable interpretation of “haptic interaction of the user with a tactile input sensor” in light of the specification would include any element which the user can physical touch/mechanically interact with to achieve the claimed function. Alderete, Jr.’s par. [0103] recites that the dial/knob can be manipulated by the user to adjust the basal delivery rate as recited in claims 1 and 16.
Applicant further argues that Vazquez’s dial or knob interaction is also not haptic/tactile interaction for the same reasons described regarding Alderete, Jr. Applicant’s arguments are not found to be persuasive for the same reasons described above regarding Alderete, Jr. and the interpretation of haptic/tactile interaction. Vazquez, in par. [0094], teaches “methods to adjust the basal rate utilize a dial, a knob, or other adjustment component that the physician or patient can manipulate” which is the same teaching as in par. [0103] of Alderete, Jr. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that Vazquez teaches this limitation as recited in claim 8.
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 AVERY SMALE whose telephone number is (571)270-7172. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8-4 ET.
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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/AVERY SMALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KAMI A BOSWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783