DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the “RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION DATED NOVEMBER 26, 2025” filed 24 February 2026. The Examiner acknowledges the amendments to claim 1 and cancelation of claims 2 and 20. Claims 1, 3-6, and 8-19 are pending.
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 .
Claim Interpretation
Examiner Notes: currently, NO limitation invokes interpretation under § 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim9s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 8-11 each recite “The guide wire according to claim 2” [line 1] in the preamble, which is considered indefinite, as claim 2 is presently canceled, such that it is unclear whether each of claims 8-11 are meant to be dependent from claim 1 [which has been amended to incorporate the subject matter of previously presented/presently canceled claim 2] or not. For examination purposes, the Examiner has interpreted each of claims 8-11 to be dependent from claim 1.
Double Patenting
Applicant is advised that should claim(s) 3-5 be found allowable, claim(s) 8-10 [respectively] will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof [see corresponding § 112(b) rejection(s) of claims 8-10, wherein claims 8-10 are considered to be dependent from claim 1]. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 3-6, and 8-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gould (US-20080045908-A1, previously presented) in view of Shireman (US-20040167442-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 1, Gould teaches
A guide wire, comprising:
a core shaft [core member 30 (Gould Fig. 4)] formed of superelastic metal [coils… 120… may be made from a metal, metal alloy, a metal-polymer composite, and the like, or any other suitable material. Some examples of suitable… nickel-titanium alloy such as linear-elastic or super-elastic nitinol (Gould ¶0035)], wherein the core shaft has:
a tapered portion having a diameter decreasing from a proximal end of the tapered portion toward a distal end of the tapered portion [For example, in the embodiment shown in FIGS. 1-4, the core member 30 includes a plurality of tapered sections and constant diameter sections (Gould ¶0054); see also Annotated Figure 1 below];
an intermediate portion that is cylindrical and is adjacent to the proximal end of the tapered portion [the core member 30 includes a distal portion 40 that extends within the lumen 34 (Gould ¶0022, Fig. 4); Gould ¶0054]; and
a proximal portion adjacent to the proximal end of the intermediate portion and having a maximum diameter larger than a diameter of the intermediate portion [Gould ¶0054; see also Annotated Figure 1 below];
a coil body covering at least a part of the intermediate portion and the tapered portion of the core shaft [the tubular member is a coil member 120 disposed about the core member 30 (Gould ¶0034, Fig. 4)];
a wire rod connected to a distal end portion of the core shaft [the guidewire 10 includes a distal coil member 36 and a shaping ribbon member 38 that may be, for example, attached to and extend distally from the distal end of the core wire 30, and may be attached, for example, to the tip member 37 (Gould ¶0023, Fig. 4), wherein the examiner notes that “proximal portion” and “segment” are merely considered to define portions of the length of the wire rod, such that the wire rod may be divided along any portion of the wire rod to define a wire rod proximal portion and a wire rod segment such that the wire rod segment has a length greater than a length of the wire rod proximal portion];
a distal tip disposed at a distal end of the coil body and connected between the distal end of the coil body and the distal end of the wire rod and forming a distal end of the guide wire [A distal tip member 37 may be disposed at the distal end 26 of the tubular member 20 and/or the distal end 16 of the guidewire 10 (Gould ¶0021, Fig. 4); Gould ¶0023]; and
a coated part provided between an outer peripheral surface of the core shaft and an inner peripheral surface of the coil body, the coated part covering at least a distal end side of the tapered portion and further covering the distal end portion of the core shaft, the coated part being more plastically deformable than the core shaft [the guidewire 10 includes a distal coil member 36 (Gould ¶0023, Fig. 4); coils 36… may be made from a metal, metal alloy, a metal-polymer composite, and the like, or any other suitable material. Some examples of suitable metals and metal alloys include stainless steel (Gould ¶0035), wherein stainless steel is considered to be more plastically deformable than superelastic metal; coils 36… may be doped with, made of, or otherwise include a radiopaque material (Gould ¶0040); In some embodiments, a sheath and/or coating, for example a lubricious, a hydrophilic, a protective, or other type of material may be applied over portions or all of the core member 30 and/or tubular member 20 or 120, or other portions of device 10 (Gould ¶0055)].
However, while Gould discloses that the intermediate portion of the core body has a diameter that is less than the outer diameter of the coil body [the core member 30 can include an outer surface, and can include at least a section having an outer diameter that is less than the outer diameter of the tubular member 20 (Gould ¶0025), wherein the Examiner notes that the tubular member 20 may comprise a coil body as noted in Gould ¶0034], and while Gould depicts a constant wire diameter for the coil body [coil member 120 as depicted in Fig. 4], Gould fails to explicitly disclose the coil body having an outer diameter of 0.36 mm or less; and wherein the diameter of the intermediate portion of the core shaft is 0.22 to 0.24 mm; and wherein the coil body has a constant wire diameter.
Shireman discloses guide wires for use in a patient lumen [the invention may be applicable to a variety of medical devices that are adapted to be advanced into the anatomy of a patient through an opening or lumen. For example, certain aspects of the invention may be applicable to fixed wire devices, catheters (e.g. balloon, stent delivery, etc.) drive shafts for rotational devices such as atherectomy catheters and IVUS catheters, endoscopic devices, laproscopic devices, embolic protection devices, spinal or cranial navigational or therapeutic devices, and other such devices (Shireman ¶0026)], wherein Shireman discloses a guide wire comprising a coil body covering at least a portion of a core shaft [the distal guidewire section 16 includes three constant diameter regions 31, 33, and 35, interconnected by two tapering regions 37 and 39 (Shireman ¶0044, Fig. 1); The embodiment in FIG. 1 also includes a coil 80 disposed about at least a portion of the proximal and/or distal guidewire sections 14/16. In the particular embodiment shown, the coil 80 can extend about the distal sections 16 from a point adjacent the tapering region 37 distally to a point beyond the distal most portion of the distal section 16 (Shireman ¶0089)], wherein the coil body may have a constant wire diameter [The coil 80 can be in the range of about 1 to about 20 inches long, and is made of rounded wire having a diameter of about 0.001 to about 0.004 inches (Shireman ¶0099)]; wherein Shireman also discloses that the respective diameters of elements of the guide wire are result effective variables that may modified depending on desired characteristics of the guidewire [It will be understood by those of skill in the art and others that a broad variety of materials, dimensions, and structures can be used to construct suitable embodiments, depending upon the desired characteristics (Shireman ¶0099)], and wherein the coil body may have an outer diameter 0.25-0.38mm and an inner diameter of 0.10-.33mm [The coil 80 can have an outer diameter that is generally constant, and is in the range of about 0.01 to about 0.015 inches. The inner diameter of the coil can also be generally constant, and is in the range of about 0.004 to about 0.013 inches (Shireman ¶0099)], and wherein an intermediate portion of the core shaft of the guidewire may have a diameter 0.13-0.30mm [The constant diameter regions 31, 33, and 35, can have outer diameters in the range of about 0.01 to about 0.015, about 0.005 to about 0.012 and about 0.001 to about 0.005 inches respectively (Shireman ¶0048), wherein constant diameter region 33 is considered to be equivalent to the claimed intermediate portion].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the guide wire of Gould to employ a coil body with an outer diameter of 0.36 mm and an intermediate portion having a diameter of 0.22 to 0.24, as this modification would amount to 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); and to have modified the guide wire of Gould in view of Shireman to employ a coil body that has a constant wire diameter, as this modification would amount to mere simple substitution of one known element for another with similar expected results [provide a coil body configured for anatomical use] [MPEP § 2143(I)(B)].
Regarding claim 3, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 1, wherein the core shaft is formed of nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) alloy [Gould ¶0035].
Regarding claim 4, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 1.
However, while Gould is non-specific regarding the attachment point of the coil body [coil member 120 (Gould Fig. 4)] to the core shaft [core member 30 (Gould Fig. 4); It should also be understood that additional attachment points between the tubular member 20 and the core member 30 and/or other components of the guidewire 10 may be provided using any suitable attachment techniques, including any of those disclosed herein (Gould ¶0033); the proximal end 20 of the coil member 120 is welded to the core member 30, for example, with fillet weld 144. As can be appreciated, the filled weld 144 can be made in a similar fashion and/or include the similar structure and materials as weld 44 discussed above. As such, it can be appreciated that any of a broad variety of tubular member structures, such as a tubular member 20 or a coil 120, or the like, that may have outer diameter larger than an outer diameter of a core member 30 may be attached to the core member 30 through the use of a fillet weld 44/144 that can provide for a smooth transition and/or ramp-like structure at the joint (Gould ¶0034)], Gould in view of Shireman as presently modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein a proximal end of the coil body is fixed to the intermediate portion of the core shaft.
Shireman discloses fixing the coil body [coil 80 (Shireman Fig. 1)] to the intermediate portion of the core shaft [constant diameter region 33 (Shireman ¶0089); The coil 80 is attached to the distal guidewire section 16 at its proximal end 81 at attachment point 83 using any suitable attachment technique, for example soldering, brazing, welding, adhesive bonding, crimping, or the like (Shireman ¶0089), wherein as depicted in Shireman Fig. 1, the attachment point 83 is on constant diameter region 33].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the guide wire of Gould in view of Shireman to employ fixing a proximal end of the coil body to the intermediate portion of the core shaft, as this modification would amount to mere application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results [fixing elements together] [MPEP § 2143(I)(D)].
Regarding claim 5, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 1, further comprising a proximal end core shaft connected to a proximal end of the core shaft and formed of a material with higher rigidity than a material of the core shaft [In some embodiments, the material used to construct the proximal region can be relatively stiff for pushability and torqueability, and the material used to construct the distal region can be relatively flexible by comparison for better lateral trackability and steerability. For example, the proximal region can be formed of straightened 304v stainless steel wire or ribbon and the distal region can be formed of a straightened super elastic or linear elastic alloy, for example a nickel-titanium alloy wire or ribbon (Gould ¶0052)].
Regarding claim 6, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 5, wherein the proximal end core shaft is formed of stainless steel [Gould ¶0052].
Regarding claim 8, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 2 [see corresponding § 112(b) rejection and interpretation], wherein the core shaft is formed of nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) alloy [Gould ¶0035].
Regarding claim 9, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 2 [see corresponding § 112(b) rejection and interpretation].
However, while Gould is non-specific regarding the attachment point of the coil body [coil member 120 (Gould Fig. 4)] to the core shaft [core member 30 (Gould Fig. 4); Gould ¶¶0033-0034)], Gould in view of Shireman and Griffin as presently modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein a proximal end of the coil body is fixed to the intermediate portion of the core shaft.
Shireman discloses fixing the coil body [coil 80 (Shireman Fig. 1)] to the intermediate portion of the core shaft [constant diameter region 33 (Shireman ¶0089); Shireman ¶0089, wherein as depicted in Shireman Fig. 1, the attachment point 83 is on constant diameter region 33].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the guide wire of Gould in view of Shireman and Griffin to employ fixing a proximal end of the coil body to the intermediate portion of the core shaft, as this modification would amount to mere application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results [fixing elements together] [MPEP § 2143(I)(D)].
Regarding claim 10, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 2 [see corresponding § 112(b) rejection and interpretation], further comprising a proximal end core shaft connected to a proximal end of the core shaft and formed of a material with higher rigidity than a material of the core shaft [Gould ¶0052].
Regarding claim 11, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 2 [see corresponding § 112(b) rejection and interpretation], wherein the wire rod is formed of a material having more plastic deformability than a material of the core shaft [Gould ¶0035].
Regarding claim 12, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 3.
However, while Gould is non-specific regarding the attachment point of the coil body [coil member 120 (Gould Fig. 4)] to the core shaft [core member 30 (Gould Fig. 4); Gould ¶¶0033-0034)], Gould in view of Shireman as presently modified fails to explicitly disclose wherein a proximal end of the coil body is fixed to the intermediate portion of the core shaft.
