DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
This Office action is responsive to an amendment filed December 29, 2025. Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-17, 23, 32-33 & 38-41 are pending. Claims 5-6, 11-12, 18-22, 24-31 & 34-37 have been canceled. New claims 38-41 have been added.
Claim Objections
Claims 38-41 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
In regards to claim 38, the limitations “a FTSC head (frictional tissue sampling and collection head)” should apparently read --a frictional tissue sampling and collection (FTSC) head--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-4, 7-10, 13-17, 23, 32-33 & 38-40 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lonky et al. (WO 2009/012392) (“Lonky” hereinafter) in view of Alexander et al. (US 1,066,361) (“Alexander” hereinafter).
In regards to claim 1, Lonky discloses a device comprising:
a platform 2 (see at least fig. 1) comprises a facet (see at least figs. 7B & 8B) and an adhesive (see at least pg. 9, lines 7-9);
a backing material pad (i.e., a fabric comprising a backing material) comprising at least a plurality of fenestrated loops 1 of uniform length, where the plurality of fenestrated loops 1 comprise a plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops 1 with the uniform length (i.e., all fenestrated loops 1 that are not on the perimeter of platform 2 and are closer to the center of platform 2 such as central core fibers of length 21, see figs. 1, 7A-B & 8A-B), where the plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops 1 are located toward the middle of the backing material pad (i.e., a fabric comprising a backing material) (see at least figs. 1, 7A-B & 8A-B), where the plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops 1 penetrate through the backing material pad (i.e., a fabric comprising a backing material) (see at least pg. 2, lines 2-11; pg. 6, lines 6-8 & 31-33; pg. 7, lines 1-8; pg. 9, lines 7-9 & 27-30),
PNG
media_image1.png
250
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
where the adhesive adheres one or more of the plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops located toward the middle of the backing material pad to the facet (see at least pg. 9, lines 7-9); where at least the plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops 1 are adapted for trans-epithelial tissue disruption of a diseased anatomical region of a patient (see at least pg. 11, lines 7-10); and
a drug adapted to be applied to the plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops, where the drug auto-inoculates the diseased anatomical region through the contact between the diseased anatomical region and one or more of the plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops 1 (see at least pg. 15, lines 26-30 and pg. 16, lines 1-9).
Lonky discloses the device, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a device comprising a platform comprising a railing, a dam and a facet, where the railing is located around a perimeter of the platform, where the railing creates the dam and the facet, where a cross section of the platform shows the facet is the bottom surface of the dam; where an adhesive applied in the dam adheres one or more of the plurality of fenestrated loops to the facet, where the railing restrains the adhesive in the dam prior to the adhesive being cured, where the adhesive is applied in the dam.
However, Alexander teaches that it is known to provide a device comprising a platform (i.e., brush-back) comprising a railing, an adhesive, a dam and a facet (i.e., formed by recess 2 as shown in annotated drawing below), where the railing is located around a perimeter of the platform (i.e., brush-back) (see fig. 2), where the railing creates the dam and the facet, where a cross section of the platform (i.e., brush-back) shows the facet is the bottom surface of the dam (see at least fig. 1);
PNG
media_image2.png
196
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where the adhesive (i.e., glue or cement) is applied in the dam adheres to one or more of the plurality of bristles to the facet, where the railing restrains the adhesive (i.e., glue or cement) in the dam prior to the adhesive (i.e., glue or cement) being cured (see at least fig.1-4 and pg. 1, lines 22-40 & 47-101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Lonky comprising a platform comprising a railing, a dam and a facet, where the railing is located around a perimeter of the platform, where the railing creates the dam and the facet, where a cross section of the platform shows the facet is the bottom surface of the dam; where the adhesive is applied in the dam, as taught by Alexander, adheres one or more of the plurality of fenestrated loops, as taught by Lonky, to the facet as taught by Alexander, where the railing restrains the adhesive in the dam prior to the adhesive being cured as taught by Alexander since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Alexander) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Lonky) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as securely fasten the fabric comprising the plurality of fenestrated loops onto the platform--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 2, Lonky discloses the device of claim 1, where the drug is an immune modulating agent, where the drug is adapted for stimulating an immune response in the patient (see at least pg. 15, lines 14-25).
In regards to claim 3, Lonky discloses the device of claim 1, where the drug is an adjuvant (see at least pg. 15, lines 14-25) or an antibiotic, antiseptic or an ablative (see at least pg. 15, lines 31-32).
In regards to claim 4, Lonky discloses the device of claim 1, where the drug is a human papillomavirus vaccine (see at least pg. 15, lines 5-12).
In regards to claim 7, Lonky discloses the device of claim 1, where the drug is acting to treat a pre-cancer or a cancer (see at least pg. 15, lines 5-12 & 14-25).
In regards to claim 8, Lonky discloses the device of claim 1, where the diseased anatomical region is a lesion (see at least pg. 15, lines 14-25).
In regards to claim 9, Lonky discloses the device of claim 8, where the lesion is formed due at least in part to an infection selected from the group consisting of a viral infection, a bacterial infection, a fungal infection and a protozoa infection (see at least pg. 15, lines 5-12).
In regards to claim 10, Lonky discloses the device of claim 1, where the diseased anatomical region is afflicted with a disease selected from the group consisting of an actinic keratosis, an external genital wart, a superficial basal cell carcinoma, a skin cancer, and a pre-cancerous lesion (see at least pg. 15, lines 5-25).
In regards to claim 13, Lonky discloses a method for treating by disrupting a diseased tissue surface of a patient comprising:
(a) contacting a device onto a diseased anatomical region, where the device comprises a platform 2, where the platform 2 comprises a facet (see at least figs. 1 & 7B) and a backing material pad (i.e., a fabric comprising a backing material), a plurality of fenestrated loops 1 of a uniform length (see figs. 1 & 7B), where the plurality of fenestrated loops 1 comprise a plurality of perimetric loops with the uniform length and a plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops 1 with the uniform length (i.e., all fenestrated loops 1 that are not on the perimeter of platform 2 and are closer to the center of platform 2, see figs. 1 & 7A-B) and a drug (see at least pg. 15, lines 26-30 and pg. 16, lines 1-9), where the plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops 1 are located toward the middle of the backing material pad (i.e., a fabric comprising a backing material) (see at least figs. 1 & 7B), where the plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops 1 penetrate through the backing material pad (i.e., a fabric comprising a backing material) (see at least pg. 2, lines 2-11; pg. 6, lines 6-8 & 31-33; pg. 7, lines 1-8; pg. 9, lines 7-9 & 27-30),
PNG
media_image3.png
288
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
where each of the plurality of fenestrated loops 1 further comprise a hook tip (see at least figs. 6B-F), where an adhesive adheres one or more of the plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops 1 located toward the middle of the backing material pad to the facet (see at least pg. 9, lines 7-9), where the platform 2 is adapted to direct the plurality of non-parametric fenestrated loops 1 onto the diseased anatomical region such that there is contact between the drug and the diseased anatomical region via the plurality of non-parametric fenestrated loops 1 (see at least pg. 15, lines 20-32 and pg. 16, lines 1-9);
(b) dispensing the drug onto the plurality of fenestrated loops 1 (see at least pg. 15, lines 20-32 and pg. 16, lines 1-9);
(c) applying a frictional force to the device to direct the plurality of non-parametric fenestrated loops 1 onto the diseased anatomical region, where the drug contacts the diseased anatomical region via application of frictional force via the plurality of non-parametric fenestrated loops, where the frictional force is insinuating the hook tip to fracture a surface of the diseased anatomical region (see at least pg. 9, lines 14-22 & 27-30); and
(d) rotating the platform 2 to frictionally abrade the surface of the diseased anatomical region, where the plurality of non-parametric fenestrated loops 1 delivers the drug onto the diseased anatomical region and thereby autoinoculates the diseased anatomical region (see at least pg. 9, lines 18-20 & 30-31 and pg. 10, lines 6-8).
Lonky discloses a method, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a method comprising a platform comprising a railing, a dam and a facet, where the railing is located around a perimeter of the platform, where the railing creates the dam and the facet, where a cross section of the platform shows the facet is the bottom surface of the dam; where an adhesive applied in the dam adheres one or more of the plurality of fenestrated loops to the facet, where the railing restrains the adhesive in the dam prior to the adhesive being cured.
However, Alexander teaches that it is known to provide a method comprising a platform (i.e., brush-back) comprising a railing, a dam and a facet (i.e., formed by recess 2 as shown in annotated drawing below), where the railing is located around a perimeter of the platform (i.e., brush-back) (see fig. 2), where the railing creates the dam and the facet, where a cross section of the platform (i.e., brush-back) shows the facet is the bottom surface of the dam (see at least fig. 1);
PNG
media_image2.png
196
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
where an adhesive (i.e., glue or cement) applied in the dam adheres to one or more of the plurality of bristles to the facet, where the railing restrains the adhesive (i.e., glue or cement) in the dam prior to the adhesive (i.e., glue or cement) being cured (see at least fig.1-4 and pg. 1, lines 22-40 & 47-101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Lonky comprising a platform comprising a railing, a dam and a facet, where the railing is located around a perimeter of the platform, where the railing creates the dam and the facet, where a cross section of the platform shows the facet is the bottom surface of the dam; where an adhesive applied in the dam, as taught by Alexander, adheres one or more of the plurality of fenestrated loops, as taught by Lonky, to the facet as taught by Alexander, where the railing restrains the adhesive in the dam prior to the adhesive being cured as taught by Alexander since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Alexander) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Lonky) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as securely fasten the fabric comprising the plurality of fenestrated loops onto the platform--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 14, Lonky discloses the method of claim 13, where the drug is an immune modulating agent, where the drug is adapted for stimulating an immune response in the patient (see at least pg. 15, lines 4-12).
In regards to claim 15, Lonky discloses the method of claim 13, where the drug is selected from the group consisting of one or more of an adjuvant, an antibiotic, an antiseptic and an ablative (see at least pg. 15, lines 4-12, 14-25 & 31-32).
In regards to claim 16, Lonky discloses the method of claim 13, where the drug is a human papillomavirus vaccine (see at least pg. 15, lines 4-12 & 14-25).
In regards to claim 17, Lonky discloses the method of claim 13, where the diseased anatomical region is a lesion (see at least pg. 15, lines 4-12).
In regards to claim 23, Lonky discloses the device of claim 17, where the lesion is formed due at least in part to an infection selected from the group consisting of a viral infection, a bacterial infection, a fungal infection and a protozoa infection (see at least pg. 15, lines 5-12).
In regards to claim 32, Lonky as modified by Alexander discloses the device of claim 1, that fails to explicitly teach a device where the facet is convex. However, since Lonky teaches that the fibers are preferably mounted on a flat or curved platform so long as the orientation remains evenly spaced and the spaces inside the fenestrated loops and between them remain evenly distributed to frictionally shear the epithelial surface and/or facilitate tissue capture (see pg. 13, lines 16-23), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Lonky where the facet is convex as taught by Alexander since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Alexander) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Lonky) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as mounting the fibers on a curved platform so long as the orientation remains evenly spaced and the spaces inside the fenestrated loops and between them remain evenly distributed to frictionally shear the epithelial surface and/or facilitate tissue capture (see pg. 13, lines 16-23 of Lonky)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 33, Lonky as modified by Alexander discloses the method of claim 13, that fails to explicitly teach a device where the facet is convex. However, since Lonky teaches that the fibers are preferably mounted on a flat or curved platform so long as the orientation remains evenly spaced and the spaces inside the fenestrated loops and between them remain evenly distributed to frictionally shear the epithelial surface and/or facilitate tissue capture (see pg. 13, lines 16-23), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the method of Lonky where the facet is convex as taught by Alexander since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Alexander) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Lonky) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as mounting the fibers on a curved platform so long as the orientation remains evenly spaced and the spaces inside the fenestrated loops and between them remain evenly distributed to frictionally shear the epithelial surface and/or facilitate tissue capture (see pg. 13, lines 16-23 of Lonky)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 38, Lonky discloses a device for trans-epithelial tissue disruption of a diseased anatomical region in a patient comprising:
a frictional tissue sampling and collection (FTSC) head 3 comprising a platform 2 (see at least fig. 1), a facet (see at least figs. 7B & 8B), a backing material pad (i.e., a fabric comprising a backing material), a plurality of fenestrated loops 1, and a drug (see at least pg. 15, lines 26-30 and pg. 16, lines 1-9), where the plurality of fenestrated loops 1 comprise at least a plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops 1 (e.g., all
PNG
media_image1.png
250
582
media_image1.png
Greyscale
fenestrated loops 1 that are not on the perimeter of platform 2 and are closer to the center of platform 2 such as central core fibers of length 21, see at least pg. 11, lines 7-10 and figs. 1, 7A-B & 8A-B), where the plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops 1 are located toward the middle of the backing material pad (i.e., a fabric comprising a backing material) (see at least pg. 11, lines 7-10), where at least the plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops 1 penetrate through the backing material pad (i.e., a fabric comprising a backing material), where the FTSC head 3 is received in a (mechanical) handle (see at least pg. 9, lines 1-2 and pg. 12, lines 12-16), where an adhesive adheres one or more of the plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops 1 located toward the middle of the backing material pad (i.e., a fabric comprising a backing material) to the facet (see at least figs. 7B & 8B and pg. 9, lines 7-8), where the drug is adapted to contact the diseased anatomical region, where the plurality of fenestrated loops 1 result in trans-epithelial tissue disruption and transfer of the drug to the diseased anatomical region in the patient (see at least pg. 15, lines 14-25 and pg. 16, lines 1-9).
Lonky discloses the device, as described above, that fails to explicitly teach a device comprising a railing, a dam, where the railing is located around a perimeter of the platform, where the railing creates the dam, where the facet extends from the railing within the perimeter, where a cross section of the FTSC head shows the facet is the bottom surface of the dam.
However, Alexander teaches that it is known to provide a device comprising a railing, a dam, where the railing is located around a perimeter of the platform, where the
PNG
media_image2.png
196
644
media_image2.png
Greyscale
railing creates the dam, where the facet extends from the railing within the perimeter, where a cross section of the head shows the facet is the bottom surface of the dam (see at least figs. 1-4 and pg. 1, lines 22-40 & 47-101).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Lonky comprising a railing, a dam, where the railing is located around a perimeter of the platform, where the railing creates the dam, where the facet extends from the railing within the perimeter, where a cross section of the head shows the facet is the bottom surface of the dam as taught by Alexander since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Alexander) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Lonky) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as securely fastening the fabric comprising the plurality of fenestrated loops onto the platform--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
In regards to claim 39, Lonky discloses the device of claim 38, where the facet (see at least figs. 7B & 8B) is convex (see at least pg. 8, lines 23-26).
In regards to claim 40, Lonky discloses the device of claim 38, that fails to explicitly teach a device where the adhesive in the fabric is placed within the confines of the dam, where the backing material pad is adhered within the confines of the dam. However, Alexander teaches that it is known to provide a device where the adhesive in the fabric is placed within the confines of the dam, where the backing material pad is adhered within the confines of the dam (see at least figs. 1-4 and pg. 1, lines 22-40 & 47-101). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Lonky where the adhesive in the fabric is placed within the confines of the dam, where the backing material pad is adhered within the confines of the dam as taught by Alexander since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Alexander) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Lonky) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as securely fastening the fabric comprising the plurality of fenestrated loops onto the platform--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Claim 41 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lonky et al. (WO 2009/012392) (“Lonky” hereinafter) in view of Alexander et al. (US 1,066,361) (“Alexander” hereinafter) further in view of Blass (WO 92/20255).
While Lonky discloses a device wherein the adhesive (see pg. 9, lines 7-8) stabilizes one or more perimetric fenestrated loops (e.g., all fenestrated loops 1 that are on the perimeter of platform 2 and are away from the center of platform 2 such as wider rim fibers of length 22, see at least pg. 11, lines 7-10 and figs. 1, 7A-B & 8A-B), Lonky as modified by Alexander discloses the device of claim 38, that fails to explicitly teach a device where the adhesive is an ultra violet light activated adhesive.
However, Blass teaches that it is known to provide a device where the adhesive is an ultra violet light activated adhesive (see at least abstract, figs. 1-3 and pg. 13, lines 21-26 and pg. 14, lines 1-6).
Therefore, since Blass discloses a device for use in surgery (see pg. 1, lines 4-11) that facilitates very strong attachment of bristles onto a platform (11, 31) using suitable UV-cured medical grade adhesives (see pg. 14, lines 3-6) so that the bristles do not become detached when device is used (see at least pg. 15, lines 1-4), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time Applicant’s invention was filed to provide the device of Lonky as modified by Alexander where the adhesive is an ultra violet light activated adhesive as taught by Blass, where the adhesive stabilizes one or more perimetric fenestrated loops as taught by the combined teachings of Lonky, Alexander and Blass since such a modification would amount to applying a known technique (i.e., as taught by Blass) to a known device (i.e., as taught by Lonky) ready for improvement to achieve a predictable result such as providing suitable UV-cured medical grade adhesives that facilitate very strong attachment of bristles or fenestrated loops onto a platform so that the bristles do not become detached when device is used (see at least pg. 15, lines 1-4) (see pg. 14, lines 3-6 and pg. 15, lines 1-4 of Blass)--See KSR, 550 U.S. at___, 82 USPQ2d at 1396 (See MPEP § 214 3 for a discussion of the rationale(s) listed above. See also MPEP § 2144 - §2144.09 for additional guidance regarding support for obviousness determinations).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed December 29, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Lonky does not disclose a plurality of fenestrated loops of a uniform length, where the plurality of fenestrated loops comprise a plurality of perimetric fenestrated loops with the uniform length and a plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops with the uniform length and Alexander fails to teach that the adhesive adheres one or more of the plurality of non-perimetric fenestrated loops located toward the middle of the backing material pad to the facet. The Office respectfully traverses.
First, the Office notes that “perimetric fenestrated loops” and “non-perimetric fenestrated loops,” when given a broad reasonable interpretation consistent with the instant specification, merely pertain to fenestrated loops that are along the rim of the platform (e.g., perimetric fenestrated loops) and fenestrated loops that are close to the center of the platform (e.g., non-perimetric fenestrated loops). In that vein, Lonky clearly discloses in figs. 1 & 7B thereof, fenestrated loops 1 that include fenetrasted loops 1 that are along the rim of the platform 2 and fenestrated loops 1 that are close to the center of the platform 2, where the fenestrated loops 1 have the same height or length.
Second, the Office further notes that Applicant clearly admits that Alexander explains that the glue “is applied to the walls of the recess or to the bound edge of the pad, or both, and the pad is forced into the recess until its edges are firmly seated therewithin” [emphasis added]. Upon scrutiny of the drawing of Alexander, Applicant nevertheless concludes that Alexander discloses (i) a hair brush with an air gap between the recess 2 (best seen in FIG. 2) and 6 (best seen in FIG. 3). The Office notes that MPEP § 2125 (II) clearly states that “[w]hen the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. "[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue."). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977).” In the instant case, Applicant describes an alleged “air gap” that Applicant sees in the drawings of Alexander but ignores the clear teachings of Alexander that the glue “is applied to the walls of the recess or to the bound edge of the pad, or both” presumably to glue the entirety of pad into the recess. However, Applicant’s argument is of little value since it is based on the drawing dimensions (e.g., the air gap that Applicant sees may merely be a result of the drawings of Alexander not be up to scale).
If Applicant’s argument is meant to state that applying the pad as taught by Alexander necessarily results in an air gap, the Office notes that MPEP § 2145 (I) clearly stipulates that “[t]he arguments of counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”).”
As to the Applicant’s contention that Alexander (ii) does not state that the glue secures bristles in the perimeter; (iii) the illustrations in Alexander do not show bristles in the perimeter (best seen in FIG. 1), and (iv) Alexander neither states nor shows in diagrams that the bristles penetrate through the pad. The Office respectfully traverses because Applicant’s argument is based on piecemeal analysis that fails to consider the combination of references. For example, Lonky already clearly teaches bristles (e.g., fenestrated loops 1) in the perimeter that penetrate through the pad as explained supra. And Alexander is only introduced to show the obviousness of attaching such a pad into a recess further comprising a railing and a dam, using an adhesive.
In view of the foregoing, the rejections over at least Lonky and Alexander are maintained.
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 RENE T TOWA whose telephone number is (313)446-6655. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 9:00 AM-5:00 PM.
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, Jason M. Sims can be reached on 571-272-7540. 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.
/RENE T TOWA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights