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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “110” has been used to designate both an image sensor and an enclosure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 16 and 17 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 16 recites the limitation "the at least one cutback" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of compact prosecution, this claim is interpreted as dependent upon Claim 13. Claim 17 is also rejected based on its dependency on Claim 16.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment filed 03/11/2026 is accepted and entered.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 13, and 16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Blott is now cited to disclose the core being soluble in a liquid, and Prausnitz is cited to disclose an enclosure and vacuum pump.
Applicant did not specifically argue the dependent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9, 11, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby (US 2011/0112502) in view of Blott et al (US 2019/0091385).
Regarding Claims 1 and 18, Kirby discloses an injection system (device 10, Figs. 1A-1B) for injecting at least one material into human keratinous materials (¶ [0010, 0054, 0063]), comprising:
at least one treatment unit (microimplant retaining layer 13, biological barrier contact layer, and sealing layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015, 0030]) defining at least one closed cavity (recesses 14, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0030] indicates the sealing layer can be present between microimplant retaining layer 13 and guide layer 17, where this layer seals the microimplant material and therefore the recesses 14 can be considered closed due to the sealing layer) and at least one microimplant (12, Figs. 1A-1B) made of said at least one material (¶ [0054]) received in said closed cavity (14, Figs. 1A-1B) of the unit (microimplant retaining layer 13 and biological barrier contact layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015]) and having a same shape as the closed cavity (14, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0025-0026, 0064]), each treatment unit (microimplant retaining layer 13, biological barrier contact layer, and sealing layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015, 0030]) comprising an upper face (sealing layer ¶ [0030]) and a lower face (biological barrier contact layer, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015]), the upper face (sealing layer ¶ [0030]) being formed by a non-removable protective cover (¶ [0030] indicates the sealing layer protects the microimplant material from degradation and contact with the guide layer 17; there is no recitation within Kirby that this sealing layer would be removed at any point during use, and ¶ [0030] indicates the sealing layer can be directly bonded to the microimplant retaining layer 13; in combination with the structure of the device 10 as a whole, it would be understood that the sealing layer is not removed but instead the micropistons push through the sealing layer when the device is actuated), each closed cavity (14, Figs. 1A-1B) having a lateral wall (side walls of recesses 14, Figs. 1A-1B) and a back wall (portion of sealing layer that covers the top of each recess 14, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0030]), the back wall (portion of sealing layer that covers the top of each recess 14, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0030]) being formed by said non-removable protective cover (sealing layer ¶ [0030]), the unit (microimplant retaining layer 13, biological barrier contact layer, and sealing layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015, 0030]) comprising a core (microimplant retaining layer 13, Figs. 1A-1B) defining at least partially the at least one closed cavity (14, Figs. 1A-1B);
an injection device (microimplant driving layer 20, Figs. 1A-1B) configured for applying a pressure on the non-removable protective cover (sealing layer ¶ [0030]) to the at least one microimplant (12, Figs. 1A-1B) to expel the latter out of the unit (microimplant retaining layer 13, biological barrier contact layer, and sealing layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015, 0030]) through the lower face (biological barrier contact layer, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015]) into the keratinous materials (11, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0066]).
Kirby is silent whether the core being soluble in a liquid, biocompatible, and bioresorbable.
Blott teaches a skin treatment device, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a biodegradable wound contact layer (¶ [0354, 0357]; a biodegradable wound contact layer would be recognized as soluble, biocompatible, and bioresorbable) to minimize trauma if the layer is retained within the skin as the layer will degrade and not cause an immune response (¶ [0354]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the core of Kirby to be soluble in a liquid, biocompatible, and bioresorbable, as taught by Blott, to minimize trauma if portions of the core are retained in the patient’s skin. Since Kirby teaches the biological barrier contact layer and the microimplant retaining layer can be made of the same materials (¶ [0014-0015, 0018]), one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have the microimplant retaining layer/core and the biological barrier contact layer of Kirby be made of the biodegradable material of Blott as this would ensure any particles from either layer that are removed from the layer by the microimplants during the injection process do not cause an adverse reaction once injected along with the microimplants into the patient’s skin.
Regarding Claim 2, Kirby further discloses the lower face (biological barrier contact layer, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015]) is configured to contact the keratinous materials (biological barrier contact layer has a surface that contacts the skin, ¶ [0014-0015]) when the at least one microimplant (12, Figs. 1A-1B) is expelled out of the unit (microimplant retaining layer 13, biological barrier contact layer, and sealing layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015, 0030]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kirby further discloses the unit (microimplant retaining layer 13, biological barrier contact layer, and sealing layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015, 0030]) defines a plurality of cavities (14, Figs. 1A-1B) with a plurality of microimplants (12, Figs. 1A-1B) that are each received in a corresponding closed cavity (14, Figs. 1A-1B) of the unit (microimplant retaining layer 13, biological barrier contact layer, and sealing layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015, 0030]), each micro-implant (12, Figs. 1A-1B) having a same shape as the corresponding closed cavity (14, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0025-0026, 0064]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kirby further discloses the unit (microimplant retaining layer 13, biological barrier contact layer, and sealing layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015, 0030]) is polymeric (¶ [0014-0015, 0018, 0030]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kirby further discloses the unit (microimplant retaining layer 13, biological barrier contact layer, and sealing layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015, 0030]) comprises at least one puncturable region (portions of biological barrier contacting layer directly under microimplants 12, ¶ [0014-0015]) through which the at least one microimplant (12, Figs. 1A-1B) is expelled (¶ [0037]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kirby further discloses the unit (microimplant retaining layer 13, biological barrier contact layer, and sealing layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015, 0030]) comprises at least one puncturable membrane (biological barrier contact layer, Figs. 1A-1B) forming the lower face (biological barrier contact layer, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015]) fixed onto the core (microimplant retaining layer 13, Figs. 1A-1B) through which the at least one microimplant (12, Figs. 1A-1B) is expelled (¶ [0037]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kirby further discloses the injection device (20, Figs. 1A-1B) comprises at least one impacting member (micropistons 21, Figs. 1A-1B) configured for contacting the non-removable protective cover (¶ [0030] indicates the sealing layer protects the microimplant material from degradation and contact with the guide layer 17; there is no recitation within Kirby that this sealing layer would be removed at any point during use, and ¶ [0030] indicates the sealing layer can be directly bonded to the microimplant retaining layer 13; in combination with the structure of the device 10 as a whole, it would be understood that the sealing layer is not removed but instead the micropistons push through the sealing layer when the device is actuated) over the at least one microimplant (12, Figs. 1A-1B) to expel it out of the unit (microimplant retaining layer 13, biological barrier contact layer, and sealing layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015, 0030]).
Regarding Claim 9, Kirby further discloses the core (13, Figs.1A-1B) comprises a squeezable core (13, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0029] indicates the core can be deformed as the microimplants are pushed).
Regarding Claim 11, Kirby further discloses a reservoir for storing a liquid, the liquid and the material of the microimplants (12, Figs. 1A-1B) being selected so that the liquid dissolves the material or react to generate another material (¶ [0052]).
Regarding Claim 15, Kirby further discloses a non-therapeutic method for treating keratinous materials (¶ [0012]), comprising injecting at least one microimplant (12, Figs. 1A-1B) into the keratinous materials using the system as defined in Claim 1, the non-removable protective (¶ [0030] indicates the sealing layer protects the microimplant material from degradation and contact with the guide layer 17; there is no recitation within Kirby that this sealing layer would be removed at any point during use, and ¶ [0030] indicates the sealing layer can be directly bonded to the microimplant retaining layer 13; in combination with the structure of the device 10 as a whole, it would be understood that the sealing layer is not removed but instead the micropistons push through the sealing layer when the device is actuated) cover remaining on the core (13, Figs. 1A-1B) when the unit is used.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby (US 2011/0112502) in view of Blott et al (US 2019/0091385) further in view of O'Dea et al (US 2010/0298808).
Regarding Claim 10, Kirby/Blott is silent whether some of the microimplants are made of a first material and some others are made of at least one second material different from the first one.
O’Dea teaches a microimplant delivery device, thus being in the same field of endeavor, where some of the microimplants are made of a first material and some others are made of at least one second material different from the first one (¶ [0108]) to allow the device to deliver more than one substance over a predefined treatment period (¶ [0108]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the microimplants of Kirby/Blott to have some of the microimplants made of a first material and some others made of at least one second material different from the first one, as taught by O’Dea, to allow the device to deliver more than one substance over a predefined treatment period (as taught by O’Dea ¶ [0108]).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby (US 2011/0112502) in view of Blott et al (US 2019/0091385) further in view of Casasanta et al (US 2016/0339220).
Regarding Claim 12, Kirby/Blott is silent whether the system comprises an image sensor and a processor for automated detection of a target zone of the keratinous material, such as a skin default, and for signaling a user when the system is properly positioned relative to the target zone prior to expelling the at least one micro-implant and/or for automated triggering of the injection of the at least one micro-implant when the system is properly positioned relative to the target zone.
Casasanta teaches a skin treatment device, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a cutaneous measurement component (108, Fig. 1) that includes an image sensor (126, Fig. 1; ¶ [0043]) and a controller (110, Fig. 1) for automated detection of a target zone of the keratinous material, such as a skin default, and for automated triggering of the delivery of the treatment material when the system is properly positioned relative to the target zone (¶ [0046-0047]). This allows the treatment material to be applied only to the areas of the skin that require the treatment material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kirby/Blott to include an image system and a processor for automated detection of a target zone of the keratinous material, such as a skin default, and for automated triggering of the delivery of the treatment material when the system is properly positioned relative to the target zone, as taught by Casasanta (¶ [0046-0047]). This would allow the user to move the unit of Kirby/Blott/Casasanta around over the keratinous material until the system determines the correct location for delivery of the micro-implants, at which time the system would automatically trigger the delivery of the micro-implants, ensuring the micro-implants are delivered to the correct location of the patient’s skin.
Claims 13, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby (US 2011/0112502) in view of Blott et al (US 2019/0091385) further in view of Kaplan et al (US 2013/0338632)
Regarding Claim 13, Kirby discloses a unit (microimplant retaining layer 13, biological barrier contact layer, and sealing layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015, 0030]) suitable for use in a system as defined in Claim 1, comprising:
a core (microimplant retaining layer 13 and sealing layer, Figs. 1A-1B, ¶ [0030) at least partially defining at least one closed cavity (recesses 14, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0030] indicates a layer can be present between microimplant retaining layer 13 and guide layer 17, where this additional layer seals the microimplant material and therefore the recesses 14 can be considered closed due to the sealing layer), the core (13 and sealing layer, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0030]) comprising an upper face (sealing layer ¶ [0030]) and a lower face (lower surface of microimplant retaining layer 13, Figs. 1A-1D), the upper face (sealing layer ¶ [0030]) being formed by a non-removable protective cover (¶ [0030] indicates the sealing layer protects the microimplant material from degradation and contact with the guide layer 17; there is no recitation within Kirby that this sealing layer would be removed at any point during use, and ¶ [0030] indicates the sealing layer can be directly bonded to the microimplant retaining layer 13; in combination with the structure of the device 10 as a whole, it would be understood that the sealing layer is not removed but instead the micropistons push through the sealing layer when the device is actuated), each closed cavity (14, Figs. 1A-1B) having a lateral wall (side walls of recesses 14, Figs. 1A-1B) and a back wall (portion of sealing layer that covers the top of each recess 14, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0030]), the back wall (portion of sealing layer that covers the top of each recess 14, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0030]) being formed by said non-removable protective cover (sealing layer ¶ [0030]),
at least one microimplant (12, Figs. 1A-1B) made of said at least one material (¶ [0054]) and received in a corresponding closed cavity (14, Figs. 1A-1B) of the core (13, Figs. 1A-1B) and having a same shape as the corresponding closed cavity (14, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0025-0026, 0064]).
Kirby is silent whether the core being soluble in a liquid.
Blott teaches a skin treatment device, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with a biodegradable wound contact layer (¶ [0354, 0357]; a biodegradable wound contact layer would be recognized as soluble due to being broken down by the water in the body) to minimize trauma if the layer is retained within the skin as the layer will degrade and not cause an immune response (¶ [0354]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the core of Kirby to be soluble in a liquid, as taught by Blott, to minimize trauma if portions of the core are retained in the patient’s skin. Since Kirby teaches the biological barrier contact layer and the microimplant retaining layer can be made of the same materials (¶ [0014-0015, 0018]), one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to have the microimplant retaining layer/core and the biological barrier contact layer of Kirby be made of the biodegradable material of Blott as this would ensure any particles from either layer that are removed from the layer by the microimplants during the injection process do not cause an adverse reaction once injected along with the microimplants into the patient’s skin.
Kirby/Blott is silent whether said at least one micro-implant comprises at least one cutback that prevents unmolding.
Kaplan teaches a highly biocompatible microneedle (abstract), thus being in the same field of endeavor, where said at least one micro-implant (microneedle 160, Fig. 1) comprises at least one cutback (serrations/barbs formed between tip 162 and base 164, Fig. 1; ¶ [0038-0042]) that prevents unmolding (one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the structure of the microneedle 160 would prevent premature unmolding, Fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the micro-implant of Kirby/Blott to comprise at least one cutback that prevents unmolding, as taught by Kaplan (Fig. 1, ¶ [0038-0042]). Since Kaplan shows that a barbed microneedle was well known in the art, one of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to change the shape of the microneedle of Kirby to be that of the microneedle of Kaplan, as one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the shape of the microneedle of Kaplan would prevent premature removal from a mold and also allow the microneedle to remain in place within tissue after applied.
Regarding Claims 16 and 17, the combination of Kirby/Blott/Kaplan discloses the claimed invention substantially as claimed as set forth above for Claim 13.
The combination of Kirby/Blott/Kaplan further discloses the micro-implant (Kaplan 160, Fig. 1) comprises an upper end (tip 162, Fig. 1), a lower end (base 164, Fig. 1) and sidewalls positioned between the upper end (162, Fig. 1) and lower end (164, Fig. 1), the at least one cutback is positioned on at least one of the sidewalls and protrudes from a portion of the sidewall such that, when in use, backpressure exerted by the tissue is resisted (as seen in Kaplan Fig. 1), and where portions of the at least one cutback are perpendicular to the lower end (164, Fig. 1) of the micro-implant (160, Fig. 1; the barbed edges of each level of the microimplant have a longitudinal extension component, and therefore can be considered to be perpendicular to the lower end of the microimplant).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kirby (US 2011/0112502) in view of Prausnitz et al (US 6743211).
Regarding Claim 19, Kirby discloses an injection system (device 10, Figs. 1A-1B) for injecting at least one material into human keratinous materials (¶ [0010, 0054, 0063]), comprising:
at least one treatment unit (microimplant retaining layer 13, biological barrier contact layer, and sealing layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015, 0030]) defining at least one closed cavity (recesses 14, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0030] indicates the sealing layer can be present between microimplant retaining layer 13 and guide layer 17, where this layer seals the microimplant material and therefore the recesses 14 can be considered closed due to the sealing layer) and at least one microimplant (12, Figs. 1A-1B) made of said at least one material (¶ [0054]) received in said closed cavity (14, Figs. 1A-1B) of the unit (microimplant retaining layer 13 and biological barrier contact layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015]) and having a same shape as the closed cavity (14, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0025-0026, 0064]), each treatment unit (microimplant retaining layer 13, biological barrier contact layer, and sealing layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015, 0030]) comprising an upper face (sealing layer ¶ [0030]) and a lower face (biological barrier contact layer, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015]), the upper face (sealing layer ¶ [0030]) being formed by a non-removable protective cover (¶ [0030] indicates the sealing layer protects the microimplant material from degradation and contact with the guide layer 17; there is no recitation within Kirby that this sealing layer would be removed at any point during use, and ¶ [0030] indicates the sealing layer can be directly bonded to the microimplant retaining layer 13; in combination with the structure of the device 10 as a whole, it would be understood that the sealing layer is not removed but instead the micropistons push through the sealing layer when the device is actuated), each closed cavity (14, Figs. 1A-1B) having a lateral wall (side walls of recesses 14, Figs. 1A-1B) and a back wall (portion of sealing layer that covers the top of each recess 14, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0030]), the back wall (portion of sealing layer that covers the top of each recess 14, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0030]) being formed by said non-removable protective cover (sealing layer ¶ [0030]);
an injection device (microimplant driving layer 20, Figs. 1A-1B) configured for applying a pressure on the non-removable protective cover (sealing layer ¶ [0030]) to the at least one microimplant (12, Figs. 1A-1B) to expel the latter out of the unit (microimplant retaining layer 13, biological barrier contact layer, and sealing layer, Figs.1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015, 0030]) through the lower face (biological barrier contact layer, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0014-0015]) into the keratinous materials (11, Figs. 1A-1B; ¶ [0066]).
Kirby is silent regarding an enclosure that has an opening that is configured for being placed on the skin, and a vacuum pump to create a vacuum in the space inside the enclosure which causes the skin to deform towards the unit.
Prausnitz teaches a microneedle device, thus being in the same field of endeavor, with an enclosure (outer cylinder 132, Fig. 13B) that has an opening (space between cylinders 132 and 134, Fig. 13B) that is configured for being placed on the skin (as seen in Fig. 13B), and a vacuum pump to create a vacuum in the space inside the enclosure (132, Fig. 13B) which causes the skin to deform towards the unit (Col. 13 lines 32-65). This helps pull the skin taut during application and improve application of the microimplants (Col. 3 lines 4-17).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Kirby to include an enclosure that has an opening that is configured for being placed on the skin, and a vacuum pump to create a vacuum in the space inside the enclosure which causes the skin to deform towards the unit, as taught by Prausnitz, to pull the skin taut during application and improve application of the microimplants (as motivated by Prausnitz Col. 3 lines 4-17).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jessica Arble whose telephone number is (571)272-0544. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9 AM - 5 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at 571-272-7159. 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.
/JESSICA ARBLE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights