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
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 02/17/2026. As directed by the amendment: claim 1 has been amended, no claims have been cancelled, and no new claims have been added. Thus, claims 1-9, 11-12, and 14-17 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-9, 11-12, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “a constant luminal wall thickness of 0.013-0.025mm” is new matter. The disclosure does not have support for the luminal wall thickness of the inner liner being constant. The specification discloses in para. 0045 that the inner layer (20) has a luminal wall thickness of 0.013 mm – 0.025 mm, and further discloses in para. 0047 that the inner layer (20) is manufactured by heating an extruded PTFE tube and then enlarging its inner diameter over a core mandrel. The specification nor drawings provide support for an inner liner having uniform, non-varying, or constant luminal wall thickness, and the disclosure of the range of wall thicknesses does not limit the inner liner from having regions of varying wall thickness or tapering within the disclosed range. Further, the manufacturing process of the inner liner would still be consistent with manufacturing variable thickness tubing and is not limited to constant thickness tubing. Given that there is no support in the disclosure for “a constant luminal wall thickness”, it is new matter.
Regarding claims 2-9, 11-12, and 14-17, these claims are rejected due to their dependency upon a rejected base claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 6, 8-9, 11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalgaonkar et al. (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20190366036 A1, “Jalgaonkar”) in view of Chludzinski et al. (U.S Patent No. 6837890 B1, “Chludzinksi”) in view of Stern et al. (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20180250498 A1, “Stern”).
Regarding claim 1, Jalgaonkar discloses the limitations of (Claim 1) a catheter shaft (22 in Fig. 2) for delivering and deploying a medical device (see para. 0069), the catheter shaft (22) comprising: an ultra-thin inner catheter layer (28) with a smooth luminal surface (surface of 24, see Fig. 2 and para. 0074 and 0076- inner liner 28 defines inner lumen 24 which has a constant cross-sectional dimension e.g. diameter and inner liner 28 is formed from a non-etched PTFE which is understood to have a smooth surface), a first coil middle layer (36, see Fig. 2 and para. 0078), a second braid middle layer (38, see Fig. 2 and para. 0078), and an outer jacket layer (32, see Fig. 2 and para. 0085); wherein the first coil middle layer (36) is placed over the ultra-thin inner catheter layer (28, see Fig. 2 and 5 and para. 0108 and 0110), the second braid middle layer (38) is placed over the first coil middle layer (36, see Fig. 2 and 5 and para. 0108), and the outer jacket layer (32) is placed over the second braid middle layer (38, see Fig. 2 and 5 and para. 0112); wherein the outer jacket layer (32) is melted through the first coil middle layer (36) and the second braid middle layer (38) and bound with the ultra-thin inner catheter layer (28, see Fig. 5 and para. 0112 – outer jacket 32 may extend through apertures defined in second support structure 38 and between coils of first support structure 36 to contact and bond to inner liner 28 using thermal bonding); wherein the outer jacket layer (32) is made of a plurality of materials with a soft durometer material forming a distal portion (46) of the outer jacket layer (32, see Fig. 2 and para. 0097 – tip jacket 46 is formed from a lower durometer material than the proximal portion of outer jacket 32), and a hard durometer material forming a proximal portion of the outer jacket layer (32, see para. 0097 – the remaining proximal portion of outer jacket 32 has a higher durometer material than tip jacket 46).
However, Jalgaonkar fails to disclose the limitations (Claim 1) wherein the ultra-thin inner catheter layer has an inner luminal diameter of 1.73 -1.83 mm and a constant luminal wall thickness of 0.013 – 0.025 mm; wherein the first coil middle layer is a made of at least one flat wire with a width to thickness ratio of at least 2:1; a medium durometer material forming a middle portion of the outer jacket layer.
Chludzinski discloses an intraluminal guide catheter (10 in Fig. 1-2) for use in intravascular procedures (see Abstract), wherein the catheter (10 in Fig. 2) comprises an ultra-thin inner catheter layer (30 in Fig. 2), a braided reinforcing layer (34 in Fig. 2), and a polymeric outer jacket (32 in Fig. 2, see Col.4, lines 20-29). Chludzinski teaches (Claim 1) wherein the ultra-thin inner catheter layer (30) has an inner luminal diameter of 1.73 -1.83 mm and a constant luminal wall thickness of 0.013 – 0.025 mm (see Col.7, lines 42-53 – the catheter and thus the inner catheter layer 30 has an inner diameter of about 0.06 -0.09 inches [1.524-2.286mm] and an inner layer 30 has a constant wall thickness of about 0.0002-0.006 inches [0.00508-0.1524mm] both ranges which have values that overlap with the claimed ranges).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inner catheter layer taught by Jalgaonkar to have the claimed inner luminal diameter and luminal wall thickness as taught by Chludzinski as Chludzinski teaches these dimensions provide a thinner inner liner which maximizes the inner luminal diameter of the catheter while also permitting reduction of the outer transverse dimensions to ease passage of the catheter through narrow, tortuous blood vessels (see Col.2, lines 26-50).
Stern discloses a steerable catheter (10) having a layered construction yielding a relatively thin wall for navigating various tissue sites including vasculature (see para. 0061), wherein the layered construction of the catheter (10) comprises an ultra-thin inner catheter layer (18), a first coil middle layer (20), a second braid middle layer (20), and an outer jacket layer (22, see para. 0068 and 0084 – support structure 20 may include an inner coil layer and a braid layer thereover). Stern teaches (Claim 1) wherein the first coil middle layer (20 in Fig. 2) is a made of at least one flat wire with a width to thickness ratio of at least 2:1 (see para. 0083-0084 – support element 20 may comprise an inner wire coil with a wire braid positioned thereover, the inner wire coil may comprise one or more coil structures with coils made from a flat wire with dimensions 0.001 x 0.002 inches [thickness x width] indicating a 2:1 ratio as claimed); a medium durometer material forming a middle portion (22B-22H) of the outer jacket layer (22 in Fig. 2 and para. 0090-0093 – intermediate outer jacket portions 22B-22H may have durometer values that are in between the harder durometer proximal section 22A and softer durometer distal section 22I).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified:
the first coil middle layer as taught by modified Jalgaonkar to have at least one flat wire with a width to thickness ratio of at least 2:1 as taught by Stern as Stern teaches a finite number of identified, predictable potential coil structures using round wire or flat wire for providing a coil structure support element for kink resistance and hoop strength (see para. 0083-0084), and one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success;
the middle portion of the outer jacket layer as taught by modified Jalgaonkar to have a medium durometer material as taught by Stern as Stern teaches the outer jacket having a hardness gradient decreasing towards the distal end to provide increased flexibility at the distal portion for navigating tortuous vasculature (see para. 0055 and 0090).
Regarding claim 6, modified Jalgaonkar discloses the catheter shaft of claim 1, as discussed above. In modified Jalgaonkar, Jalgaonkar discloses (Claim 6) wherein the first coil middle layer (36) covers at least 30% area of an exterior luminal surface (exterior surface of 28) of the ultra-thin inner catheter layer (28, examiner is interpreting this limitation as the coil layer covers lengthwise at least 30% of the area of the exterior luminal surface of the inner catheter liner, see para. 0082 – coil structure 36 is wrapped around the entire length of catheter 22 and inner catheter layer 28 extends the full length of catheter 22, thus coil structure 36 covers at least 30% of an exterior surface of the inner catheter layer 28 it is wound on top of).
Regarding claim 8, modified Jalgaonkar discloses the catheter shaft of claim 1, as discussed above. In modified Jalgaonkar, Jalgaonkar discloses (Claim 8) wherein the ultra-thin inner catheter layer (28) and the outer jacket layer (32) are of the same length (see para. 0086 – outer jacket 32 extends the length of body 22 and is attached to inner liner 28 which also extends the length of body 22 and cut in a single operation to the same length).
Regarding claim 9, modified Jalgaonkar discloses the catheter shaft of claim 1, as discussed above. In modified Jalgaonkar, Jalgaonkar discloses (Claim 9) wherein the first coil middle layer (36) and second braid middle layer (38) are encapsulated inside both the ultra-thin inner catheter layer (28) and the outer jacket layer (32, see Fig. 2 and annotated Jalgaonkar drawing 1 below and para. 0078 – the elongated body 22 of catheter may include a first support structure 36 being a coil and a second support structure 38 being a braid which as illustrated in Fig. 2 are encapsulated by the outer jacket 32 and inner liner 28 at least at the distal end).
PNG
media_image1.png
457
813
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, modified Jalgaonkar discloses the catheter shaft of claim 1, as discussed above. In modified Jalgaonkar, Jalgaonkar discloses (Claim 11) wherein the first coil middle layer (36) is made of two wires wound in a same direction (see para. 0082 – the first support structure 26 may include more than one coil such as two coils that are interspaced with each other and wound in the same direction).
Regarding claim 14, modified Jalgaonkar discloses the catheter shaft of claim 1, as discussed above. In modified Jalgaonkar, Jalgaonkar discloses (Claim 14) wherein the second braid middle layer (38) is placed over at least a proximal and middle portion of the first coil middle layer (36, examiner notes the middle portion is being interpreted as a portion that is between the proximal and distal ends of the layer, see Fig. 2 and para. 0089).
Regarding claim 16, modified Jalgaonkar discloses the catheter shaft of claim 1, as discussed above. In modified Jalgaonkar, Chludzinksi (Claim 16) wherein the catheter shaft (12 in Fig. 1) has an outer diameter to an inner luminal diameter ratio of at least 1.2:1 (see Col.7, lines 42-46 – the catheter shaft 12 has an inner diameter of 0.06-0.09 inches and a wall thickness of 0.004-0.006 inches, thus the outer diameter can be calculated [OD=ID+2t] to have a range of 0.068-0.102 inches, thus the ratio of OD:ID is minimum 0.76:1 and maximum 1.7:1 and thus there is an existing embodiment where this ratio is at least 1.2:1).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalgaonkar in view of Chludzinski in view of Stern as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mullins et al. (WO Patent Pub. No. 2019115809 A1, “Mullins”).
Regarding claim 2, modified Jalgaonkar discloses the catheter shaft of claim 1, as discussed above. However, modified Jalgaonkar fails to disclose (Claim 2) wherein the ultra-thin inner catheter layer is made of expanded PTFE tubing.
Mullins discloses a layered, endovascular catheter comprising an ePTFE inner liner. Mullins teaches (Claim 2) wherein the ultra-thin inner catheter layer (5 in Fig. 1) is made of expanded PTFE tubing (see p.11, lines 10-14 – catheter 1 comprises an inner tubular layer formed from ePTFE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the inner liner material taught by modified Jalgaonkar to be substituted with ePTFE as taught by Mullins. The motivation for this modification is Mullins teaches an inner liner composed of ePTFE that is capable of a reduced wall thickness due to the compressibility of porous ePTFE (see p.27, lines 16-21).
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalgaonkar in view of Chludzinski in view of Stern as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Leeflang et al. (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20100087789 A1, “Leeflang”).
Regarding claim 3, modified Jalgaonkar discloses the catheter shaft of claim 1, as discussed above. In modified Jalgaonkar, Jalgaonkar discloses the limitation (Claim 3) wherein the ultra-thin inner catheter layer (18) is made of PTFE tubing (see para. 0076).
However, modified Jalgaonkar fails to disclose (Claim 3) wherein the ultra-thin inner catheter layer is made of a distal polyurethane tubing and a proximal PTFE tubing joined together.
Leeflang discloses a generic medical device for introduction into a body lumen which can be constructed with different properties throughout to achieve desired characteristics. Leeflang teaches (Claim 3) wherein the ultra-thin inner catheter layer 220 in Fig. 11B) is made of a distal polyurethane tubing (220a) and proximal tubing (220b) joined together (see Fig. 11B and para. 0141-0143 - tubular device 210 may comprise an inner liner 220 with a distal-most section 220a formed from polyurethane and a transition section 220b proximal to section 220a formed from a 55D polyurethane or other material more rigid than the distal most section 220a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fully PTFE inner liner taught by modified Jalgaonkar to have an inner liner with a distal polyurethane segment as taught by Leeflang such that in combination the ultra-thin inner catheter layer (18) of modified Jalgaonkar would have a proximal PTFE tubing joined with a distal polyurethane tubing. The motivation for this modification is Leeflang teaches a segmented inner liner with varying durometers to achieve more flexibility at the distal end and maintain stiffness as the proximal end of the catheter (see para. 0141-0143).
Claim(s) 4, 7, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalgaonkar in view of Chludzinski in view of Stern as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parker et al (U.S Patent No. 6939337 B2, “Parker”).
Regarding claim 4, modified Jalgaonkar discloses the catheter shaft of claim 1, as discussed above. However, modified Jalgaonkar fails to disclose (Claim 4) wherein the first coil middle layer has a maximum thickness of 0.06 mm.
Parker discloses a layered catheter construction for use in a range of minimally invasive procedures (see Col.5, lines 62-67), wherein Parker teaches (Claim 4) wherein the first coil middle layer (14) has a maximum thickness of 0.06 mm (see Col.8, lines 1-11 – the wire of coil 14 has a uniform thickness of about 0.020-0.025 mm wherein the coil 14 does not have a thickness that exceeds 0.06 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified first coil middle layer taught by modified Jalgaonkar to have thickness of about 0.020-0.025 mm as taught by Parker such that the first coil middle layer does not have a thickness that exceeds 0.06 mm as claimed by known methods to yield predictable results. Parker discloses the thickness of the first coil middle layer should be selected in view of the purpose of the medical device and such dimensions will lie within the level of skill in the art of designing surgical instruments and that optimal dimensions may be obtained without undue experimentation (see Col.7,lines 59-69). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the resulting dimensions of the combination are predictable.
Regarding claim 7, modified Jalgaonkar discloses the catheter shaft of claim 1, as discussed above. However, modified Jalgaonkar fails to disclose (Claim 7) wherein the second braid middle layer has a maximum thickness of 0.066 mm.
Parker discloses a layered catheter construction for use in a range of minimally invasive procedures (see Col.5, lines 62-67), wherein Parker teaches (Claim 7) wherein the second braid middle layer (16) has a maximum thickness of 0.066 mm (see Col. 8, lines 1-11 – the wires 22 of braid 26 are uniformly about 0.025 mm in diameter indicating that the braided layer 26 formed by wires 22 does not exceed a thickness of 0.066 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified second braid middle layer taught by modified Jalgaonkar to have thickness of about 0.025 mm as taught by Parker such that the second braid middle layer does not have a thickness that exceeds 0.066 mm as claimed by known methods to yield predictable results. Parker discloses the thickness of the second braid middle layer should be selected in view of the purpose of the medical device and such dimensions will lie within the level of skill in the art of designing surgical instruments and that optimal dimensions may be obtained without undue experimentation (see Col.7,lines 59-69). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the resulting dimensions of the combination are predictable.
Regarding claim 15, modified Jalgaonkar discloses the limitations of claim 14, as discussed above. However, modified Jalgaonkar fails to disclose (Claim 15) wherein the second braid middle layer is at least 20 mm shorter than the middle portion of the first coil middle layer.
While Parker discloses a layered catheter construction to performing a range of minimally invasive procedures (see Col.5, lines 62-67), wherein Parker teaches (Claim 15) wherein the second braid middle layer (16) is shorter than the middle portion of the first coil middle layer (14, examiner notes the middle portion is being interpreted as a portion that is between the proximal and distal ends of the layer, see Fig. 3 and Col.6, lines 44-49 – the braid 16 is placed over at least a portion of the coil 14 as seen in Fig. 3 where the braid 16 overlies a proximal and middle portion of the coil 14 and not the distal portion 26 of the coil 14); however, Parker fails to explicitly disclose (Claim 15) wherein the second braid middle layer is at least 20 mm shorter than the middle portion of the first coil middle layer.
Parker discloses that the second braid middle layer may be shorter than the first coil middle layer to optimize a distal tip “that is more flexible or springier than the balance of the tube 11” (see Col.6, lines 44-49). As seen in Fig. 3, the braid 16 is shorter than the middle portion of the coil 14 by a length disclosed to be result effective variable in that changing the length changes the amount of the distal end of the catheter that has is more flexible or springier than the balance of the rest of the catheter tube. Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying modified Jalgaonkar to have a braided layer that is shorter than a coiled layer within the claimed range. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of modified Jalgaonkar by making the braided layer to be at least 20 mm shorter than the middle portion of the coiled layer as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). Further, applicant places no criticality on this dimension stating that according to several embodiments the two layers may have the same length, the second braid middle layer may be significantly shorter such as 50 mm, or shorter only by 20 mm (see para. 0060).
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalgaonkar in view of Chludzinski in view of Stern as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haverkost et al. (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20150217085 A1, “Haverkost”).
Regarding claim 5, modified Jalgaonkar discloses the catheter shaft of claim 1, as discussed above. However, modified Jalgaonkar fails to disclose (Claim 5) wherein the second braid middle layer has a diamond braid pattern.
Haverkost discloses a layered intravascular catheter comprising a braided layer having various patterns. Haverkost teaches (Claim 5) wherein the second braid middle layer (120 in Fig. 3B) has a diamond braid pattern (see Fig. 3B and para. 0040 and 0047 – guide catheter 100 comprises a braid 120 that may define diamond shaped interstices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the braided layer taught by modified Jalgaonkar to have a braided pattern as taught by Haverkost. The motivation for this modification is Haverkost teaches a braid defining diamond shaped interstices which allow for the flow of melted and/or heated polymer through the braid 120 while also allowing the mandrel to pass through the braid during manufacturing without disrupting the braid structure (see para. 0047).
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalgaonkar in view of Chludzinski in view of Stern as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Okajima (U.S Patent Pub. No. 554139).
Regarding claim 12, modified Jalgaonkar discloses the catheter shaft of claim 1, as discussed above.
While Jalgaonkar discloses the first coil middle layer (36) is made of two wires wound in the same direction (see para. 0082), modified Jalgaonkar fails to disclose (Claim 11) wherein the first coil middle layer is made of two wires wound in an opposite direction.
Okajima discloses a small diameter, layered catheter construction for use in catheter adapted for insertion into cerebral blood vessels (see Col.5, lines 49-56), wherein Okajima teaches (Claim 12) wherein the first coil middle layer (48 in Fig. 4) is made of two wires (48a, 48b) wound in an opposite direction (see Fig. 4 and Col.18, lines 46-60 – the coil layer 48 is comprised of a first coil 48a and second coil 48b wound in opposite directions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the two wires wound in the same direction as taught by modified Jalgaonkar to be wound in an opposite direction as taught by Okajima as Okajima teaches two coils wound in opposite directions provides excellent torque transmission ability irrespective of the rotational direction thereof when rotation is added to the catheter at the base end thereof (see Col.14, lines 35-41).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jalgaonkar in view of Chludzinski in view of Stern as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sagi (U.S Patent Pub. No. 20190269884 A1).
Regarding claim 17, modified Jalgaonkar discloses the catheter shaft of claim 1, as discussed above. However, modified Jalgaonkar fails to disclose (Claim 17) wherein the first coil middle layer has a smaller pitch at a proximal portion and a greater pitch at a distal portion.
Sagi discloses a layered catheter shaft with varying coil pitch to adjust the shaft flexibility. Sagi teaches (Claim 17) wherein the first coil middle layer (406) has a smaller pitch at a proximal portion (456a) and a greater pitch at a distal portion (456b, see para. 0034 and 0058 – catheter shaft 400 may comprises a coiled reinforcement layer 406 with a proximal reinforcement region 456a having a lower pitch than the distal reinforcement region 456b).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the coil layer taught by modified Jalgaonkar to have a smaller pitch at a proximal portion and a greater pitch at a distal portion as taught by Sagi. The motivation for this modification is Sagi teaches a coiled layer with varying pitch to achieve a more flexible proximal region and a stiffer distal end (see para. 0058).
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 KAYLA MARIE TURKOWSKI whose telephone number is (703)756-4680. The examiner can normally be reached Mon – Thurs, 7:00 AM – 5:00 PM 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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/K.M.T./Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/COURTNEY FREDRICKSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights