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 .
Remarks
This action is in response to the amendments filed 06/18/2025.
Claims 1-17, 37, 38, 40, 45, 50, and 55-58 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, see pages 8-10, filed 06/18/2025, regarding the rejection of claims 1, 4-8, and 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and claims 2, 3, 9, 15-17, 37, 38, 40, 45, 50, and 55-58 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Independent claims 1 and 37 have been amended to include “the laser light source is configured to emit electromagnetic energy at a wavelength between 700 nanometers (nm) and 850 nm; the expandable member contains a fluid; and the fluid comprises indocyanine green (ICG).” Applicant argues that the cited references do not disclose or suggest the amended claim limitations. Examiner agrees. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made, as explained in the office action below.
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 appears to include the amended limitation twice: “the fluid contained in the expandable member has an ICG concentration that is tuned such that the wavelength corresponding to the maximum absorption coefficient for the fluid contained in the expandable member is approximately equal to the wavelength of the electromagnetic energy emitted from the laser light source”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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, 4-8, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0265942 – of record), hereinafter Grace, further in view of Beyar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0190022 – of record), hereinafter Beyar.
Regarding claim 1, Grace discloses an apparatus configured to fracture coronary calcium (e.g. Abstract), the apparatus comprising:
an expandable member (e.g. Par. [0286]: expanding balloon; Fig. 1, 2: expanded balloon 150);
a laser light source (e.g. Par. [0280]: a laser coupled to optical fibers; Fig. 2: laser apparatus 230); and
an optical fiber coupled to the laser light source (e.g. Par. [0280]: a laser coupled to optical fibers), wherein:
the expandable member is an intravascular balloon configured for radial expansion (e.g. Par. [0286]: expanding balloon; Fig. 1, 2: expanded balloon 150);
the expandable member and the optical fiber are coupled to the laser light source (e.g. Par. [0280]: a laser coupled to optical fibers; Fig. 2: laser apparatus 230);
the optical fiber comprises one or more emission regions configured to emit electromagnetic energy from the laser light source from the optical fiber (e.g. Par. [0273]: optical fibers terminate at different points of emission, which are considered to be the emission regions, “The one or more layers of optical fibers are housed in a flexible tubular catheter and terminate at different points of emission (such as, emitters), where the laser light energy is released and directed towards a desired target.”);
emission of electromagnetic energy from the one or more emission regions is configured to create fractures in the coronary calcium (e.g. Par. [0387]: disrupting calcification; Par. [0390]: energy is used to disrupt vascular obstructions such as coronary calcium, “The catheter of the present disclosure is able to create laser-induced pressure waves, which fracture or disrupt the calcium deposits 2370 in the media 2330 of the arterial wall 2300″ as shown in FIG. 23C”);
the laser light source is configured to emit electromagnetic energy at a wavelength between 700 nanometers (nm) and 850 nm (e.g. Par. [0292]: wavelength can be 250-750nm which includes wavelengths in the claimed range); and
the expandable member contains a fluid (e.g. Par. [0273]: liquid medium inflates balloon).
However, Grace fails to disclose wherein the fluid comprises indocyanine green (ICG). Beyar is directed towards a delivery system. Beyar discloses wherein the fluid comprises indocyanine green (ICG) in order to increase energy absorption (e.g. Par. [0220]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid of Grace to be indocyanine green (ICG) as taught by Beyar, because doing so would increase energy absorption (e.g. Beyar, par. [0220]).
Regarding claim 4, Grace further discloses wherein: the optical fiber is a first optical fiber, the apparatus further comprises a plurality of optical fibers, and each optical fiber of the plurality of optical fibers comprises one or more emission regions configured to emit electromagnetic energy in a radial pattern from each optical fiber (e.g. Par. [0280]: one or more optical fibers coupled to a laser; Par. [0334]: light is emitted in a radial pattern).
Regarding claim 5, Grace further discloses wherein the expandable member is a balloon (e.g. Par. [0286]: expanding balloon; Fig. 1, 2: expanded balloon 150).
Regarding claim 6, Grace further discloses wherein the expandable member is configured to be expanded via a fluid contained within the expandable member (e.g. Par. [0273]: liquid medium inflates balloon).
Regarding claim 7, Grace further discloses a first port configured to deliver the fluid to the expandable member (e.g. Par. [0275]: liquid medium is delivered to the balloon “the liquid medium 160 is delivered into the balloon 150 via one or more liquid medium ports 170”).
Regarding claim 8, Grace further discloses a second port configured to drain the fluid from the expandable member (e.g. Par. [0276]: “Liquid medium 160 can be removed from the balloon 150 through a separate set of liquid medium ports that act as liquid medium exit ports”).
Regarding claim 11, Grace further discloses wherein the fluid is a saline fluid (e.g. Par. [0091]: the liquid medium can be saline).
Regarding claim 12, Grace further discloses wherein the optical fiber is configured to emit the electromagnetic energy in a radial pattern (e.g. Par. [0334]: light is emitted in a radial pattern).
Regarding claim 13, Grace further discloses wherein the electromagnetic energy is emitted at a wavelength of approximately 2 µm (e.g. Par. [0021]: light emitted from 1nm – 1mm, which is between 0.001 µm – 1000 µm).
Regarding claim 14, Grace further discloses wherein the electromagnetic energy is emitted at a wavelength between 1.5 µm and 2.5 µm (e.g. Par. [0021]: light emitted from 1nm – 1mm, which is between 0.001 µm – 1000 µm).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0265942 – of record), hereinafter Grace, further in view of Beyar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0190022 – of record), hereinafter Beyar, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eggert et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0304053 – of record), hereinafter Eggert.
Regarding claim 2, Grace further discloses wherein: the expandable member comprises a fluid (e.g. Par. [0273]: liquid medium inflates balloon); and the emission of electromagnetic energy from the emission regions is configured to create fractures in the coronary calcium by generating pressure waves in the fluid (e.g. Par. [0387]: disrupting calcification; Par. [0390]: energy is used to disrupt vascular obstructions such as coronary calcium, “The catheter of the present disclosure is able to create laser-induced pressure waves, which fracture or disrupt the calcium deposits 2370 in the media 2330 of the arterial wall 2300″ as shown in FIG. 23C”). However, Grace fails to specifically disclose generating ultrasonic waves in the fluid. Eggert, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards lithotripsy angioplasty devices. Eggert discloses generating ultrasonic waves to break up calcified lesions (e.g. Par. [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Grace in view of Beyar to include generating ultrasonic waves as taught by Eggert, because doing so would result in breaking up calcified lesions in the body.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0265942 – of record), hereinafter Grace, further in view of Beyar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0190022 – of record), hereinafter Beyar, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harschack et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2011/0282330 – of record), hereinafter Harschack.
Regarding claim 3, Grace fails to disclose wherein the one or more emission regions are configured as conical reliefs in the optical fiber. Harschack is directed towards a laser ablation device. Harschack discloses an optical fiber with conical emission regions (e.g. Par. [0038]: two radiation zones shaped as a cone).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Grace in view of Beyar to include an optical fiber with conical emission regions as taught by Harschack, because doing so would transmit the radiation to the patient.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0265942 – of record), hereinafter Grace, further in view of Beyar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0190022 – of record), hereinafter Beyar, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Schultheis et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0267685 – of record), hereinafter Schultheis.
Regarding claim 9, Grace fails to specifically disclose wherein the second port is further configured to evacuate vapor bubbles from the expandable member. Schultheis is directed towards a fluid recirculation device for an intravascular device. Schultheis discloses a second port further configured to evacuate vapor bubbles from the expandable member (e.g. Par. [0028]: the fluid recirculation system can be used to remove the bubbles; Par. [0068]: the fluid circulator is connected to the fluid outflow port).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Grace in view of Beyar to include a second port further configured to evacuate vapor bubbles from the expandable member as taught by Schultheis, because doing so would remove any unwanted bubbled from the fluid.
Claims 10, 56, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0265942 – of record), hereinafter Grace, further in view of Beyar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0190022 – of record), hereinafter Beyar, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Cook et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0186613), hereinafter Cook.
Regarding claims 10 and 57, Grace further discloses the fluid contained in the expandable member absorbs radiation emitted by the laser light source (e.g. Par. [0274]: the liquid medium is configured to absorb the light energy and generate pressure waves). However, Grace fails to specifically disclose the fluid contained in the expandable member has a concentration that is tuned such that the wavelength corresponding to the maximum absorption coefficient for the fluid contained in the expandable member is approximately equal to the wavelength of the electromagnetic energy emitted from the laser light source. Cook, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards a catheter system for treating vascular lesions. Cook discloses the fluid having an absorptive agent having a concentration that is tuned such that the wavelength corresponding to the maximum absorption coefficient for the fluid contained in the expandable member is approximately equal to the wavelength of the electromagnetic energy emitted from the laser light source (e.g. Par. [0071]: the agent can have an absorption maximum matched to the emission maximum of the laser).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Grace in view of Beyar to include the fluid containing an absorption matching the maximum absorption of the laser as taught by Cook, because doing so would result in the liquid medium absorbing all of the laser/light energy.
Regarding claim 56, Grace fails to disclose wherein a wavelength corresponding to the maximum absorption coefficient for the fluid contained in the expandable member is approximately equal to the wavelength of the electromagnetic energy emitted from the laser light source. Cook, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards a catheter system for treating vascular lesions. Cook discloses the fluid having an absorptive agent having a concentration that is tuned such that the wavelength corresponding to the maximum absorption coefficient for the fluid contained in the expandable member is approximately equal to the wavelength of the electromagnetic energy emitted from the laser light source (e.g. Par. [0071]: the agent can have an absorption maximum matched to the emission maximum of the laser).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Grace in view of Beyar to include the fluid containing an absorption matching the maximum absorption of the laser as taught by Cook, because doing so would result in the liquid medium absorbing all of the laser/light energy.
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0265942 – of record), hereinafter Grace, further in view of Beyar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0190022 – of record), hereinafter Beyar, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0093543 – of record), hereinafter Takahashi.
Regarding claim 15, Grace fails to disclose an intravascular imaging device. Takahashi is directed towards a route selection assistance system. Takahashi discloses an intravascular imaging device (e.g. Par. [0151]: the imaging can be through IVUS or OCT).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Grace in view of Beyar to include the imaging device as taught by Takahashi, because doing so would result in obtaining intravascular images for diagnosis or for providing guidance to the catheter.
Regarding claim 16, Grace fails to disclose wherein the intravascular imaging device is an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) device. Takahashi is directed towards a route selection assistance system. Takahashi discloses an intravascular imaging device, wherein the intravascular imaging device is an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) device (e.g. Par. [0151]: the imaging can be through IVUS or OCT).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Grace in view of Beyar and Takahashi to include the imaging device being an IVUS device as taught by Takahashi, because doing so would result in obtaining intravascular images for diagnosis or for providing guidance to the catheter.
Regarding claim 17, Grace fails to disclose an intravascular imaging device, wherein the intravascular imaging device is an optical coherence tomography imagine (OCT) device. Takahashi is directed towards a route selection assistance system. Takahashi discloses an intravascular imaging device, wherein the intravascular imaging device is an optical coherence tomography imagine (OCT) device (e.g. Par. [0151]: the imaging can be through IVUS or OCT).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Grace in view of Beyar and Takahashi to include the imaging device being an OCT device as taught by Takahashi, because doing so would result in obtaining intravascular images for diagnosis or for providing guidance to the catheter.
Claims 37, 40, and 57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0265942 – of record), hereinafter Grace, further in view of Takahashi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0093543 – of record), hereinafter Takahashi, and further in view of Beyar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0190022 – of record), hereinafter Beyar.
Regarding claim 37, Grace discloses an apparatus configured to fracture coronary calcium (e.g. Abstract), the apparatus comprising:
an expandable member (e.g. Par. [0286]: expanding balloon; Fig. 1, 2: expanded balloon 150);
a laser light source (e.g. Par. [0280]: a laser coupled to optical fibers; Fig. 2: laser apparatus 230); and
an optical fiber coupled to the laser light source (e.g. Par. [0280]: a laser coupled to optical fibers), wherein:
the expandable member is an intravascular balloon configured for radial expansion (e.g. Par. [0286]: expanding balloon; Fig. 1, 2: expanded balloon 150);
the expandable member and the optical fiber are coupled to the laser light source (e.g. Par. [0280]: a laser coupled to optical fibers; Fig. 2: laser apparatus 230);
the optical fiber comprises a proximal end and a distal end (e.g. Par. [0280]: optical fibers extending from a proximal to a distal end, wherein the proximal end is connected to a laser source and the distal end transmits the energy);
the optical fiber is configured to emit electromagnetic energy from the laser light source from the distal end of the optical fiber (e.g. Par. [0280]: optical fibers extending from a proximal to a distal end, wherein the proximal end is connected to a laser source and the distal end transmits the energy);
the laser light source is configured to emit electromagnetic energy at a wavelength between 700 nanometers (nm) and 850 nm (e.g. Par. [0292]: wavelength can be 250-750nm which includes wavelengths in the claimed range); and
the expandable member contains a fluid (e.g. Par. [0273]: liquid medium inflates balloon).
However, Grace fails to disclose an intravascular imaging device and wherein the fluid comprises indocyanine green (ICG). Takahashi is directed towards a route selection assistance system. Takahashi discloses an intravascular imaging device (e.g. Par. [0151]: the imaging can be through IVUS or OCT).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Grace to include the imaging device as taught by Takahashi, because doing so would result in obtaining intravascular images for diagnosis or for providing guidance to the catheter.
However, Grace in view of Takahashi fails to disclose wherein the fluid comprises indocyanine green (ICG). Beyar is directed towards a delivery system. Beyar discloses wherein the fluid comprises indocyanine green (ICG) in order to increase energy absorption (e.g. Par. [0220]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the fluid of Grace in view of Takahashi to be indocyanine green (ICG) as taught by Beyar, because doing so would increase energy absorption (e.g. Beyar, par. [0220]).
Regarding claim 40, Grace further discloses wherein the expandable member is configured to be expanded via a fluid contained within the expandable member (e.g. Par. [0273]: liquid medium inflates balloon).
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0265942 – of record), hereinafter Grace, further in view of Takahashi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0093543 – of record), hereinafter Takahashi, and further in view of Beyar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0190022 – of record), hereinafter Beyar, as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Eggert et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2018/0304053 – of record), hereinafter Eggert.
Regarding claim 38, Grace further discloses wherein: the expandable member comprises a fluid (e.g. Par. [0273]: liquid medium inflates balloon); and the emission of electromagnetic energy from the emission regions is configured to create fractures in the coronary calcium by generating pressure waves in the fluid (e.g. Par. [0387]: disrupting calcification; Par. [0390]: energy is used to disrupt vascular obstructions such as coronary calcium, “The catheter of the present disclosure is able to create laser-induced pressure waves, which fracture or disrupt the calcium deposits 2370 in the media 2330 of the arterial wall 2300″ as shown in FIG. 23C”). However, Grace fails to specifically disclose generating ultrasonic waves in the fluid. Eggert, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards lithotripsy angioplasty devices. Eggert discloses generating ultrasonic waves to break up calcified lesions (e.g. Par. [0050]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Grace in view of Beyar and Takashi to include generating ultrasonic waves as taught by Eggert, because doing so would result in breaking up calcified lesions in the body.
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0265942 – of record), hereinafter Grace, further in view of Takahashi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0093543 – of record), hereinafter Takahashi, and further in view of Beyar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0190022 – of record), hereinafter Beyar, as applied to claim 40 above, and further in view of Cook et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0186613), hereinafter Cook.
Regarding claim 45, Grace fails to disclose wherein a wavelength corresponding to the maximum absorption coefficient for the fluid contained in the expandable member is approximately equal to the wavelength of the electromagnetic energy emitted from the laser light source. Cook, in a similar field of endeavor, is directed towards a catheter system for treating vascular lesions. Cook discloses the fluid having an absorptive agent having a concentration that is tuned such that the wavelength corresponding to the maximum absorption coefficient for the fluid contained in the expandable member is approximately equal to the wavelength of the electromagnetic energy emitted from the laser light source (e.g. Par. [0071]: the agent can have an absorption maximum matched to the emission maximum of the laser).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Grace in view of Takahashi and Beyar to include the fluid containing an absorption matching the maximum absorption of the laser as taught by Cook, because doing so would result in the liquid medium absorbing all of the laser/light energy.
Claims 50 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0265942 – of record), hereinafter Grace, further in view of Takahashi et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2020/0093543 – of record), hereinafter Takahashi, and further in view of Beyar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0190022 – of record), hereinafter Beyar, as applied to claim 37 above, and further in view of Masotti et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0231886 – of record), hereinafter Masotti.
Regarding claim 50, Grace fails to disclose wherein the laser light source is a diode laser. Masotti is directed towards an optical fiber device. Masotti discloses wherein the laser light source is a diode laser (e.g. Par. [0033]: laser diode sources; Fig. 8: laser diode sources 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Grace in view of Takahashi and Beyar to include the laser being a diode laser as taught by Masotti, because doing so would provide the therapy light.
Regarding claim 58, Grace further discloses wherein the laser is configured to emit electromagnetic energy at an emission wavelength, and the fluid has an absorption coefficient at the emission wavelength (e.g. P Par. [0021]: light emitted from 1nm – 1mm; Par. [0274]: the liquid medium is configured to absorb the light energy and generate pressure waves).
However, Grace fails to specifically disclose wherein the laser light source is a diode laser. Masotti is directed towards an optical fiber device. Masotti discloses wherein the laser light source is a diode laser (e.g. Par. [0033]: laser diode sources; Fig. 8: laser diode sources 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Grace in view of Takahashi and Beyar to include the laser being a diode laser as taught by Masotti, because doing so would provide the therapy light.
Claim 55 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grace et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2017/0265942 – of record), hereinafter Grace, further in view of Beyar et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2006/0190022 – of record), hereinafter Beyar, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masotti et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2021/0231886 – of record), hereinafter Masotti.
Regarding claim 55, Grace fails to disclose wherein the laser light source is a diode laser. Masotti is directed towards an optical fiber device. Masotti discloses wherein the laser light source is a diode laser (e.g. Par. [0033]: laser diode sources; Fig. 8: laser diode sources 5).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Grace and Beyar to include the laser being a diode laser as taught by Masotti, because doing so would provide the therapy light.
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 SHREYA P ANJARIA whose telephone number is (571)272-9083. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00 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, Jennifer McDonald can be reached at 571-270-3061. 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.
/SHREYA ANJARIA/Examiner, Art Unit 3796
/ALLEN PORTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3796