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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
Status of the Claims
Receipt of Applicant’s response, filed 28 Nov 2025 has been entered.
Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
Claims 1-3 are amended.
Claims 7-15 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claims 1-6 are under consideration to the extent of the elected species, i.e., that the polymer is polyurethanes.
Objections Withdrawn
Objections to the Claims
The claim objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 30 May 2025 are hereby withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments of the claims.
Rejections Withdrawn
Double Patenting
The double patenting rejection set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 30 May 2025 is hereby withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments in favor of the rejection below.
Rejections Maintained
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.
The rejection below is maintained as previously presented and updated to address the new limitation regarding the particle size.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 6,506,156, published 14 Jan 2003, listed on the IDS filed 26 Aug 2021) in view of Vriezema et al. (US 2015/0351721, published 10 Dec 2015).
Jones teaches medical devices coated with an echogenic material comprising an electrically insulative base layer and an echogenic layer (abstract, col 2 lines 7-10). The echogenic layer comprises a polymeric matrix that includes glass microsphere particles (col 2 lines 17-20). Jones teaches that the presence of the particles improves the ultrasound reflective properties of the echogenic layer and that a hard material such as small glass particles are especially well suited for enhancing ultrasonic images and specifically glass particles in the form of microspheres and that the size can vary and each microsphere typically has diameters ranging from about 10 μm to 100 μm (col 4 lines 29-42). The “glass particles in the form of microspheres” renders obvious the “spherical” and “glass” limitations of claims 5 and 6.
Additionally, it is further noted that Jones teaches that the echogenic layer contains microspheres from about 10% to about 50% by volume of the echogenic layer and that the thickness of the layer is from 20 μm to 200 μm (col 4 line 39 - col 4 line 53). The diameters ranging from about 10 μm to 100 μm and the volume percent and layer thickness renders obvious the microspheres of claims 1-3 with the specified size and surface density as recited in the tables of claims 1-3. For example, an echogenic layer that is 200 μm thick and covers a 1mm x 1mm area has a volume of 2x108 μm3
1000
μ
m
x
1000
μ
m
x
200
μ
m
=
2
x
10
8
μ
m
3
.
Half of this volume (50% as taught by Jones) would be 1x108 μm3. A microsphere with a 100 μm diameter has a volume of 5.23599 x 105 μm3
4
3
π
r
3
=
4
3
π
50
3
μ
m
3
=
5.23599
x
10
5
μ
m
3
. Therefore, based on the teachings of Jones, approximately 190 microspheres with a diameter of 100 μm would be in a 1 mm x 1mm area 200 μm thick
1
x
10
8
μ
m
3
5.23599
x
10
5
μ
m
3
m
i
c
r
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
=
190.99
m
i
c
r
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
s
, providing a surface density of approximately 190 microparticles/mm2. The examiner notes that a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges and prior art ranges do not overlap but are close enough that one skilled in the art would have expected them to have the same properties. In the instant case, the microparticle diameter of Jones ranging up to 100 microns with the volume and thickness properties results in surface densities in the range of the surface densities of the instant claims and the particle size taught by Jones (about 10-100 microns) is expected to have the same echogenic properties as the claimed particle with diameter greater than 100 microns. The size range taught by Jones is on the edge of the claimed size range and there is nothing to indicate that extending the range taught by Jones slightly would have a different echogenic effect.
Jones teaches that the polymeric matrix comprises a matrix material that can be the same as that which forms the electrically insulative layer (col 4 lines 24-26) and that the electrically insulative material may be epoxies or thermoplastics such as polyester, polyolefin, polyethylene, polyamide and fluoropolymers (col 4 lines 4-7). Jones teaches that thermoplastic or thermosetting materials such as polyurethane have been used previously to mix with sonically reflective particles (col 1 lines 45-52).
Jones does not teach that the microparticles are solid. This deficiency is made up for in the teachings of Vriezema.
Vriezema teaches medical devices with coating for ultrasound detection (abstract). Virezma teaches that the coating comprises microparticles (claim 1) and a matrix material such as polyurethane (claim 9). Vriezema teaches that the microparticles may be glass echogenic microspheres that are solid microparticles ([0046]). Vriezema teaches examples where solid glass microspheres were combined with a polyurethane coating matrix ([0091], [0101]). Vriezema teaches that the diameters and the densities of the echogenic particles are adjusted in order to obtain an ultrasound image with improved visibility ([0012]). Vriezema teaches a preferred diameter between 22 and 45 μm and teaches that it is possible to use a mixture of particles with a higher proportion of particles with a diameter size between a more narrow sub-range such as at least 60% of the microparticles between 22 and 27 μm ([0014]). Vriezema teaches that with this particle size a density between 150 and 450 particles/mm2 provides an optimal visibility of the medical device ([0014]). Vriezema teaches other preferred distributions for the range of particle size such as at least 95% of the microparticles with a diameter between 22 and 27 μm ([0015]) which is a narrow range of only 5 μm.
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed an echogenic material for medical devices comprising solid glass microspheres and polyurethane where the microspheres are about 10 μm to 100 μm in diameter and about 10% to about 50% by volume of the echogenic layer and that the thickness of the layer is from 20 μm to 200 μm. As described above, these parameters render obvious the particle size and surface density limitations of the instant claims. The echogenic layer comprising polyurethane and glass microspheres for medical devices is obvious over the teachings of Jones. Similar echogenic materials are known that comprise echogenic glass microspheres combined with polyurethane coatings for use with medical devices and where the microspheres are solid, as taught by Vriezema. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use solid glass microspheres as Vriezema teaches similar compositions (i.e. echogenic glass microspheres with polyurethane coatings for medical devices) where the microspheres are solid, therefore providing a reasonable expectation of success in using solid microspheres as part of the echogenic material of Jones.
Regarding the limitation of claim 1 that the echogenic coating composition is “for a medical device to be inserted into a body at depths greater than 5 cm” this limitation is understood as an intended use of the claimed echogenic coating. See MPEP 2111.02. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). In the instant case, the claimed echogenic coating with a polymer matrix of polyurethane and solid glass microspheres with sizes and densities that render obvious the limitations of the instant claims is obvious over the teachings of Jones and Vriezema.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 Nov 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that the present claims are limited to particles bigger than and not including 100 microns as is taught by Jones. Data was provided in the remarks to indicate that max contrast increased with high particle sizes.
The examiner is not persuaded by these remarks. First, the amended claims limit the scope of the diameter to greater than 100 micrometers. Jones teaches about 10-100 microns and the limitation of the claimed size to greater than 100 microns is not understood provide a significant difference from what would be expected at 100 microns. Greater than 100 microns allows for sizes extremely close to 100 microns, for example 100.1 microns (or even closer), and there is nothing to indicate that this cutoff is significant and not arbitrary. As noted in the rejection above, obviousness exists when the prior art and the claimed ranges are close enough to expect the same properties. There is no indication that there would be an expectation of different properties by extending the size from 100 microns to greater than 100 microns (e.g. 100.1 microns).
The applicant provided data indicating an increase in contrast as the particle size was increased but this is not convincing in overcoming the rejection. First, it is not clear where the data originated from or how it relates to the invention at hand and the examiner notes that the arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965). The objective evidence which must be factually supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration to be of probative value includes evidence of unexpected results, commercial success, solution of a long-felt need, inoperability of the prior art, invention before the date of the reference, and allegations that the author(s) of the prior art derived the disclosed subject matter from the inventor or at least one joint inventor. See, for example, In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See MPEP 2144.05(III)(A) and 716.01(c). Therefore, in the absence of an appropriate showing, comparing the claimed invention to the closest prior art to establish criticality, applicants’ arguments and alleged distinction are not found persuasive.
Further, it is not necessary for the art to teach the same benefit observed by the applicant for the claims to be obvious. The reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention). In KSR Int' l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), the Supreme Court cautioned that, "[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls. What matters is the objective reach of the claim. If the claim extends to what is obvious, it is invalid under § 103." Id. at 419. It is not necessary for the art to include the same benefit of increased contrast with particle size as determined by the applicant in order to be obvious.
New Grounds of Rejections
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.
Claims 1-6 were rejected above and are alternatively rejected below rendering the particle size as obvious.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jones et al. (US 6,506,156, published 14 Jan 2003, listed on the IDS filed 26 Aug 2021) in view of Vriezema et al. (US 2015/0351721, published 10 Dec 2015) and Vriezema et al. (US 2014/0207000, published 24 Jul 2014, referred to a Vriezema2).
Jones teaches medical devices coated with an echogenic material comprising an electrically insulative base layer and an echogenic layer (abstract, col 2 lines 7-10). The echogenic layer comprises a polymeric matrix that includes glass microsphere particles (col 2 lines 17-20). Jones teaches that the presence of the particles improves the ultrasound reflective properties of the echogenic layer and that a hard material such as small glass particles are especially well suited for enhancing ultrasonic images and specifically glass particles in the form of microspheres and that the size can vary and each microsphere typically has diameters ranging from about 10 μm to 100 μm (col 4 lines 29-42). The “glass particles in the form of microspheres” renders obvious the “spherical” and “glass” limitations of claims 5 and 6.
Additionally, it is further noted that Jones teaches that the echogenic layer contains microspheres from about 10% to about 50% by volume of the echogenic layer and that the thickness of the layer is from 20 μm to 200 μm (col 4 line 39 - col 4 line 53). Jones teaches that the polymeric matrix comprises a matrix material that can be the same as that which forms the electrically insulative layer (col 4 lines 24-26) and that the electrically insulative material may be epoxies or thermoplastics such as polyester, polyolefin, polyethylene, polyamide and fluoropolymers (col 4 lines 4-7). Jones teaches that thermoplastic or thermosetting materials such as polyurethane have been used previously to mix with sonically reflective particles (col 1 lines 45-52).
Jones does not teach that the microparticles are solid or a diameter greater than 100 microns. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Vriezema and Vriezema2.
Vriezema teaches medical devices with coating for ultrasound detection (abstract). Vriezema teaches that the coating comprises microparticles (claim 1) and a matrix material such as polyurethane (claim 9). Vriezema teaches that the microparticles may be glass echogenic microspheres that are solid microparticles ([0046]). Vriezema teaches examples where solid glass microspheres were combined with a polyurethane coating matrix ([0091], [0101]). Vriezema teaches that the diameters and the densities of the echogenic particles are adjusted in order to obtain an ultrasound image with improved visibility ([0012]). Vriezema teaches a preferred diameter between 22 and 45 μm and teaches that it is possible to use a mixture of particles with a higher proportion of particles with a diameter size between a more narrow sub-range such as at least 60% of the microparticles between 22 and 27 μm ([0014]). Vriezema teaches that with this particle size a density between 150 and 450 particles/mm2 provides an optimal visibility of the medical device ([0014]). Vriezema teaches other preferred distributions for the range of particle size such as at least 95% of the microparticles with a diameter between 22 and 27 μm ([0015]) which is a narrow range of only 5 μm.
Vriezema2 teaches a coating for ultrasound visibility (title) wherein the coating is made of a matrix material comprising a contrast agent of microparticles ([0022]). Vriezema2 teaches materials for the microparticles such as glass ([0039]) and matrix material polymers such as polyurethane ([0040-0041]). Vriezema2 teaches that at least 90% of the microparticles have a diameter of 0.5 to 500 microns ([0030]).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed an echogenic material for medical devices comprising solid glass microspheres and polyurethane where the microspheres are 0.5 μm to 500μm in diameter and about 10% to about 50% by volume of the echogenic layer and that the thickness of the layer is from 20 μm to 200 μm. It would be obvious that the diameter of the microspheres may be from 0.5 to 500 microns as this is a range of diameters suitable for echogenic coatings, as known from Vriezema2. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as this range is known for microparticles from Vriezema2 for a similar purpose of an echogenic coating, as taught by Jones, and thus merely represents a range of particles known to be suitable for such coatings. These parameters render obvious the particle size and surface density limitations of the instant claims. For example, an echogenic layer that is 200 μm thick and covers a 1mm x 1mm area has a volume of 2x108 μm3
1000
μ
m
x
1000
μ
m
x
200
μ
m
=
2
x
10
8
μ
m
3
.
Half of this volume (50% as taught by Jones) would be 1x108 μm3. A microsphere with a 101 μm diameter (1 μm larger than the range of Jones and obvious from Vriezema2) has a volume of 5.39464 x 105 μm3
4
3
π
r
3
=
4
3
π
50
3
μ
m
3
=
5.39464
x
10
5
μ
m
3
. Therefore, based on the teachings of Jones, approximately 185 microspheres with a diameter of 101 μm would be in a 1 mm x 1mm area 200 μm thick
1
x
10
8
μ
m
3
5.23599
x
10
5
μ
m
3
m
i
c
r
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
=
185.37
m
i
c
r
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
s
, providing a surface density of approximately 190 microparticles/mm2 which renders obvious the particle size and surface density relationship as recited in the instant claims.
The echogenic layer comprising polyurethane and glass microspheres for medical devices is obvious over the teachings of Jones. Similar echogenic materials are known that comprise echogenic glass microspheres combined with polyurethane coatings for use with medical devices and where the microspheres are solid, as taught by Vriezema. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to use solid glass microspheres as Vriezema teaches similar compositions (i.e. echogenic glass microspheres with polyurethane coatings for medical devices) where the microspheres are solid, therefore providing a reasonable expectation of success in using solid microspheres as part of the echogenic material of Jones.
Regarding the limitation of claim 1 that the echogenic coating composition is “for a medical device to be inserted into a body at depths greater than 5 cm” this limitation is understood as an intended use of the claimed echogenic coating. See MPEP 2111.02. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See also Rowe v. Dror, 112 F.3d 473, 478, 42 USPQ2d 1550, 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ("where a patentee defines a structurally complete invention in the claim body and uses the preamble only to state a purpose or intended use for the invention, the preamble is not a claim limitation"). In the instant case, the claimed echogenic coating with a polymer matrix of polyurethane and solid glass microspheres with sizes and densities that render obvious the limitations of the instant claims is obvious over the teachings of Jones, Vriezema and Vriezema2.
Therefore, the invention as a whole was prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, as evidenced by the references.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-6 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 4-6 of copending Application No. 17/433,309 (reference application) in view of Jones et al. (US 6,506,156, published 14 Jan 2003, listed on the IDS filed 26 Aug 2021).
Claims 1 and 4-6 of the ‘309 application recite an echogenic coating for a medical device to be inserted into a body at depths greater than 5 cm comprising a polymer matrix (e.g. polyurethanes in claim 4) and solid microparticles between at least 10 and at most 250 micrometers in size. The ‘309 application recites that the particle size, expressed as D50 is 27<D50< 53 and surface density for particles of 53 micrometers in size between 370 and 1478 microparticles/mm2. The ‘309 application recites that the particles are spherical and made of glass (claims 5 and 6).
The claims of the ‘309 application do not recite overlapping particle sizes/densities as the instant claims. These deficiencies are made up for in the teachings of Jones and Vriezema.
The teachings of Jones and Vriezema are described supra.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the claims of the ‘309 application to have particle sizes/densities that overlap with the instant ranges. Echogenic material for medical devices comprising solid glass microspheres and polyurethane where the microspheres are 10 μm to 100 μm in diameter and about 10% to about 50% by volume of the echogenic layer and that the thickness of the layer is from 20 μm to 200 μm is known from the teachings of Jones. It is thus known that such particle parameters are suitable for echogenic devices and it would be obvious to modify the ‘309 claims within the parameters taught by Jones as they are known for a similar purpose of forming echogenic devices. A particle size of 100 microns at 200 micron thickness and 50% volume results in approximately 190 particles/mm2 which overlaps with the instantly claimed density. The size of 100 microns is close to the claimed range of greater than 100 microns and is expected to have the same properties, rendering the size limitation as obvious.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 28 Nov 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant states that a terminal disclaimer will be filed if needed upon indication of allowable subject matter. The examiner notes that a request to hold a rejection in abeyance is not a proper response to a rejection. Rather, a request to hold a matter in abeyance may only be made in response to an OBJECTION or REQUIREMENTS AS TO FORM (see MPEP 37 CFR 1.111(b) and 714.02).
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN C MITCHELL whose telephone number is (571)272-7007. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00.
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, David Blanchard can be reached on (571)272-0827. 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.
/E.C.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1619 /ANNA R FALKOWITZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1600
Prosecution Insights