DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed February 3, 2026 in response to the Office Action of November 3, 2025 has been acknowledged and entered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claims 1-3: Claim limitation “a hydrophobic vent element…surrounding the body, …contacts an outer edge of the notch of the body, …contacts a proximal end of the septum” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “hydrophobic vent element” coupled with functional language “surrounding” and “contacts” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claims 1-3: “a hydrophobic vent element” refer to the specification PG Pub US 20220225913 A1, [0045] In some embodiments, the hydrophobic vent element 66 may include a ring and may surround the body 52. In some embodiments, the hydrophobic vent element 66 may include a membrane. In some embodiments, the hydrophobic vent element 66 may be configured to pass air. In some embodiments, the hydrophobic vent element 66 may absorb fluid and/or prevent fluid from passing through the hydrophobic vent element 66.
Claim 4: Claim limitation “a catch feature” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 sixth paragraph, because it uses a generic placeholder “a catch feature” coupled with functional language “configured to pull” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Claim 4: “a catch feature” refers to the specification PG Pub US 20220225913 A1, [0046] In some embodiments, the body 52 may include a catch feature 70 configured to pull the septum 68 in response to removal of the needle adapter 38 from the Y-adapter 40. In some embodiments, the catch feature 70 may include a groove or an annular groove.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedospial (US 5653698) (previously cited) in view of Steube (CA 2639654), Brown (US 20050245868) (previously cited) and Jonkman (US 5151087).
Regarding claim 1, Niedospial teaches a needle adapter, (Fig. 13) comprising: a body (hub 20) comprising a distal end (injection site 72) configured for insertion into a catheter assembly, (Col. 13, lines 31-35) and a proximal end configured to couple to a blood collection device (Fig. 12, cylindrical body 44);
a needle (18) extending through the body and comprising a distal tip (distal tip of 18) and a proximal tip (12) (See Fig. 8), wherein the distal tip extends distal to the distal end of the body (See Fig. 13, distal end of the needle cannula 18 is shown as being flush with the distal end of the blunt cannula 16), wherein the proximal tip extends proximal to the proximal end of the body (Fig. 13);
a sheath (sleeve 22) coupled to the body and extending over the proximal tip; (See Fig. 13)
and a septum (84) coupled to the distal end of the body, with the needle extending through the septum such that the distal tip of the needle is distal to the septum and the proximal tip of the needle is proximal to the septum, and with the needle (18) providing a blood flow path through the septum (Col. 14, lines 20-25);
However, Niedospial does not specifically teach “with the sheath comprising a rubber or elastomeric sheath that is pierceable by the proximal tip of the needle”, “a hydrophobic vent element surrounding a portion of the body, the hydrophobic vent element configured to pass air therethrough and to absorb fluid or prevent fluid from passing therethrough”, a septum “distal to the hydrophobic vent element” and “wherein the body further comprises a collar disposed between the distal end of the body and the proximal end of the body and configured to couple the distal end of the body to the catheter assembly.”
Steube, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a needle assembly (Fig. 2) comprising a sheath (130) comprising a rubber or elastomeric sheath that is pierceable by the proximal tip of the needle. (Paragraph [0018]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the needle adapter device of Niedospial to provide “the sheath comprising a rubber or elastomeric sheath that is pierceable by the proximal tip of the needle” as taught by Steube. Doing so allows the blood collected to flow into the blood container.
Brown, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a blood drawing device (Figs. 1, 4) comprising a hydrophobic vent element (160) surrounding a portion (i.e., rear) of the body (100), a septum (sleeve 150) distal to the hydrophobic vent element (See Fig. 1), and wherein the body further comprises a collar (Fig. 2, annular ring 104) disposed between the distal end of the body and the proximal end of the body with the hydrophobic vent element (160) and distal tip of the needle (130, 132) protruding out distally past the collar. (See Fig. 2). (Paragraphs [0025], [0028]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the needle adapter device of Niedospial to provide “a hydrophobic vent element surrounding a portion of the body”, a septum “distal to the hydrophobic vent element” and “wherein the body further comprises a collar disposed between the distal end of the body and the proximal end of the body with the hydrophobic vent element, septum, and distal tip of the needle protruding out distally past the collar” as taught by Brown, so as to enable insertion thereof into the catheter assembly. Doing so provides a seal against the rear cannula that is sufficient to prevent blood from escaping past the venting member. (Paragraph [0028]).
Jonkman, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a cannula assembly (Figs. 2-3) comprising a collar (fitting 40) configured to couple the distal end of the body to the catheter assembly (20).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the needle adapter device of Niedospial to provide wherein the body further comprises a collar “configured to couple the distal end of the body to the catheter assembly.” Doing so connects the adapter to the catheter such that blood may be drawn and collected.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedospial in view of Steube, Brown and Jonkman, further in view of Zhang (CN 104740710) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Niedospial as modified teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except wherein “the needle comprises a notch, wherein the body comprises a notch aligned with the notch of the needle, wherein the hydrophobic vent element contacts an outer edge of the notch of the body.”
Zhang, in a related field of endeavor, teaches wherein the needle comprises a notch (44), wherein the body comprises a notch (Fig. 5, inwardly inclined portion 112) aligned with the notch (44) of the needle (40) (Fig. 2).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the needle adapter of Niedospial as modified to provide wherein “the needle comprises a notch, wherein the body comprises a notch aligned with the notch of the needle” of Zhang and modified the hydrophobic vent element of Conway such that it contacts “an outer edge of the notch of the body” of Zhang. Doing so provides a guide for the needle.
Claims 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Niedospial in view of Steube, Brown and Jonkman, further in view of Cluff (WO 2008058134) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 3, Niedospial as modified teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the hydrophobic vent element contacts a proximal end of the septum and a stepped surface in the body”.
Cluff, in a related field of endeavor, teaches (Figures 2A, 15A) a vascular access device comprising a hydrophobic vent element wherein the hydrophobic vent element (vent plug 58 with hydrophobic portion 60) contacts a proximal end of the septum (30) and a stepped surface in the body (112). (Paragraph [0071]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the needle adapter of Niedospial as modified to provide “wherein the hydrophobic vent element contacts a proximal end of the septum and a stepped surface in the body” of Cluff. Doing so provides a plug that is capable of being closed when the septum 30 is actuated. (Paragraph [0060]).
Regarding claim 7, Niedospial as modified teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein an outer diameter of the hydrophobic vent element is greater than a maximum outer diameter of the septum”.
Cluff illustrates (Figure 6A) wherein an outer diameter of the hydrophobic vent element (vent plug 58 with hydrophobic portion 60) element is greater than a maximum outer diameter of the septum (30).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the needle adapter of Niedospial as modified to provide “wherein an outer diameter of the hydrophobic vent element is greater than a maximum outer diameter of the septum” of Cluff. Doing so prevents the vent element from escaping the septum.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedospial in view of Steube, Brown and Jonkman, further in view of Regittinig (WO 2009049823) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 4, Knutsson as modified teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except wherein the body comprises “a catch feature configured to pull the septum”.
Regittinig, in a related field of endeavor, teaches a catheter (Figure 16B) wherein the body (support structure 1600) comprises a catch feature (female luer lock 1601) configured to pull the septum (1643). (Page 44, lines 24-26; Page 45, lines 1-5 the septum 1643 can be pressed into the conic inner bore of the female Luer lock connector 1601 in a fluid sealed manner).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the body of Niedospial as modified to provide “a catch feature configured to pull the septum” of Regittinig. Doing so provides a connection to the septum which enables it to be pulled.
Regarding claim 5, Niedospial as modified teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except wherein the body further comprises “a collar disposed between the distal end of the body and the proximal end of the body, the collar configured to couple the distal end of the body to the catheter assembly”.
Regittinig teaches (Figure 16A) wherein the body (1600) further comprises a collar (luer closure ring 1662) disposed between the distal end of the body and the proximal end of the body. (Page 44, lines 29-30; Page 45, line 1), the collar (1662) configured to couple the distal end of the body (1600) to the catheter assembly. (See Fig. 16B).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the body of Niedospial as modified to provide “a collar disposed between the distal end of the body and the proximal end of the body” of Regittinig. Doing so provides a connection between the proximal and distal ends of the body.
Regarding claim 6, Niedospial as modified teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein the collar comprises threading”.
Regittinig teaches (Figure 16A) wherein the collar (1662) comprises threading (threads of the Luer locking ring 1662). (Page 45, lines 5-8).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the body of Niedospial as modified to provide “wherein the collar comprises threading” of Regittinig. Doing so provides a connection between the proximal and distal ends of the body.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedospial in view of Brown, further in view of Ribelin (SG 10202006530P A) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Niedospial as modified teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except “a guidewire extending through the needle”.
Ribelin, in a related field of endeavor, teaches (Figure 43) a guidewire (22) extending through the needle (16). (Paragraph [000187]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the needle adapter of Niedospial as modified to provide “a guidewire extending through the needle” of Ribelin. Doing so may be used to blunt the needle distal tip during insertion of the needle. (Paragraph [000187]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Niedospial in view of Brown and Ribelin, further in view of Marsman (EP 3530309 A1) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Niedospial as modified teaches all of the elements of the claimed invention except “wherein a distal end of the guidewire comprises a groove spaced apart from a distal tip of the guidewire, wherein the guidewire is configured to rotate”.
Ribelin teaches (Figure 42) wherein a distal end of the guidewire comprises a groove (notch 1112) spaced apart from a distal tip of the guidewire (22). (Paragraph [000188]).
However, Ribelin does not teach “wherein the guidewire is configured to rotate”.
Marsman, in a related field of endeavor, teaches wherein the guidewire is configured to rotate. (Paragraph [0009]).
As a result, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the needle adapter of Knutsson as modified to provide “wherein a distal end of the guidewire comprises a groove spaced apart from a distal tip of the guidewire” of Ribelin and “wherein the guidewire is configured to rotate” of Marsman. Doing so facilitates steering the guidewire to a predetermined location inside the patient. (Paragraphs [0008]-[0009]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see “Remarks”, filed 2/3/2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4 and 6-9 have been fully considered. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made under 103 for claims 1-4 and 6-9. In the new ground of rejection, Steube and Jonkman are relied upon for the amended feature.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-21 are allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, Niedospial teaches a needle adapter, (Fig. 13) comprising: a body (hub 20) comprising a distal end (injection site 72) configured for insertion into a catheter assembly, (Col. 13, lines 31-35) and a proximal end configured to couple to a blood collection device (Fig. 12, cylindrical body 44);
a needle (18) extending through the body and comprising a distal tip (18) and a proximal tip (12) (See Fig.8), wherein the distal tip extends distal to the distal end of the body (See Fig. 13, distal end of the needle cannula 18 can be flush with the distal end of the blunt cannula 16), wherein the proximal tip extends proximal to the proximal end of the body (Fig. 13);
a sheath (sleeve 22) coupled to the body and extending over the proximal tip; (See Fig. 13)
and a septum (84) coupled to the distal end of the body, with the needle extending through the septum such that the distal tip of the needle is distal to the septum and the proximal tip of the needle is proximal to the septum, and with the needle (18) providing a blood flow path through the septum (Col. 14, lines 20-25);
However, Niedospial does not specifically teach “with an outer surface of the body include a radial groove formed therein”, “a hydrophobic vent element surrounding a portion of the body”, and “a Y-adapter comprising a first proximal port, a second proximal port, and a distal port, wherein the distal end of the body of the needle adapter is inserted into to the first proximal port, and wherein the septum is aligned with the second proximal port, wherein an air vent pathway extends proximally along an outer edge of the septum, through the hydrophobic vent element, between an outer surface of the body and an inner surface of the first proximal port, and out the first proximal port, wherein the septum includes a distal end and a proximal end, with the distal end of the septum having a larger diameter than the proximal end of the septum, and with the proximal end of the septum spaced apart from an inner surface of the Y-adapter to form a clearance, and wherein an air vent pathway extends proximally along an outer edge of the septum through the clearance, through the hydrophobic vent element, between the outer surface of the body and an inner surface of the first proximal port, through the radial groove, and out the first proximal port.
Lopez (US 6572592), as previously discussed, teaches a blood collection device (Fig. 2, spike element 24) with an outer surface of the body include a radial groove (30) formed therein; a hydrophobic vent element (collar 80, locking element 82) surrounding a portion of the body (See Fig. 3).
Lopez (US 4782841), as previously discussed, teaches a hydrophobic vent element (collar 80, locking element 82) surrounding a portion of the body.
Burkholz (WO 2008058132) (previously cited) teaches (Figure 12) a Y-adapter (18) comprising a first proximal port (24), a second proximal port (30), and a distal port citation (See annotated Fig. 12 below, distal end portion of Y-adapter 18), wherein the distal end of the body of the needle adapter is inserted into the first proximal port (24), and wherein the septum (36) is aligned with the second proximal port. (Paragraph [0064]; see annotated Fig. 12 below) wherein the septum (36) includes a distal end and a proximal end (See Fig. 4), with the distal end of the septum having a larger diameter than the proximal end of the septum (See Fig. 4).
[AltContent: textbox (Distal port)][AltContent: arrow]
Burkholz further teaches an embodiment (Figures 29-30) wherein an air vent pathway (140) extends proximally along an outer edge of the septum (138), through the hydrophobic vent element (plug 132), between the outer surface of the body (Fig. 29, body of Y-adapter 18) and an inner surface of the first proximal port (24), and out the first proximal port (24). (Fig. 30 depicts air vent pathway 140 extending between an outer surface of the body 18. When combined with annotated Fig. 29 below, the embodiment further depicts air vent pathway 140 extending between an outer surface of the body 18 and an inner surface of the first proximal port 24, and out the first proximal port 24).
[AltContent: textbox (First proximal port (24))]
PNG
media_image3.png
260
350
media_image3.png
Greyscale
[AltContent: arrow]
However, Burkholz does not explicitly teach “with the proximal end of the septum spaced apart from an inner surface of the Y-adapter to form a clearance, and wherein an air vent pathway extends proximally along an outer edge of the septum through the clearance, through the hydrophobic vent element, between the outer surface of the body and an inner surface of the first proximal port, through the radial groove, and out the first proximal port.”
Claims 11-15 are allowable by virtue of their dependence from claim 10.
Regarding claim 16, Niedospial teaches a blood draw assembly comprising a needle adapter (Fig. 13) comprising a body (hub 20) comprising a distal end (72) configured for insertion into a catheter assembly (Col. 13, lines 31-35), and a proximal end configured to couple to a blood collection device (Fig. 12, cylindrical body 44); a needle (18) extending through the body and comprising a distal tip (18), a proximal tip (12), wherein the distal tip extends distal to the distal end of the body, wherein the proximal tip extends proximal to the proximal end of the body (Fig. 13); a sheath (22) coupled to the body and extending over the proximal tip (Fig. 13);
However, Niedospial does not specifically teach “a notch disposed between the distal tip and the proximal tip” and “a hydrophobic vent element disposed within an outer wall of the body, with the hydrophobic vent longitudinally aligned with the notch within the body, so as to be in fluid communication with the notch.
Harris (AU 2011255491) (previously cited), in a related field of endeavor, teaches an integrated vascular delivery system comprising a notch (Figure 56A, notch 322) disposed between the distal tip and the proximal tip and a hydrophobic vent element (Figure 57, vent chamber 270, vent cap 272) aligned with the notch (322) within the body, so as to be in fluid communication with the notch (322).
However, Harris does not specifically teach a hydrophobic vent element “disposed within an outer wall of the body”, with the hydrophobic vent “longitudinally aligned” with the notch within the body, so as to be in fluid communication with the notch.
Claims 17-21 are allowable by virtue of their dependence from claim 16.
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.
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 Om A. Patel whose telephone number is (571)272-6331. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m..
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 Robertson can be reached on (571) 272-5001. 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.
/OM PATEL/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
/JENNIFER ROBERTSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights