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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-7, 9-14, 17, and 20-23 are pending and currently under consideration for patentability.
Claims 8, 15-16, and 18-19 remain cancelled.
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-7, 9-14, 17, and 20-23 and the new claim amendments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 9/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., size and pressure restraints in addition to the problems within the cerebrospinal fluid system that the prior art “fails” to address) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claims 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). In this case “the cervical region of the spine”, “a brain ventricle” and “the lumbar region of the spine” are all considered part of a human organism.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-7, 9-14, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (US PGPUB 2008/0249501 A1) in view of McGraw (US PGPUB 2010/0228178) in view of Morrison (US 4909783 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Yamasaki teaches a system for processing cerebrospinal fluid (paragraph 0007), the system comprising:
a catheter (906) having a proximal subassembly (914) and a distal subassembly (figure 9);
a pump (946) and filtration system (948) coupled to the catheter (paragraph [0037]);
wherein an infusion lumen for infusing cerebrospinal fluid filtered by the pump and filtration system is defined along the distal subassembly (paragraph [0036-0037]);
wherein the distal subassembly defines an infusion opening in fluid communication with the infusion lumen that are configured to collectively infuse a first volume of the filtered cerebrospinal fluid into a first location in a central nervous system of a patient (paragraph [0037]); and
Yamasaki fails to teach multiple infusion openings wherein the plurality of infusion openings increase in size distally along the distal subassembly.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a catheter used for medical treatment and processing bodily fluid, McGraw teaches provision of infusion openings (125) increasing in size (figure 4 and paragraph 34) along a distal subassembly of an aspiration/infusion catheter (110) for improving an infusion flow (paragraph 10-11). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of infusion openings of Yamasaki so the openings increase in size distally along the distal subassembly similar to that disclosed by McGraw in order to improve infusion flow (paragraph 10-11) and to reduce the circulation of blood processed by the equipment (paragraph 39).
Yamasaki fails to teach wherein the proximal subassembly includes a plurality of aspiration openings.
McGraw teaches wherein the proximal subassembly includes a plurality of aspiration openings (165) (figure 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yamasaki in view of McGraw to include a plurality of aspiration openings similar to that disclosed by McGraw so that the lumen may receive fluid in a separate lumen than the plurality of infusion openings (as motivated by McGraw, paragraph 0035).
Yamasaki fails to teach wherein the plurality of aspiration openings increase in size proximally along the proximal subassembly. McGraw teaches wherein the aspiration openings (165) openings increase in size proximally along the proximal subassembly (paragraph 38)(Figure 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aspiration openings of Yamasaki in view of McGraw so that the aspiration openings increase in size proximally along the proximal subassembly similar to that disclosed by McGraw in order to improve infusion flow and prevent clotting (as motivated by McGraw paragraph 37).
Yamasaki and McGraw fail to teach wherein the proximal subassembly includes a plurality of aspiration openings that are configured to collectively receive a second volume of cerebrospinal fluid from a second location in the central nervous system of the patient, wherein the second volume of the cerebrospinal fluid is relatively equal to the first volume of the filtered cerebrospinal fluid.
Morrison teaches an invention relates to an aspiration/infusion apparatus for body cavities wherein attached plungers and attached barrels effects equal and opposite operation of the syringes, and simultaneous infusion and aspiration at precisely equal volumes (column 4, lines 47-52). The examiner would like to note that the second location as claimed could be considered within any short distance from the first. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cannula of Yamasaki in view of McGraw to include so the infusion and aspiration volumes are similar to that disclosed by Morrison so that no fluid volume is lost in the exchange of fluid (as motivated by Morrison, lines 40-45).
The combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the infusion lumen that are configured to collectively infuse a first volume of the filtered cerebrospinal fluid into a first location in a central nervous system of a patient, and wherein the proximal subassembly includes a plurality of aspiration openings that are configured to collectively receive a second volume of cerebrospinal fluid from a second location in the central nervous system of the patient. Emphasis on the locations. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this case, the locations of intended use do not differentiate from the claimed apparatus. The disclosed apparatus could easily be used in the location specified.
Regarding Claim 2, Yamasaki in view of McGraw and Morrison teaches the system of claim 1. Yamasaki further teaches wherein at least some of the plurality of infusion openings (710) have a round shape (figure 7A)
Regarding Claim 3, Yamasaki in view of McGraw and Morrison teaches the system of claim 1. Yamasaki fails to explicitly teach wherein at least some of the plurality of infusion openings have a non-circular shape. McGraw teaches wherein at least some of the plurality of infusion openings have a non-circular shape (paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of infusion openings of Yamasaki in view of McGraw to include a non-circular shape similar to that disclosed by McGraw so that blood flow can be increased (as motivated by McGraw, paragraph 0032). Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of infusion openings to have a non-circular shape since a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in from or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 4, Yamasaki in view of McGraw and Morrison teaches the system of claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein all of the plurality of infusion openings have the same shape (McGraw, figure 4 and paragraph 34). In addition, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of infusion openings so they all have the same shape, since a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in from or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1976). In addition, this would be obvious so that the flow through each opening was consistent and uniform.
Regarding Claim 5, Yamasaki in view of McGraw and Morrison teaches the system of claim 1. Yamasaki fails to teach where at least some of the plurality of infusion openings differ in shape. McGraw teaches where at least some of the plurality of infusion openings differ in shape (paragraph 0032). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of infusion openings of Yamasaki in view of McGraw to include different shapes similar to that disclosed by McGraw as it would not have any clear impact on the performance of the system. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of infusion openings so they all differ in shape, since a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in from or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 6, Yamasaki in view of McGraw and Morrison teaches the system of claim 1. The combination further teaches wherein the plurality of infusion openings include a row of axially-aligned infusion openings (McGraw, figure 4 and paragraph 34).
Regarding Claim 7, Yamasaki in view of McGraw and Morrison teaches the system of claim 1. Yamasaki fails to teach wherein at least some of the plurality of infusion openings extend circumferentially about the distal subassembly. McGraw teaches wherein at least some of the plurality of infusion openings (125) extend circumferentially about the distal subassembly (paragraph 0032). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of infusion openings of Yamasaki in view of McGraw so that the plurality of infusion openings extend circumferentially about the distal subassembly similar to that disclosed by McGraw in order to reduce likelihood of blockage of apertures (as motivated by paragraph 0032 of McGraw).
Regarding Claim 9, Yamasaki in view of McGraw and Morrison teaches the system of claim 8. Yamasaki further teaches wherein at least some of the aspiration opening (712) has a round shape (figure 7A)
Regarding Claim 10, Yamasaki in view of McGraw and Morrison teaches the system of claim 8. Yamasaki fails to teach wherein at least some of the aspiration openings have a non-circular shape. McGraw teaches wherein at least some of the aspiration openings (165) have a non-circular shape (paragraph 36). Therefore, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the inner driving sleeve to define a rectangular cross-sectional configuration including opposed narrow sides and opposed wide sides, since a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in from or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1976). The modification would provide the additional benefit of allowing a flat surface of the jaws to engage with a flat/parallel surface of the inner drive member. In the device as modified, the first post will be disposed adjacent one of the narrow sides, and the at second post will be disposed adjacent the other of the narrow sides.
Regarding Claim 11, Yamasaki in view of McGraw and Morrison teaches the system of claim 8. Yamasaki fails to teach wherein all of the aspiration openings have the same shape. McGraw teaches wherein all of the aspiration openings (165) have the same shape (figure 5). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aspiration openings of Yamasaki in view of McGraw so they all have the same shape similar to that disclosed by McGraw for ease in manufacturing of the aspiration openings.
Regarding Claim 12, Yamasaki in view of McGraw and Morrison teaches the system of claim 8. Yamasaki fails to teach where at least some of the aspiration openings differ in shape. McGraw teaches where at least some of the aspiration openings differ in shape (paragraph 0036). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aspiration openings of Yamasaki in view of McGraw to include different shapes similar to that disclosed by McGraw as it would not have any clear impact on the performance of the system. Furthermore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aspiration openings so they differ in shape, since a modification would have involved a mere change in the form or shape of a component. A change in from or shape is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Dailey, 149 USPQ47 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding Claim 13, Yamasaki in view of McGraw and Morrison teaches the system of claim 8. Yamasaki fails to teach wherein the plurality of aspiration openings include a row of axially-aligned aspiration openings. McGraw teaches wherein the plurality of aspiration openings (165) include a row of axially-aligned aspiration openings (Figure 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aspiration openings of Yamasaki in view of McGraw so that the aspiration openings include a row of axially-aligned aspiration openings similar to that disclosed by McGraw in order to allow for high flow rate (as motivated by McGraw, paragraph 0051) in order to alleviate discomfort of the patient by removing excess fluid.
Regarding Claim 14, Yamasaki in view of McGraw and Morrison teaches the system of claim 8. Yamasaki fails to teach wherein at least some of the plurality of aspiration openings extend circumferentially about the proximal subassembly. McGraw teaches wherein the plurality of aspiration openings (165) extend circumferentially about the proximal subassembly (Figure 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the aspiration openings of Yamasaki in view of McGraw so that the plurality of aspiration openings extend circumferentially about the proximal subassembly similar to that disclosed by McGraw in order to allow for high flow rate (as motivated by McGraw, paragraph 0051) in order to alleviate discomfort of the patient by removing excess fluid.
Regarding Claim 17, Yamasaki teaches a system for processing cerebrospinal fluid (paragraph 0007), the system comprising:
a catheter (906) having a proximal subassembly (914) and a distal subassembly (figure 9);
a pump (946) and filtration system (948) coupled to the catheter (paragraph [0037]);
wherein an infusion lumen for infusing cerebrospinal fluid filtered by the pump and filtration system is defined along the distal subassembly (paragraph [0036-0037]);
wherein the distal subassembly defines an infusion opening in fluid communication with the infusion lumen that are configured to collectively infuse a first volume of the filtered cerebrospinal fluid into a first location in a central nervous system of a patient (paragraph [0037]); and wherein the second volume of the cerebrospinal fluid is relatively equal to the first volume of the filtered cerebrospinal fluid (constant volume, paragraph [0007]).
Yamasaki fails to teach a plurality of infusion openings wherein the plurality of infusion openings increase in size distally along the distal subassembly wherein an aspiration lumen for aspirating cerebrospinal fluid is defined along the distal subassembly; and wherein the proximal subassembly defines a plurality of aspiration openings in fluid communication with the aspiration lumen.
In the same field of endeavor, namely a catheter used for medical treatment and processing bodily fluid, McGraw teaches provision of infusion openings (125) increasing in size (figure 4 and paragraph 34) along a distal subassembly of an aspiration/infusion catheter (110) for improving an infusion flow (paragraph 10-11) wherein an aspiration lumen (arterial lumen, 160) for aspirating cerebrospinal fluid is defined along the distal subassembly (figure 5) (paragraph 35); and wherein the proximal subassembly defines a plurality of aspiration openings (165) in fluid communication with the aspiration lumen (figure 5)(paragraph 35). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of infusion openings of Yamasaki so the openings increase in size distally along the distal subassembly the in similar to that disclosed by McGraw in order to improve infusion flow and prevent blood clotting (as motivated by McGraw paragraph 37), and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yamasaki to include an aspiration lumen and openings similar to that disclosed by McGraw in order to receive blood (as motivated by McGraw paragraph 35).
Yamasaki and McGraw fail to teach wherein the proximal subassembly includes a plurality of aspiration openings that are configured to receive a second volume of cerebrospinal fluid from the central nervous system of the patient, wherein the second volume of the cerebrospinal fluid is relatively equal to the first volume of the filtered cerebrospinal fluid.
Morrison teaches an invention relates to an aspiration/infusion apparatus for body cavities wherein attached plungers and attached barrels effects equal and opposite operation of the syringes, and simultaneous infusion and aspiration at precisely equal volumes (column 4, lines 47-52).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cannula of Yamasaki in view of McGraw to include so the infusion and aspiration volumes are similar to that disclosed by Morrison so that no fluid volume is lost in the exchange of fluid (as motivated by Morrison, lines 40-45).
The combination fails to explicitly teach wherein the infusion lumen that are configured to collectively infuse a first volume of the filtered cerebrospinal fluid into a first location in a central nervous system of a patient, and wherein the proximal subassembly includes a plurality of aspiration openings that are configured to collectively receive a second volume of cerebrospinal fluid from a second location in the central nervous system of the patient. Emphasis on the locations. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this case it would be obvious for each location to be minimally apart.
Regarding Claim 20, Yamasaki teaches a system for processing cerebrospinal fluid (paragraph 0007), the system comprising:
a catheter (906) having a proximal subassembly (914) and a distal subassembly (figure 9);
a pump (946) and filtration system (948) coupled to the catheter (paragraph [0037]);
wherein an infusion lumen for infusing cerebrospinal fluid filtered by the pump and filtration system is defined along the distal subassembly (paragraph [0036-0037]);
wherein the distal subassembly defines an infusion opening in fluid communication with the infusion lumen that are configured to collectively infuse a first volume of the filtered cerebrospinal fluid into a first location in a central nervous system of a patient (paragraph [0037]); and
Yamasaki fails to teach multiple infusion openings wherein the plurality of infusion openings increase in size distally along the distal subassembly and wherein the aspiration openings change in size along the proximal subassembly; wherein an aspiration lumen for aspirating cerebrospinal fluid is defined along the distal subassembly; and wherein the proximal subassembly defines a plurality of aspiration openings in fluid communication with the aspiration lumen. In the same field of endeavor, namely a catheter used for medical treatment and processing bodily fluid.
McGraw teaches provision of infusion openings (125) increasing in size (figure 4 and paragraph 34) along a distal subassembly of an aspiration/infusion catheter (110) and wherein the aspiration openings (165) openings increase in size proximally along the proximal subassembly (paragraph 38)(Figure 5) wherein an aspiration lumen (arterial lumen, 160) for aspirating cerebrospinal fluid is defined along the distal subassembly (figure 5) (paragraph 35); and wherein the proximal subassembly defines a plurality of aspiration openings (165) in fluid communication with the aspiration lumen (figure 5)(paragraph 35).Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the plurality of infusion openings of Yamasaki so the openings increase in size distally along the distal subassembly the in similar to that disclosed by McGraw in order to improve infusion flow and prevent blood clotting (as motivated by McGraw paragraph 37) and it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Yamasaki to include an aspiration lumen and openings similar to that disclosed by McGraw in order to receive blood (as motivated by McGraw paragraph 35).
Yamasaki and McGraw fail to teach wherein the proximal subassembly includes a plurality of aspiration openings that are configured to receive a second volume of cerebrospinal fluid from the central nervous system of the patient, wherein the second volume of the cerebrospinal fluid is relatively equal to the first volume of the filtered cerebrospinal fluid.
Morrison teaches an invention relates to an aspiration/infusion apparatus for body cavities wherein attached plungers and attached barrels effects equal and opposite operation of the syringes, and simultaneous infusion and aspiration at precisely equal volumes (column 4, lines 47-52). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cannula of Yamasaki in view of McGraw to include so the infusion and aspiration volumes are similar to that disclosed by Morrison so that no fluid volume is lost in the exchange of fluid.
Yamasaki fails to explicitly teach a subassembly, wherein the first location is the cervical region of the spine, or a brain ventricle and wherein the second location is the lumbar region of the spine. It has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). In this case, the intended use limitation of moving fluid from first to second location wherein the first location is the cervical region of the spine, or a brain ventricle and wherein the second location is the lumbar region of the spine does not provide structural limitations to the device and the prior art device appear to be able to perform the intended operation.
Claim(s) 21-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamasaki (US PGPUB 2008/0249501 A1) in view of McGraw (US PGPUB 2010/0228178) in view of Morrison (US 4909783 A) in view of Goble (US 20040030281 A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Yamasaki in view of McGraw and Morrison teaches the system of claim 1. However Yamasaki, McGraw, and Morrison fail to teach wherein the plurality of infusion openings and the plurality of aspiration openings are equal in quantity. Goble teaches an integrated infusion and aspiration system includes of a flow control system and a catheter assembly wherein the plurality of infusion openings and the plurality of aspiration openings are equal in quantity (paragraph [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infusion and aspiration openings of Yamasaki so they are equal in quantity similar to that disclosed by Goble so that the fluid flow is proportional to fluid pressure (as motivated by Goble, paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 22, Yamasaki in view of McGraw and Morrison teaches the system of claim 17. However Yamasaki, McGraw, and Morrison fail to teach wherein the plurality of infusion openings and the plurality of aspiration openings are equal in quantity. Goble teaches an integrated infusion and aspiration system includes of a flow control system and a catheter assembly wherein the plurality of infusion openings and the plurality of aspiration openings are equal in quantity (paragraph [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infusion and aspiration openings of Yamasaki so they are equal in quantity similar to that disclosed by Goble so that the fluid flow is proportional to fluid pressure (as motivated by Goble, paragraph [0034]).
Regarding Claim 23, Yamasaki in view of McGraw and Morrison teaches the system of claim 20. However Yamasaki, McGraw, and Morrison fail to teach wherein the plurality of infusion openings and the plurality of aspiration openings are equal in quantity. Goble teaches an integrated infusion and aspiration system includes of a flow control system and a catheter assembly wherein the plurality of infusion openings and the plurality of aspiration openings are equal in quantity (paragraph [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the infusion and aspiration openings of Yamasaki so they are equal in quantity similar to that disclosed by Goble so that the fluid flow is proportional to fluid pressure (as motivated by Goble, paragraph [0034]).
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 KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7291. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8:00-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached on (571)-270-5879. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571)-270-5879.
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.
/KATE ELIZABETH STRACHAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781