DETAILED ACTION
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 1-4 and 7-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0177603 (Dewey) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0004595 (Dubois), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2010/0137990 (Apatisidis), U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2011/0190904 (Lechmann), and U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0105172 (Sournac).
Regarding claim 1, Dewey discloses an in-situ fusion system (see Abstract), comprising: at least one robotic arm (112); a bioprinter (110/220.sup.1, see paragraph [0164]); a polymerization tool (110/220.sup2., see paragraph [0173]); at least one processor (processor of controller 1050, see paragraph [0203]); and a memory (memory of controller 1050, see paragraph [0203]) storing instructions for execution by the at least one processor that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to: cause the bioprinter to print, from a bioink, at least a portion of a scaffold between the at least two bone surfaces (see paragraphs [0030], [0162]-[0165], [0216] and Fig. 2); and apply one or more of an enzyme and energy to cause the polymerization tool to induce at least a portion of the bioink to polymerize (see paragraphs [0030], [0130], [0133]-[0139], [0155], [0156], [0166]-[0168], [0173], [0216], and [0242] and Fig. 3).
Further regarding claim 1 and regarding claim 3, Dewey suggests preparing adjacent vertebral bone surfaces (120, 122) to support cellular growth via roughening the tissue (see paragraph [0233]), but fails to disclose the controller storing instructions for execution by the processor to cause the robotic arm to perform this task (claim 1). However, DuBois discloses a vertebral fusion procedure in which a robotic arm (end effector) can be used to prepare adjacent vertebral bone surfaces to support bone fusion (see paragraphs [0056] and [0262]). Additionally, regarding claim 3, Dubois suggests wherein controlling the at least one robotic arm to prepare the at least two bone surfaces to support cellular growth comprises controlling the at least one robotic arm to: clean the at least two bone surfaces (see paragraph [0262]; removing the intradiscal tissue and endplate cartilage); and apply a surface treatment to each of the at least two bone surfaces (see paragraph [0262]; scraping the underlying bone to cause bleeding). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Dewey to have the robotic arm of Dewey be programmed to prepare the vertebral bone surfaces in order to simplify the system by using the robotic arm to perform the preparing step of a vertebral fusion procedure so that no additional tools are needed and no manual work is needed.
Further regarding claim 1 and regarding claim 2, Dewey discloses the system further comprising an impregnation tool (bone-growth-promoting material injector; see paragraphs [0122] and [0127], e.g.); Dewey also suggests using a robotic arm to position tools of the system for forming the implant in situ (see paragraph [0145]). Dewey fails to explicitly disclose the impregnation tool being a cellular impregnation tool that impregnates with one or more cellular elements (claims 1 and 2). However, Apatisidis discloses impregnating an intervertebral implant substrate with osteoblast cells to promote bone growth (see paragraph [0098] and claim 25). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Dewey to have the memory store additional instructions for execution by the at least one processor to cause the robotic arm to position the impregnation tool to impregnate the at least the portion of the scaffold with one or more cellular elements (i.e., osteoblasts), as Dewey suggests using a robotic arm to form an implant in situ that is impregnated with bone growth promoting materials, and Apatisidis suggests using osteoblast cells as bone growth promoting materials in intervertebral implants.
Further regarding claim 1, Dewey fails to disclose the system memory storing instructions for execution by the at least one processor that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to remove non-polymerized bioink from between the at least two bone surfaces. However, Lechmann discloses a system for fabricating multimaterial bone-stabilizing implants in a layer-wise fashion (see Abstract), wherein the system includes using a tool to remove non-polymerized material while forming the layers (see paragraphs [0010], [0042], [0051], [0058], [0059], [0068], [0069], [0078]-[0080], [0091], [0092], and [0157]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Dewey to include a memory and processor that allows for the removal of non-polymerized bioink from between the at least two bone surfaces as suggested by Lechmann in order to keep the created scaffold clean of unwanted debris (see Lechmann, paragraphs [0010], [0042], [0051], [0058], [0059], [0068], [0069], [0078]-[0080], [0091], [0092], and [0157]).
Further regarding claim 1, Dewey fails to disclose the system memory storing instructions for execution by the at least one processor that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to remove non-polymerized bioink from between the at least two bone surfaces. However, Lechmann discloses a system for fabricating multimaterial bone-stabilizing implants in a layer-wise fashion (see Abstract), wherein the system includes using a tool to remove non-polymerized material while forming the layers (see paragraphs [0010], [0042], [0051], [0058], [0059], [0068], [0069], [0078]-[0080], [0091], [0092], and [0157]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Dewey to include a memory and processor that allows for the removal of non-polymerized bioink from between the at least two bone surfaces as suggested by Lechmann in order to keep the created scaffold clean of unwanted debris (see Lechmann, paragraphs [0010], [0042], [0051], [0058], [0059], [0068], [0069], [0078]-[0080], [0091], [0092], and [0157]).
Further regarding claim 1, Dewey fails to disclose at least a portion of the scaffold is printed on an anterior ligament between the at least two bone surfaces. However, Sournac discloses an intervertebral implant may bear against an anterior ligament when positioned between two bone surfaces (see paragraph [0074]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system such that a first layer of the scaffold is programmed to be printed on an anterior ligament in order to allow for formation of the implant in situ in an anterior position such that the implant bears against the anterior ligament.
Regarding claim 4, Dewey discloses wherein the memory stores additional instructions for execution by the at least one processor that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to: repeat causing the bioprinter to print at least a portion of the scaffold and causing the polymerization tool to induce the at least a portion of the bioink to polymerize until the scaffold extends from one of the at least two bone surfaces to another of the at least two bone surfaces (see Figs. 57-64 and paragraphs [0375], [0376]; see also Fig. 23 and paragraph [0253]).
Regarding claim 7, Dewey wherein the memory stores additional instructions for execution by the at least one processor that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to: insert an expandable cage between the at least two bone surfaces to hold the at least two bone surfaces in a desired position (see paragraphs [0003], [0029], [0369] [0374], and [0386]).
Regarding claim 8, Dewey discloses wherein the causing the bioprinter to print at least the portion of the scaffold between the at least two bone surfaces and the causing the polymerization tool to induce the at least the portion of the bioink to polymerize occur simultaneously (see paragraphs [0182] and [0235]-[0252], e.g.).
Regarding claim 9, Dewey discloses wherein each of the bioprinter and the polymerization tool is selectively attachable to the at least one robotic arm (see paragraphs [0137] and [0156], e.g.).
Regarding claim 10, Dewey discloses wherein the at least one robotic arm comprises a single robotic arm (112), and further wherein the single robotic arm is used to position the bioprinter for printing the at least the portion of the scaffold and to position the polymerization tool for inducing the at least the portion of the bioink to polymerize (see paragraphs [0145], [0149], [0162]-[0168], and [0195], e.g.).
Regarding claim 11, Dewey discloses a robotic surgical system (see Abstract), comprising: a robotic arm (112) selectively connectable (see paragraphs [0137] and [0156], e.g.) to a printing tool (110/220.sup.1, see paragraph [0164]); a polymerization tool (110/220.sup2., see paragraph [0173]); and at least one processor (processor of controller 1050, see paragraph [0203]); and a memory (memory of controller 1050, see paragraph [0203]) storing instructions for execution by the at least one processor that, when executed, cause the at least one processor to: cause the robotic arm to use the printing tool to print, from a bioink, at least a portion of a scaffold inside the patient (see paragraphs [0030], [0162]-[0165], [0216] and Fig. 2); cause the robotic arm to apply an enzyme and energy to cause the polymerization tool to induce at least a portion of the bioink to polymerize (see paragraphs [0030], [0130], [0133]-[0139], [0155], [0156], [0166]-[0168], [0173], [0216], and [0242] and Fig. 3).
Further regarding claim 11, Dewey suggests preparing an anatomical surface (adjacent vertebral bone surfaces 120, 122) inside a patient for bone growth thereon via roughening the tissue (see paragraph [0233]), but fails to disclose the controller storing instructions for execution by the processor to cause the robotic arm to use a preparation tool to perform this preparation task (claim 11). However, DuBois discloses a vertebral fusion procedure in which a robotic arm (end effector) uses a preparation tool (4.1/4.2/4.7) to prepare adjacent vertebral bone surfaces to support bone fusion (see paragraphs [0056] and [0262]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Dewey to have the robotic arm of Dewey be programmed to prepare the vertebral bone surfaces using a preparation tool in order to simplify the system by using the robotic arm to perform the preparing step of a vertebral fusion procedure so that no manual work is needed.
Further regarding claim 11, Dewey discloses further comprising an impregnation tool (bone-growth-promoting material injector; see paragraphs [0122] and [0127], e.g.); Dewey also suggests using a robotic arm to position tools of the system for forming the implant in situ (see paragraph [0145]). Dewey fails to explicitly disclose the impregnation tool being a cellular impregnation tool that impregnates the at least the portion of the scaffold with bone tissue cells (claim 11). However, Apatisidis discloses impregnating an intervertebral implant substrate with osteoblast cells to promote bone growth (see paragraph [0098] and claim 25). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Dewey to have the memory store additional instructions for execution by the at least one processor to cause the robotic arm to use the impregnation tool to impregnate the scaffold with bone tissue cells (i.e., osteoblasts), as Dewey suggests using a robotic arm to form an implant in situ that is impregnated with bone growth promoting materials, and Apatisidis suggests using osteoblast cells as bone growth promoting materials in intervertebral implants.
Further regarding claim 11, Dewey fails to disclose the system memory storing instructions for execution by the at least one processor that, when executed, causes the at least one processor to cause the robotic arm to remove non-polymerized bioink. However, Lechmann discloses a system for fabricating multimaterial bone-stabilizing implants in a layer-wise fashion (see Abstract), wherein the system includes using a tool to remove non-polymerized material while forming the layers (see paragraphs [0010], [0042], [0051], [0058], [0059], [0068], [0069], [0078]-[0080], [0091], [0092], and [0157]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of Dewey to include a memory and processor that allows for the removal of non-polymerized bioink by a tool controlled by a robotic arm as suggested by Lechmann in order to keep the created scaffold clean of unwanted debris (see Lechmann, paragraphs [0010], [0042], [0051], [0058], [0059], [0068], [0069], [0078]-[0080], [0091], [0092], and [0157]).
Further regarding claim 11, Dewey fails to disclose at least a portion of the scaffold is printed on an anterior ligament inside the patient. However, Sournac discloses an intervertebral implant may bear against an anterior ligament when positioned inside a patient (see paragraph [0074]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system such that a first layer of the scaffold is programmed to be printed on an anterior ligament in order to allow for formation of the implant in situ in an anterior position such that the implant bears against the anterior ligament.
Regarding claim 12, Dubois suggests wherein preparing the anatomical surface comprises causing the robotic arm to use the preparation tool to create a plurality of holes in the anatomical surface (see paragraph [0262]; scraping the bone surface to create holes out of which blood comes out), and it would be obvious to cause the robotic arm to use the preparation tool to create these holes in order to facilitate fusion of the implant to the vertebral surfaces (see Dubois, paragraph [0262]).
Regarding claim 13, Dewey discloses wherein the scaffold is printed one layer at a time (see paragraphs [0182] and [0235]-[0252], e.g.). Additionally, it would be obvious to also do cellular impregnation one layer at a time in order to allow for building of the implant layer-by-layer while also allowing each layer to encourage bone ingrowth of the implant to facilitate fusion of the implant between the adjacent vertebrae.
Regarding claim 14, Dewey discloses wherein the anatomical surface is a vertebral endplate (120/122); and the scaffold, when finished, connects the vertebral endplate with an opposite vertebral endplate (see Figs. 57-64 and paragraphs [0375], [0376]; see also Fig. 23 and paragraph [0253]). Dewey fails to disclose a first layer of the scaffold is printed on an anterior ligament. However, Sournac discloses an intervertebral implant may bear against an anterior ligament when positioned between two vertebral endplate (see paragraph [0074]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system such that a first layer of the scaffold is programmed to be printed on an anterior ligament in order to allow for formation of the implant in situ in an anterior position such that the implant bears against the anterior ligament.
Regarding claim 15, Dewey discloses wherein impregnating the at least the portion of the scaffold with bone tissue cells comprises filling a volume defined by the scaffold with bone tissue cells (see paragraphs [0122] and [0127], e.g.; bone growth promoting material modified to be bone tissue cells as described in claim 11 above).
Regarding claim 16, Dewey discloses further comprising an imaging device (1092), and wherein the memory stores additional instructions for execution by the at least one processor that, when executed, further cause the at least one processor to: cause the imaging device to capture an image of the anatomical surface after the anatomical surface has been prepared for bone growth thereon (see paragraphs [0203], [0207], [0221], [0363]).
