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 .
This action is in response to the amendment filed on 05/14/2026. Claims 1 and 3-22 are pending. Claims 1, 5, and 11 are independent. Claims 4-10, 15, 19, and 20 are withdrawn. Claim 2 is canceled.
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.
Currently, none of the claim limitations are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 11-14, 16-18, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tronnes (US Pub. No.: 2010/0228328) in view of Williams et al. (US Pub. No.: 2007/0112405).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 21, and 22, Tronnes discloses [claim 1] an implant tool system (200, Fig. 2) comprising: an implantable medical lead (201, Fig. 2 and Para. [0024) configured to be delivered through an access point on a body of a patient; a delivery catheter (220, Fig. 2) configured to deliver the implantable medical lead along an implantation path in the body of the patient; and a visual marker (marker 216, Fig. 2) positioned: on a body of the implantable medical lead, and proximal a distal end of the implantable medical lead by a distance indicative of a length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient (Fig. 2 and Para. [0029]); [claim 3] wherein the visual marker is configured to be integrated into the body of the implantable medical lead or reversibly secured to the body of the implantable medical lead (Para. [0031]); [claims 21 and 22] wherein, the implant tool system is fully capable that, in a first instance, the visual marker on the body of the implantable medical lead is not aligned with a reference point and the implantable medical lead is not in contact with an implant point of the heart of the patient, and wherein, in a second instance, the visual marker on the body of the implantable medical lead is aligned with the reference point and the implantable medical lead is in contact with the implant point of the patient; wherein the reference point comprises the access point or a proximal end of the delivery catheter (Fig. 2, the implant tool system 200 is fully capable that, in a first instance, the visual marker on the body of the implantable medical lead is not aligned with a reference point and the implantable medical lead is not in contact with an implant point of the heart of the patient, and wherein, in a second instance, the visual marker on the body of the implantable medical lead is aligned with the reference point and the implantable medical lead is in contact with the implant point of the patient; wherein the reference point comprises the access point or a proximal end of the delivery catheter). Tronnes further discloses that each distal end electrode is spaced apart from its corresponding marker by a distance corresponding to the length of the introducer (Para. [0029] and Fig. 2). However, Tronnes does not specifically disclose that the length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient varied within a range of 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm based on one or more of a path of the implantable medical lead to a heart of the patient or a heart size of the patient, and such that introduction of the length of the implantable medical lead into the body of the patient provides lead slack that reduces the likelihood of one or more of dislodgment of the implantable medical lead from an implant point or damage to a tissue of a patient, and wherein a length of the lead slack is based on one or more of the path of the lead to the heart of the patient or the heart size of the patient.
Williams teaches, in the same field of endeavor (medical lead introduction system), a catheter (300, Figs. 3 and 4) for introducing a medical lead to a heart; wherein the length of the catheter has a range of about 30 cm to 60 cm, such as 30 cm (Para. [0030]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the length of the catheter of Tronnes to be from 10 cm to 50 cm, such as 30 cm as taught by Williams, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. In modified invention, the visual marker (e.g. Tronnes, 216) is fully capable to indicate a length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient, such that the length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient is varied within a range of 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm because Tronnes discloses that each distal end electrode is spaced apart from its corresponding marker by a distance corresponding to the length of the introducer (Tronnes, Para. [0029] and Fig. 2) because Tronnes discloses that each distal end electrode is spaced apart from its corresponding marker by a distance corresponding to the length of the introducer (Para. [0029] and Fig. 2). In addition, the range of the length of the lead to be 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm is fully capable to be based on one or more of a path of the lead to a heart of the patient or a heart size of the patient. The visual marker (Tronnes, Fig. 2, e.g. marker 216 is positioned such that introduction of the length of the implantable medical lead into the body of the patient provides lead slack that reduces the likelihood of one or more of dislodgment of the implantable medical lead from an implant point or damage to a tissue of the patient) is positioned such that introduction of the length of the implantable medical lead into the body of the patient provides lead slack that reduces the likelihood of one or more of dislodgment of the implantable medical lead from an implant point or damage to a tissue of the patient, and the length of the lead slack fully capable to be based on one or more of the path of the lead to the heart of the patient or the heart sized of the patient. Applicant should be noted that the limitation “a distance indicative of a