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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
This is the Final action for application #17/683884, Means of Attaching A Disposable Drainage Bag For Urological, Gynecological, and Other Surgical Procedures, filed 3/1/2022. Claims 1, 3, and 11-25 are pending. This Final Office Action is in response to applicant's reply dated 9/25/2025. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as they are replete with errors. In an effort to further prosecution, the Examiner has listed many of the errors below. The Examiner notes that it is the burden of the Applicant to assure that the application is clear and free of errors. The Examiner suggests that the Applicant review the drawings in their entirety and amend accordingly to assure that each element is accounted for. Each element should be defined correctly in the specification and be defined in the drawings. No new matter will be permitted.
Figures 1A, and 1B should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because Figures 1A, 1B do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 12.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “111” has been used to designate two different elements in Figure 2A.
The drawings are objected to because Figures 2C and 2D are shaded and extremely small, making it difficult to see the individual elements and read the numerals. This sheet needs to be resubmitted so it is readable.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because Figure 2C does not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 205a.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 2C, numeral “211” appears to point to an edge instead of the lip.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 3A, numeral “320” is not pointing to the hole in the upper arm.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because Figure 3A fails to show a chase 334 and band acceptance slot 307 as described in the specification. While the numerals are there, the elements are not depicted. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 335.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 324.
The drawings are objected to because there are two occurrences of numeral “411” in Figure 4A.
The drawings are objected to because upper numeral “414” in Figure 4B is not pointing to the protuberance.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because Figure 5 shows a main view and a detailed view of the spacer in the same view.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 515.
The drawings are objected to because it is not clear what numeral “510” is pointing to since not pointing to the hole in the lower arm.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.84(h)(5) because Figure 6 shows several views in the same Figure.
The drawings are objected to because numeral “614” is not pointing to a hole in Figure 6.
The drawings are objected to because numeral “703” was used to define holes, and while the upper holes are depicted in Figure 7A, there are no lower holes depicted so it is not clear what lower reference numeral “703” is pointing to.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 8A, numerals “811” and “813” are supposed to define lips, but no lip is depicted. The numerals are just pointing the end of the ledge.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 920.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 10, numeral “1017” is not pointing to the inner wall of the clamp as defined in the specification.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 10, numeral “1014” is not pointing to a hole.
The drawings are objected to because in Figure 10, numeral “1016” is not pointing to a hole, but rather points to the threaded portion of the knob. Additionally, it is unclear if the threaded portion passes INTO the structure of mount arm since that is what appears to be depicted but the specification does not state this and none of the mount arms are depicted with recesses or apertures on the lower surface thereof.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 1003, 1007, 1008, 1106, 1108.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1110” has been used to designate two different elements in Figures 11A and 11B.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1115” has been used to designate two different elements in Figures 11A and 11B.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “1116” has been used to designate two different elements in Figures 11A and 11B.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: distance “N”.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The specification is objected to as it is replete with errors. In an effort to further prosecution, the Examiner has listed many of the errors below. The Examiner notes that it is the burden of the Applicant to assure that the application is clear and free of errors. The Examiner suggests that the Applicant review the specification in its entirety and amend accordingly to assure that each element is accounted for. Each element should be defined correctly in the specification and be defined in the drawings. No new matter will be permitted.
The disclosure is objected to because numeral “110” is used to refer to both the drainage bag system and the drainage bag drape.
The disclosure is objected to because the specification defines numeral “101a” and then states “not shown”. A reference numeral cannot be defined in the specification and not included in the drawings. Therefore, the numeral “101a” should be deleted from the specification.
The disclosure is objected to because numeral “103” defines both a drain tube and a threaded tube.
The disclosure is objected to because medial surface 209, lip 210, and lip 211 are all defined as being a “proximal surface”. However, the lips oppose the medial surface and therefore they cannot all be considered ‘proximal’.
The disclosure is objected to because in the second to last paragraph of page 22, the band acceptance slot is referred to as “208”, but it was previously defined as “207”.
The disclosure is objected to because the first sentence of the second paragraph on page 23 is a fragment.
The disclosure is objected to because in the second paragraph of page 24, the specification states that the knob 301 engages 318 “via fin 315” but fin 315 is on the opposite side of the accessory mount clamp so the knob would not engage with the fin.
The disclosure is objected to because the accessory mount clamp in Figure 3A is defined as both “316” and “331” in the specification, and “316” is also used to define an upper arm.
The disclosure is objected to because the first line of page 25 is referencing numerals 221 and 217 that are from a previous embodiment, and not the embodiment being discussed.
The disclosure is objected to because the spacer has been referred to as both 323 and 322
The disclosure is objected to because the disposable clamp is defined as both “401”, “418”, and “410” in the specification. Numeral “418” is also used to define the upper ledge.
The disclosure is objected to because both numerals “510” and “520” were used to define the hole in the lower arm 518.
The disclosure is objected to because numeral “604” was used to define both the hole in the spacer and in the lower arm.
The disclosure is objected to because numeral “630” was used to define both the clamp and the lower ledge.
The disclosure is objected to because numeral “820” is used to define a prong and also the band. The band is further defined by numerals “807” and “829”.
The disclosure is objected to because numeral “1013” is used to define both a protuberance and a hole.
The disclosure is objected to because numeral “1115” has been defined as both an “engagement surface” and a “proximal clamp wall”.
The disclosure is objected to because on page 29 of the specification it is stated that the distance “Q” is measured between center line “E” of the hole 1111 and center line “E” of the clamp 1110, but the clamp does not have a center line “E”.
The disclosure is objected to because numeral “1114” has been defined as both a “chase” and a “table rail”.
The disclosure is objected to because on page 30 is it disclosed that the threaded knob 1112 “pushes up on table rail 1114” but in Figure 11B, head “1106” that is depicted in Figure 11A is not shown so it is unclear if the head is positioned within the rail of if the head should just be contacting the exterior of the rail.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: The phrase “of the said upper platform” should be ---of said upper platform---. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1, 3, 11-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The phrase “wherein said upper and lower arms are substantially parallel with a top surface of the upper platform” is new matter since Claim 1 was amended such that the upper and lower arms were portions of the accessory mount clamp. The only “arms” that were defined as being substantially parallel with the platforms belonged to the mounting clamp, not the accessory clamp.
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.
Claims 1, 3 and 11-25 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 1:
-When defining the band, the phrase “positioned at least one end of the band” is unclear. The term “at” that was deleted needs to be put back in for the phrase to make sense.
-A “receiving slot” is claimed to be configured to receive said at least one protuberance of the band. Yet in Claim 3, a “at least one hole” is further claimed to receive the protuberance. It is unclear if the “receiving slot” being referred to is the slot that receives the entire band, or the hole that receives the protuberance. The Examiner suggests amending Claim 1 to claim that the receiving slot is configured to receive the end of the band, and the hole of claim 3 receives the protuberance.
-The phrase “wherein the accessory mount clamp comprises at least one upper arm, at least one lower arm, wherein said upper and lower arms are substantially parallel with a top surface of the upper platform” is unclear. First, the accessory mount clamp is not positively defined in combination with the drainage band system (drainage bag, band, and at least one mounting clamp). Any reference thereto should only be functional, and therefore the specific structure thereof should not be further defined. Secondly, it is claimed that the mounting clamp is configured to receive a rail or mount arm. Therefore, if mounted to a rail then the structure of the mount arm would be moot. Lastly, from viewing elected Figure 2C, the accessory mount clamp (215) only comprises one upper arm (216) and one lower arm (217). Therefore, it is unclear what the structure would be with additional arms as suggested by the “at least one” phrase.
-The phrase “an upper surface said lower platform” in the last line of the claim is unclear.
Regarding Claim 3:
-As stated above in Claim 1, it is unclear if the “receiving slot” is the band slot or the hole for the protuberance. In Claim 3, it is claimed that the receiving slot includes “at least one through hole”. If the receiving slot is the entire band slot, then it would make sense that the entire band slot would include at least one through hole for the protuberance, but then Claim 1 should be amended such that the band is received in the receiving slot, not just the protuberance.
Regarding Claim 14:
-Claim 1 already claimed that the rail acceptance channel was configured to receive a surgical table accessory rail or an accessory mount arm. It is unclear if those claimed in Claim 14 are in addition thereto.
Regarding Claim 16:
-The Examiner notes that the accessory mount arm is not positively claimed and therefore the fin cannot be positively claimed. The claims are only drawn to the structure (clamp/band/bag) that is mounted to either the rail or to the accessory mount arm, and not to a combination of the rail/accessory mount arm and the clamp/band/bag. Therefore, any reference to the rail or accessory mount arm may only be made with functional language.
Regarding Claim 23:
-It is unclear if “a protrusion” is in addition to the protuberance already claimed in Claim 1.
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 3, 11-14, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 8,833,707 to Steinberg et al. (hereinafter ‘Steinberg’) in view of US 5,991,985 (Galbreath) and further in view of US 4,624,245 to Mullins et al. (hereinafter ‘Mullins’).
Regarding Claim 1, as best understood, Steinberg teaches a drainage bag system configured to be coupled to a medical procedural table, comprising:
a drainage bag (12; Figure 1),
a band (14; Figure 1) attached to and supporting the drainage bag (12), and
at least one mounting clamp (16 or 18) including a receiving slot (55; Figure 4) configured to receive said band (14),
wherein the at least one mounting clamp (16 or 18) has a rail acceptance channel (57; Figure 5) configured to receive a surgical table accessory rail (22; Figure 2 or 5; col 5, ln 38-48) or an accessory mount arm of an accessory mount clamp,
wherein the at least one mounting clamp (16 or 18) has a threaded member (38) configured to secure the at least one mounting clamp to the surgical table accessory (as depicted in Figure 5) or to the accessory mount clamp.
wherein the at least one mounting clamp (16,18) includes an upper platform (46), a lower platform (48) and a clamp wall (44; Figure 5),
wherein the upper platform (46) includes an upper protruding lip (lip directly to the left of numeral 57 in Figure 5) and the lower platform (48) includes a lower protruding lip (directly to the left of numeral 48 in Figure 5),
wherein the accessory mount clamp comprises at least one upper arm, at least one lower arm, wherein said upper and lower arms are substantially parallel with a top surface of the upper platform and a bottom surface of the lower platform, respectively (As best understood, this language is moot since the rejection is based on a mounting clamp mounted to a surgical table accessory rail. Additionally, this new language contains new matter as stated above),
wherein the rail acceptance channel (57) is formed by a lower surface of said upper platform (46), the upper protruding lip (of 46), an upper surface said lower platform (48) and the lower protruding lip (of 48; Figure 5).
Steinberg does not specifically teach said band having at least one protuberance positioned at least one end of the band, with the receiving slot configured to receive said at least one protuberance of the band. Steinburg does teach an opening in the band to receive a protuberance (56) located within the receiving slot to secure the band within the slot (Figure 3; col 6, ln 49-58). Steinberg additionally teaches that the end of the band could comprise a variety of different attaching structures (Figures 13A-13E; col 7, ln 48-50). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have a protrusion be on the band and an opening within the receiving slot, since it has been held that a mere reversal of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. In re Einstein, 8 USPQ 167.
Notwithstanding, Galbreath, which also teaches a connection between two elements (10,13; Figure 1) where the end of the first element (10) is inserted into a receiving slot of the second element (13; Figure 2), further teaches the end of the first element (10) having a protuberance (end of 11a or 11b) which is inserted into the receiving slot (of 13) and snapped into holes (15a or 15b) to connect the two elements (Figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use a snap fastener as taught by Galbreath on the band end of Steinberg, since the combination of the snap fastener extending through holes and the internal protuberance creates a secure connection that prevents accidental disengagement (col 3, ln 57-60 of Galbreath).
Steinberg does not specifically teach wherein said lower platform comprises a threaded hole and the threaded member includes a threaded knob to engage in the threaded hole. Steinberg teaches an additional platform (50) having the threaded hole for a threaded member (38) that presses the lower platform (48) against the lower end of the rail (22). However, Mullin, which is also drawn to a mounting clamp (20) for mounting to a rail of a surgical table (12; Figure 1), with the mounting clamp (20) having upper and lower platforms with respective lips (lower platform being the one with threaded member 23 in Figure 5 and the upper platform being opposite thereto), and the platforms connected via a clamp wall (wall that the leader line for 20 is touching in Figure 2), further teaches that said lower platform comprises a threaded hole (for 23; Figure 5) and the threaded member includes a threaded knob (22/23) to engage in the threaded hole.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success that the lower portion of the clamp of Steinburg could comprise just one lower platform as taught by Mullin which comprises not only the lower lip but also the threaded hole for the threaded member, such that the threaded member could directly engage with the bottom of the rail, thereby simplifying the structure of the mounting clamp which would reduce cost while still allowing the mounting clamp to slide and lock onto the rail.
Regarding Claim 3, as best understood, Steinberg, Galbreath, and Mullin combined teach the drainage bag system of claim 1, and Galbreath further teaches wherein said receiving slot (in 13) includes at least one through hole (15a or 15b) for receiving said at least one protuberance (at ends of 11a or 11b) so as to block the band from disengaging from the receiving slot (col 3, ln 28-32).
Regarding Claim 11, as best understood, Steinberg, Galbreath, and Mullin combined teach the drainage bag system of claim 1, and Steinberg further teaches wherein the lower surface of the said upper platform (46) comprises at least one chase (where 55 is pointing in Figure 5) or channel formed therein.
Regarding Claims 12 and 13, as best understood, Steinberg, Galbreath, and Mullin combined teach the drainage bag system of claim 11, but do not specifically teach wherein said at least one chase has a width in a range from about 0.9 inches to about 1.6 inches, and has a height in a range of about 0.05 inches to about 0.25 inches. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to determine the optimum dimensions for the elements, such as the chase, depending on the dimensions of the band/rail intended to be mounted, such that the mounting clamp could be securely fastened.
Regarding Claim 14, as best understood, Steinberg, Galbreath, and Mullin combined teach the drainage bag system of claim 1, and Steinberg further teaches wherein the rail acceptance channel is configured to be shaped and sized to receive a surgical table accessory rail or an accessory mount arm (as depicted in Figure 5).
Regarding Claim 22, as best understood, Steinberg, Galbreath, and Mullin combined teach the drainage bag system of claim 1, and Steinberg further teaches wherein the upper platform (46) and upper protruding lip, lower platform and lower protruding lip (as modified by Mullin), and the clamp wall (44) are formed out of plastic (col 6, ln 10-15). Steinberg does not specifically teach using a combination of plastic parts that may be welded, glued or press fit together, since Steinberg teaches a monolithic structure. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a combination of plastic parts, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Regarding Claim 23, as best understood, Steinberg, Galbreath, and Mullin combined teach the drainage bag system of claim 1, and Steinberg (as modified by Galbreath) further teaches wherein the band (14) is configured to be received via a protrusion formed on the band (as modified by Galbreath at ends of 11a/11b) into a pre-determined position within the at least one mounting clamp so as to engage with the at least one mounting clamp (Figure 5 of Steinberg; Figure 2 of Galbreath).
Regarding Claims 24 and 25, as best understood, Steinberg, Galbreath, and Mullin combined teach the drainage bag system of claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein said band has a width in a range of about 0.5 inches to about 3 inches, or wherein said rail acceptance channel of the at least one mounting clamp has a width in a range of about 0.2 inches to about 0.45 inches and a height in a range of about 0.9 inches to about 1.6 inches. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success through routine experimentation and design to determine the optimum dimensions for the band and receiving channel based on surgical table rail standard sizes used in hospitals such that the drainage bag system could be used universally in most hospitals.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Steinberg, Galbreath, and Mullins, and further in view of US 2002/0061225 to Boucher et al. (hereinafter ‘Boucher’).
Regarding Claim 21, as best understood, Steinberg, Galbreath, and Mullin combined teach the drainage bag system of claim 1, but do not specifically teach wherein the upper platform and upper protruding lip, lower platform and lower protruding lip, and the clamp wall are formed as a combination of metal parts that may be glued or press fit together. Steinberg teaches that the mounting clamp is a monolithic plastic clamp. However, Boucher, which is also drawn to a rail clamp, further teaches that the rail clamp can be made from any suitable material or a variety of suitable materials, including plastic or metal. Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to one of skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success to use metal as the material for the clamp since metal is stronger than plastic and therefore can apply a high clamping force to prevent slippage. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use a combination of metal parts, since it has been held that constructing a formerly integral structure in various elements involves only routine skill in the art. Nerwin v. Erlichman, 168 USPQ 177, 179.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The Examiner notes that the structure of the extension stabilizers in combination with the remaining elements was previously indicated as allowable subject matter, but the extension stabilizers were deleted from the claims. Additionally, the claims currently have numerous 112 rejections, and the drawings and specifications are replete with errors. Any amendment that changes the scope of the invention may alter the allowability of the claims.
Response to Arguments
In response to the Applicant’s statement that Claim 1 was amended to include features of allowable claim 10 and therefore is now allowable, the Examiner has fully considered this but it is not persuasive. The Examiner had explained that the combination of the extension stabilizers (referred to as both “arms” and “extension arms”) with the remaining elements was allowable subject matter, but there were numerous 112 rejections as well as specification and drawing objections that needed to be addressed. Claim 1 was amended with a portion of Claim 10, but the extension stabilizers were deleted from all of the claims and were not added to Claim 1. The scope of Claim 1 not only changed but the amendment introduced additional 112 issues. Therefore, Claim 1 is not allowable. Allowable subject matter is indicated in this office action. However, the drawings and specification objections, and 112 rejections need to be addressed. Since these are numerous, the Examiner suggests filing a Request for Continued Examination and amending the claims with the structure of the extension stabilizers.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INGRID WEINHOLD whose telephone number is (571)272-8822. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Tuesday 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Terrell McKinnon can be reached on 571-272-4797. 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.
/INGRID M WEINHOLD/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3632