Regarding claim 17, Dewey discloses an in-situ fusion method (see Abstract), comprising: printing at least a portion of a scaffold structure between the two vertebral endplates (120/122) using a polymerizable bioink (see paragraphs [0030], [0162]-[0165], [0216] and Fig. 2); and controlling a polymerization tool (110/220.sup2., see paragraph [0173] to apply an enzyme and energy to induce polymerization of the at least a portion of the bioink (see paragraphs [0030], [0130], [0133]-[0139], [0155], [0156], [0166]-[0168], [0173], [0216], and [0242] and Fig. 3), wherein a 3D printer (110/220.sup.1, see paragraph [0164]) and the polymerization tool are operably connected to a robotic arm (112) (see paragraphs [0030], [0130], [0162]-[0168], [0173], [0216] and Figs. 2 and 3).
Further regarding claim 17 and regarding claim 18, Dewey discloses further comprising impregnating the at least the portion of the scaffold (bone-growth-promoting material injector; see paragraph [0122] and [0127], e.g.), but fails to disclose the impregnation being with one or more cellular elements (claim 17), wherein the cellular elements comprise bone growth tissue (claim 18). However, Apatisidis discloses impregnating an intervertebral implant substrate with bone growth tissue (osteoblast cells) to promote bone growth (see paragraph [0098] and claim 25). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Dewey to impregnate the scaffold structure with one or more cellular elements comprising bone growth tissue as Dewey suggests impregnating the scaffold structure with bone growth promoting materials, and Apatisidis suggests using osteoblast cells as bone growth promoting materials in intervertebral implants.
Further regarding claim 17 and regarding claims 19 and 20, Dewey suggests preparing adjacent vertebral bone surfaces (120, 122) to support cellular growth via roughening the tissue (see paragraph [0233]), but fails to disclose controlling the robotic arm operably connected to an endplate preparation tool to perform this task (claim 19). However, DuBois discloses a vertebral fusion procedure in which a robotic arm (end effector) uses a preparation tool (4.1/4.2/4.7) to prepare adjacent vertebral bone surfaces to support bone fusion (see paragraphs [0056] and [0262]). Additionally, regarding claim 20, Dubois suggests wherein controlling the robotic arm to prepare each of the two vertebral endplates for bone growth thereon comprises controlling the at least one robotic arm to clean each of the two vertebral endplates (see paragraph [0262]; removing the intradiscal tissue and endplate cartilage) inside a patient and to apply a surface treatment to each of the two vertebral endplates (see paragraph [0262]; scraping the underlying bone to cause bleeding). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Dewey to have the robotic arm of Dewey control an endplate preparation tool to prepare two vertebral endplates inside a patient in order to simplify the method by using the robotic arm to perform the preparing step of a vertebral fusion procedure so that no manual work is needed to perform the fusion procedure.
Further regarding claim 17, Dewey fails to disclose removing non-polymerized bioink. However, Lechmann discloses a method for fabricating multimaterial bone-stabilizing implants in a layer-wise fashion (see Abstract), wherein the method includes removing non-polymerized material while forming the layers (see paragraphs [0010], [0042], [0051], [0058], [0059], [0068], [0069], [0078]-[0080], [0091], [0092], and [0157]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Dewey to include removing non-polymerized bioink as suggested by Lechmann in order to keep the created scaffold clean of unwanted debris (see Lechmann, paragraphs [0010], [0042], [0051], [0058], [0059], [0068], [0069], [0078]-[0080], [0091], [0092], and [0157]).
Further regarding claim 17, Dewey fails to disclose at least a portion of the scaffold structure is printed on an anterior ligament between the two vertebral endplates. However, Sournac discloses an intervertebral implant may bear against an anterior ligament when positioned between two vertebral endplates (see paragraph [0074]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system such that a first layer of the scaffold is programmed to be printed on an anterior ligament in order to allow for formation of the implant in situ in an anterior position such that the implant bears against the anterior ligament.
Regarding claim 21, Dewey discloses the method further comprising impregnating at least a portion of the scaffold with bone-growth-promoting material (bone-growth-promoting material injector; see paragraphs [0122] and [0127], e.g.); Dewey also suggests using a robotic arm to position tools of the system for forming the implant in situ (see paragraph [0145]). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Dewey to use the robotic arm to perform the impregnating step in order to simplify the method by using the robotic arm to perform the impregnating step so that no manual work is needed to perform the fusion procedure.
Regarding claim 22, Dewey suggests preparing adjacent vertebral bone surfaces (120, 122) to support cellular growth via roughening the tissue (see paragraph [0233]), but fails to disclose controlling the robotic arm operably connected to an endplate preparation tool to perform this task. However, DuBois discloses a vertebral fusion procedure in which a robotic arm (end effector) uses a preparation tool (4.1/4.2/4.7) to prepare adjacent vertebral bone surfaces to support bone fusion (see paragraphs [0056] and [0262]). Additionally, Dubois suggests wherein controlling the robotic arm to prepare each of the two vertebral endplates for bone growth thereon comprises controlling the at least one robotic arm to clean each of the two vertebral endplates (see paragraph [0262]; removing the intradiscal tissue and endplate cartilage) inside a patient and to apply a surface treatment to each of the two vertebral endplates (see paragraph [0262]; scraping the underlying bone to cause bleeding). It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the method of Dewey to have the robotic arm of Dewey control an endplate preparation tool to prepare two vertebral endplates inside a patient in order to simplify the method by using the robotic arm to perform the preparing step of a vertebral fusion procedure so that no manual work is needed to perform the fusion procedure.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-4 and 7-22 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that Dewey does not disclose using a bioink as specified in the claims. Applicant argues Dewey discloses laying down a layer of power that is “a rigid thermoplastic”. The examiner disagrees. As stated in paragraph [0164] of Dewey, Dewey’s first material 220 (which corresponds to the claimed bioink) can be in multiple forms, such as liquid, semi-liquid, slurry, powder, or another form. Additionally, as stated in paragraph [0087] of the present application, a bioink is any ink usable by a 3D printer that utilizes natural and/or synthetic materials and is biocompatible, which the first material 220 of Dewey satisfies.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that Dewey does not disclose impregnating at least a portion of the scaffold with one or more cellular elements, or removing non-polymerized bioink. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Lechmann is relied on for suggesting removing non-polymerized bioink and Apatisidis is relied on for suggesting that the impregnation tool of Dewey use one or more cellular elements.
Applicant argues on page 8 of the Remarks that none of the cited prior art references discloses or suggests printing a portion of a scaffold on an anterior ligament as claimed. Applicant argues on page 11 of the Remarks that Sournac fails to disclose, teach, or suggest printing, from a bioink, at least a portion of a scaffold on an anterior ligament between at least two bone surfaces as claimed. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Dewey is relied on for teaching printing a portion of a scaffold of an intervertebral implant in an intervertebral space, and Sournac is relied for suggesting that an intervertebral implant placed in an anterior position of an intervertebral space contacts an anterior ligament. Thus, the combination of Dewey and Sournac suggests printing at least a portion of a scaffold on an anterior ligament.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the Remarks that Dubois does not disclose or suggest using a bioink, removing non-polymerized bioink, impregnating at least a portion of the scaffold with one or more cellular elements, or printing a portion of a scaffold on an anterior ligament. Applicant argues on page 10 of the Remarks that Lechmann does not teach or suggest using a scaffold, using a bioink, impregnating a scaffold, or printing a portion of a scaffold on an anterior ligament. Applicant argues on pages 10-11 of the Remarks that Sournac does not teach or suggest printing, polymerizing, removing non-polymerized material, and impregnating a scaffold. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Dubois, Lechmann, and Sournac are only relied on for teaching specific features as described in detail in the rejections above, and their failure to teach other limitations in the claims not relied upon by the examiner is irrelevant.
Applicant argues on pages 9-10 of the Remarks that the structural material of Apatisidis is not equivalent to the claimed scaffold because the structural material is inserted into a patient as a slurry and is not printed between at least two bone surfaces. In the rejections above, Apatisidis is relied on for suggesting impregnating an intervertebral implant substrate with osteoblast cells to promote bone growth (see paragraph [0098] and claim 25), while Dewey is relied on for disclosing the claimed scaffold and impregnating the scaffold with bone-growth-promoting material. Applicant does not explain why Apatisidis’s suggestion to use osteoblast cells as a bone-growth-promoting material in Dewey would render the implant of Dewey unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, or change the principle of operation of the implant of Dewey, or otherwise fail in impregnating the scaffold with bone-growth-promoting material. Applicant does not explain why osteoblast cells would fail in acting as a bone-growth-promoting material in the scaffold of Dewey.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated any 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 NICHOLAS J PLIONIS whose telephone number is (571)270-3027. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. EST.
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, Eduardo Robert, can be reached on 571-272-4719. 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.
/NICHOLAS J PLIONIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3773
Prosecution Insights