Shireman discloses fixing the coil body [coil 80 (Shireman Fig. 1)] to the intermediate portion of the core shaft [constant diameter region 33 (Shireman ¶0089); Shireman ¶0089, wherein as depicted in Shireman Fig. 1, the attachment point 83 is on constant diameter region 33].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the guide wire of Gould in view of Shireman to employ fixing a proximal end of the coil body to the intermediate portion of the core shaft, as this modification would amount to mere application of a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results [fixing elements together] [MPEP § 2143(I)(D)].
Regarding claim 13, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 3, further comprising a proximal end core shaft connected to a proximal end of the core shaft and formed of a material with higher rigidity than a material of the core shaft [Gould ¶0052].
Regarding claim 14, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 3, wherein the wire rod is formed of a material having more plastic deformability than a material of the core shaft [Gould ¶0035].
Regarding claim 15, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 4, further comprising a proximal end core shaft connected to a proximal end of the core shaft and formed of a material with higher rigidity than a material of the core shaft [Gould ¶0052].
Regarding claim 16, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 4, wherein the wire rod is formed of a material having more plastic deformability than a material of the core shaft [Gould ¶0035].
Regarding claim 17, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 5, wherein the wire rod is formed of a material having more plastic deformability than a material of the core shaft [Gould ¶0035].
Regarding claim 18, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 6, wherein the wire rod is formed of a material having more plastic deformability than a material of the core shaft [Gould ¶0035].
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gould in view of Shireman, as applied to claim 1 above, in further view of Kawahara (US-20180311476-A1, previously presented).
Regarding claim 19, Gould in view of Shireman teaches
The guide wire according to claim 1.
However, while Gould discloses that the coated part includes a coating of a hydrophilic material [Gould ¶0055], Gould in view of Shireman fails to explicitly disclose wherein the coating is coating of hydrophobic resin material, hydrophilic resin material, or a mixture of hydrophobic resin material and hydrophilic resin material.
Kawahara discloses a guide wire having a covering layer disposed thereon, wherein the covering layer may comprise a hydrophilic resin [The transparent material that constitutes the covering layer 3 and the wire material 4 is, preferably, for example, a fluororesin material with lubricity. Examples of the fluororesin material include tetrafluoroethylene-perfluoroalkylvinyl ether copolymer (PFA, melting point of 300 to 310° C.), polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE, melting point of 330° C.), tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene copolymer (FEP, melting point of 250 to 280° C.), ethylene-tetrafluoroethylene copolymer (ETFE, melting point of 260 to 270° C.), polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF, melting point of 160 to 180° C.), polychlorotrifluoroethylene (PCTFE, melting point of 210° C.), tetrafluoroethylene-hexafluoropropylene-perfluoroalkylvinyl ether copolymer (EPE, melting point of 290 to 300° C.), and a fluororesin material such as a copolymer containing these polymers. Among them, PFA, PTFE, FEP, ETFE, and PVDF have excellent sliding properties and thus are preferred. As the material that constitutes the covering layer 3 and the wire material 4, hydrophilic resin materials such as polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinylpyrrolidone, a polyethylene oxide macromolecular substance, a maleic anhydride macromolecular substance, an acrylamide macromolecular substance, and water soluble nylon can also be used (Kawahara ¶0031)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the guide wire of Gould in view of Shireman to employ a coating of hydrophilic resin material, as this modification would amount to mere simple substitution of one known element for another with similar expected results [lubricity, sliding properties] [MPEP § 2143(I)(B)].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 7, filed 24 February 2026, with respect to the previously applied rejections under § 112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejections of claims 14 and 16-18 under § 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments, see Applicant’s Remarks p. 7-9, with respect to the previously applied rejections of claims 1 and those dependent therefrom under § 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant asserts that the Examiner has failed to properly establish evidence of a result effective variable to apply Aller in the modification of Gould by routine optimization, as the Applicant notes that the cited portion of Shireman relied upon by the Examiner [Shireman ¶0099] is not relevant regarding the modification of the claimed diameter of the intermediate portion of the core shaft and is instead only directed towards the coil 80 of Shireman. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that while Shireman ¶0099 [identified as referring to dimensions of the coil 80] was previously cited to provide support for the previously applied § 103 modification based on routine optimization, Shireman still discloses a guide wire comprising a core shaft that may be comprised of constant diameter and tapering segments [see p. 8-9 of Non-Final Rejection dated 26 November 2025], wherein the dimensions/size/diameter of the sections comprising the core shaft are considered to be result effective variables that may be modified depending on desired characteristics of the guide wire [Those of skill in the art and others will recognize that the materials, structure, and dimensions of the proximal/distal guidewire sections 14/16 are dictated primary by the desired characteristics and function of the final guidewire, and that any of a broad range of materials, structures, and dimensions can be used (Shireman ¶0028); The length of proximal/distal guidewire sections 14/16 (and/or the length of guidewire 10) are typically dictated by the length and flexibility characteristics desired in the final medical device (Shireman ¶0038); As shown in FIG. 1, guidewire sections 14/16 may include one or more tapers or tapered regions. The tapered regions may be linearly tapered, tapered in a curvilinear fashion, uniformly tapered, non-uniformly tapered, or tapered in a step-wise fashion. The angle of any such tapers can vary, depending upon the desired flexibility characteristics. The length of the taper may be selected to obtain a more (longer length) or less (shorter length) gradual transition in stiffness (Shireman ¶0040); The number, arrangement, size, and length of the narrowing and constant diameter portions can be varied to achieve the desired characteristics, such as flexibility and torque transmission characteristics (Shireman ¶0041)], which is considered to properly establish evidence of a result effective variable [diameter of the intermediate portion].
The Applicant further asserts that the Applicant’s disclosure provides quantitative support regarding the claimed diameter range of the intermediate portion as having optimal balance between torque response performance and pushability comparative to examples having a diameter greater than the claimed diameter, such that the claimed diameter range is a critical range rather than a result of routine optimization. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that Shireman discloses a limited amount of known dimensions of the diameter of the intermediate portion which is/are considered to fall within/overlap the claimed range [Shireman ¶0048] and particularly notes that the diameter of the intermediate portion can be routinely optimized within the Applicant’s claimed range to affect the torque response performance of the guide wire [The number, arrangement, size, and length of the narrowing and constant diameter portions can be varied to achieve the desired characteristics, such as flexibility and torque transmission characteristics (Shireman ¶0041)], the argued criticality is not considered persuasive.
The Applicant also asserts that the intermediate portion having a diameter as claimed being covered by a coil having an outer diameter as claimed, while maintaining a constant wire diameter as amended, allows the coil wire diameter to be made relatively thicker and results in a secondary technical effect of suppressing coil “ride-up” or collapse during use, which the Applicant argues cannot be explained by dimensional optimization alone. However, the Examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument, as the Examiner notes that Shireman as cited discloses a limited amount of known dimensions of each of the outer diameter of the coil body and the diameter of the intermediate portion relative to one another that fall within/overlap with the claimed range [Shireman ¶¶0048, 0099], such that in response to applicant’s argument that, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985) (The prior art taught combustion fluid analyzers which used labyrinth heaters to maintain the samples at a uniform temperature. Although appellant showed that an unexpectedly shorter response time was obtained when a labyrinth heater was employed, the Board held this advantage would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art.). Furthermore, the Examiner notes that the Applicant’s disclosure regarding the suppression of coil “ride-up” or collapse during use merely refers to the claimed ranges of each of the coil body and intermediate portion, as well as the coil body having a constant wire diameter [Applicant’s Specification ¶¶0009-0010, 0054], but fails to provide evidence of how the particular claimed range is critical relative to any other overlapping or similar range rather than simply being the outcome of routine optimization to achieve the argued outcome, such that the disclosure of Shireman of a limited amount of known dimensions of each of the outer diameter of the coil body [having a constant wire diameter (Shireman ¶0099)] and the diameter of the intermediate portion relative to one another that fall within/overlap with the claimed range [Shireman ¶¶0048, 0099] is considered to render the claimed range obvious.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7378. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6 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, Charles Marmor II can be reached at (571) 272-4730. 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.
/SEVERO ANTONIO P LOPEZ/Examiner, Art Unit 3791
Prosecution Insights