length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient, wherein the length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient varies within a range of 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm based on one or more of a path of the implantable medical lead to a heart of the patient or a heart size of the patient, and such that introduction of the length of the implantable medical lead into the body of the patient provides lead slack that reduces the likelihood of one or more of dislodgment of the implantable medical lead from an implant point or damage to a tissue of a patient, and wherein a length of the lead slack is based on one or more of the path of the lead to the heart of the patient or the heart size of the patient” is a functional limitation or a limitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Since in the modified invention, the visual marker (Tronnes, Fig. 2, marker 216) is positioned proximal to a distal end of the implantable medical lead by a distance and fully capable to indicate a length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient, such as within the range of 10 cm to 50 cm of the lead to be introduced to the patient, the visual marker in the modified invention is fully capable to indicate a length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient, wherein the length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient varies within a range of 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm based on one or more of a path of the implantable medical lead to a heart of the patient or a heart size of the patient and such that introduction of the length of the implantable medical lead into the body of the patient provides lead slack that reduces the likelihood of one or more of dislodgment of the implantable medical lead from an implant point or damage to a tissue of a patient, and wherein a length of the lead slack is based on one or more of the path of the lead to the heart of the patient or the heart size of the patient.
Regarding claims 11-14 and 16-18, Tronnes discloses [claim 11] an implant tool system (200, Fig. 2) comprising: an implantable medical lead (201, Fig. 2 and Para. [0024) configured to be delivered through an access point on a body of a patient; a delivery catheter (220, Fig. 2) configured to deliver the implantable medical lead along an implantation path in the body of the patient; a first visual marker (215, Fig. 2) positioned: on a body of the implantable medical lead, and proximal a distal end of the implantable medical lead by a first distance (Fig. 2 and Para. [0029], the distance is fully capable of indicating a minimum length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient such that the distal end of the implantable medical lead abuts an implant point) indicative of a minimum length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient such that the distal end of the implantable medical lead abuts an implant point (Fig. 2 and Para. [0029]); and a second visual marker (216, Fig. 2) positioned: on the body of the implantable medical lead and proximal the distal end of the implantable medical lead by a second lead distance indicative of an additional length (E1+d or M1-2+d1) of lead to introduce into the body of the patient (Fig. 2), wherein the additional length of lead to introduce into the body of the patient is based on one or more of the path of the lead into the heart of the patient or the heart size of the patient, wherein the additional length of lead ranges from 1 cm to 5 cm (Para. [0026], E1+d is a between 1 cm and 5 cm); [claim 12] a third visual marker (217, Fig. 2) positioned: on the body of the implantable medical lead and proximal the distal end of the implantable medical lead by a third lead distance (the lead distance from distal end of the marker 217 to the distal end of the lead is fully capable of indicating a length to withdraw the delivery catheter from the body of the patient after fixation of the implantable medical lead to a tissue of the patient and before slitting the delivery catheter because the position of the markers are fixed/known or the distances between the markers and the distal end of the lead are fixed/known) indicative of a length to withdraw the delivery catheter from the body of the patient after fixation of the implantable medical lead to a tissue of the patient and before slitting the delivery catheter; [claim 13] wherein the second visual marker is positioned such that introduction of the length of lead into the body of the patient provides lead slack that reduces the likelihood of one or more of dislodgment of the implantable medical lead from an implant point or damage to a tissue of the patient; [claim 14] wherein the second visual marker is configured to be integrated into the body of the implantable medical lead or reversibly secured to the body of the implantable medical lead (Para. [0031]); [claim 17] wherein the position of the first visual marker is based on one or more of a body mass index of the patient, height of the patient, vasculature tortuosity of the patient, an access vessel of the patient, a location along the access vessel of the patient, the heart size of the patient, or the implant point (Fig. 2, the position of the first visual marker is fully capable to be based on one of vasculature tortuosity of the patient, an access vessel of the patient, a location along the access vessel of the patient, the heart size of the patient, or the implant point); [claim 18] wherein the position of the first visual marker is based on a length of the delivery catheter from a proximal end of the delivery catheter to a distal end of the delivery catheter (Para. [0029] and Fig. 2). However, Tronnes does not disclose that the minimum length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient varied within a range of 10 centimeters (cm) to 50cm.
Williams teaches, in the same field of endeavor (medical lead introduction system), a catheter (300, Figs. 3 and 4) for introducing a medical lead to a heart; wherein the length of the catheter has a range of about 30 cm to 60 cm, such as 30 cm (Para. [0030]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the length of the catheter of Tronnes to be within the range of 10 cm to 50 cm, such as 30 cm as taught by Williams, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant should be noted that the limitation “indicative of a minimum length of lead to introduce into the body of the patient such that the distal end of the implantable medical lead abuts an implant point, wherein the minimum length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient varies within a range of 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm based on one or more of a path of the implantable medical lead to a heart of the patient or a heart size of the patient” is a functional limitation or a limitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In modified invention, the length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient varied within a range of 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm because Tronnes discloses that each distal end electrode is spaced apart from its corresponding marker by a distance corresponding to the length of the introducer (Tronnes, Para. [0029] and Fig. 2). In addition, the range of the minimum length of the lead to be 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm is fully capable to be based on one or more of a path of the lead to a heart of the patient or a heart size of the patient.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 3, 11-14, 16-18, 21 and 22 have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection.
In response to the argument(s) on pages 7-9 of the remarks, the claim objections and the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections made in the most recent office action have been withdrawn in light of the amendment and arguments.
In response to the argument(s) on pages 9-13 of the remarks, Tronnes discloses [claim 1] an implant tool system (200, Fig. 2) comprising: an implantable medical lead (201, Fig. 2 and Para. [0024) configured to be delivered through an access point on a body of a patient; a delivery catheter (220, Fig. 2) configured to deliver the implantable medical lead along an implantation path in the body of the patient; and a visual marker (marker 216, Fig. 2) positioned: on a body of the implantable medical lead, and proximal a distal end of the implantable medical lead by a distance indicative of a length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient (Fig. 2 and Para. [0029]). Tronnes further discloses that each distal end electrode is spaced apart from its corresponding marker by a distance corresponding to the length of the introducer (Para. [0029] and Fig. 2). However, Tronnes does not specifically disclose that the length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient varied within a range of 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm based on one or more of a path of the implantable medical lead to a heart of the patient or a heart size of the patient, and such that introduction of the length of the implantable medical lead into the body of the patient provides lead slack that reduces the likelihood of one or more of dislodgment of the implantable medical lead from an implant point or damage to a tissue of a patient, and wherein a length of the lead slack is based on one or more of the path of the lead to the heart of the patient or the heart size of the patient.
Williams teaches, in the same field of endeavor (medical lead introduction system), a catheter (300, Figs. 3 and 4) for introducing a medical lead to a heart; wherein the length of the catheter has a range of about 30 cm to 60 cm, such as 30 cm (Para. [0030]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the length of the catheter of Tronnes to be from 10 cm to 50 cm, such as 30 cm as taught by Williams, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. In modified invention, the visual marker (e.g. Tronnes, 216) is fully capable to indicate a length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient, such that the length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient is varied within a range of 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm because Tronnes discloses that each distal end electrode is spaced apart from its corresponding marker by a distance corresponding to the length of the introducer (Tronnes, Para. [0029] and Fig. 2) because Tronnes discloses that each distal end electrode is spaced apart from its corresponding marker by a distance corresponding to the length of the introducer (Para. [0029] and Fig. 2). In addition, the range of the length of the lead to be 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm is fully capable to be based on one or more of a path of the lead to a heart of the patient or a heart size of the patient. The visual marker (Tronnes, Fig. 2, e.g. marker 216 is positioned such that introduction of the length of the implantable medical lead into the body of the patient provides lead slack that reduces the likelihood of one or more of dislodgment of the implantable medical lead from an implant point or damage to a tissue of the patient) is positioned such that introduction of the length of the implantable medical lead into the body of the patient provides lead slack that reduces the likelihood of one or more of dislodgment of the implantable medical lead from an implant point or damage to a tissue of the patient, and the length of the lead slack fully capable to be based on one or more of the path of the lead to the heart of the patient or the heart sized of the patient. Applicant should be noted that the limitation “a distance indicative of a length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient, wherein the length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient varies within a range of 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm based on one or more of a path of the implantable medical lead to a heart of the patient or a heart size of the patient, and such that introduction of the length of the implantable medical lead into the body of the patient provides lead slack that reduces the likelihood of one or more of dislodgment of the implantable medical lead from an implant point or damage to a tissue of a patient, and wherein a length of the lead slack is based on one or more of the path of the lead to the heart of the patient or the heart size of the patient” is a functional limitation or a limitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Since in the modified invention, the visual marker (Tronnes, Fig. 2, marker 216) is positioned proximal to a distal end of the implantable medical lead by a distance and fully capable to indicate a length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient, such as within the range of 10 cm to 50 cm of the lead to be introduced to the patient, the visual marker in the modified invention is fully capable to indicate a length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient, wherein the length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient varies within a range of 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm based on one or more of a path of the implantable medical lead to a heart of the patient or a heart size of the patient and such that introduction of the length of the implantable medical lead into the body of the patient provides lead slack that reduces the likelihood of one or more of dislodgment of the implantable medical lead from an implant point or damage to a tissue of a patient, and wherein a length of the lead slack is based on one or more of the path of the lead to the heart of the patient or the heart size of the patient.
Regarding claim 11, Tronnes discloses an implant tool system (200, Fig. 2) comprising: an implantable medical lead (201, Fig. 2 and Para. [0024) configured to be delivered through an access point on a body of a patient; a delivery catheter (220, Fig. 2) configured to deliver the implantable medical lead along an implantation path in the body of the patient; a first visual marker (215, Fig. 2) positioned: on a body of the implantable medical lead, and proximal a distal end of the implantable medical lead by a first distance (Fig. 2 and Para. [0029], the distance is fully capable of indicating a minimum length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient such that the distal end of the implantable medical lead abuts an implant point) indicative of a minimum length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient such that the distal end of the implantable medical lead abuts an implant point (Fig. 2 and Para. [0029]); and a second visual marker (216, Fig. 2) positioned: on the body of the implantable medical lead and proximal the distal end of the implantable medical lead by a second lead distance indicative of an additional length (E1+d or M1-2+d1) of lead to introduce into the body of the patient (Fig. 2), wherein the additional length of lead to introduce into the body of the patient is based on one or more of the path of the lead into the heart of the patient or the heart size of the patient, wherein the additional length of lead ranges from 1 cm to 5 cm (Para. [0026], E1+d is a between 1 cm and 5 cm). Tronnes further discloses that each distal end electrode is spaced apart from its corresponding marker by a distance corresponding to the length of the introducer (Para. [0029] and Fig. 2). However, Tronnes does not disclose that the minimum length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient varied within a range of 10 centimeters (cm) to 50cm.
Williams teaches, in the same field of endeavor (medical lead introduction system), a catheter (300, Figs. 3 and 4) for introducing a medical lead to a heart; wherein the length of the catheter has a range of about 30 cm to 60 cm, such as 30 cm (Para. [0030]).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the length of the catheter of Tronnes to be within the range of 10 cm to 50 cm, such as 30 cm as taught by Williams, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable range involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05. Applicant should be noted that the limitation “indicative of a minimum length of lead to introduce into the body of the patient such that the distal end of the implantable medical lead abuts an implant point, wherein the minimum length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient varies within a range of 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm based on one or more of a path of the implantable medical lead to a heart of the patient or a heart size of the patient” is a functional limitation or a limitation of intended use. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In modified invention, the length of the implantable medical lead to introduce into the body of the patient varied within a range of 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm because Tronnes discloses that each distal end electrode is spaced apart from its corresponding marker by a distance corresponding to the length of the introducer (Tronnes, Para. [0029] and Fig. 2). In addition, the range of the minimum length of the lead to be 10 centimeters (cm) to 50 cm is fully capable to be based on one or more of a path of the lead to a heart of the patient or a heart size of the patient.
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 JING RUI OU whose telephone number is (571)270-5036. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am -5:00pm.
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, Jackie Ho can be reached at (571) 272-4696. 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.
/JING RUI OU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3771
Prosecution Insights