DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/27/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-10, 15-16, and 21-23 remain pending in the application. Claims 11-13 have been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Arguments/Remarks Made in an Amendment, filed
07/27/2026, with respect to the rejections of Claims 1 and 15 under WO 2021/186182 (hereafter –Roberts--) in view of US 20170095372 A1 (hereafter –Aceti--) have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding Applicant’s assertion that the addition of the limitations “wherein the flange portion has an inner surface that defines a funnel that tapers along the longitudinal axis toward the channel, and wherein, along an entire circumference of the flange portion, at least a portion of the channel slopes toward the longitudinal axis in a direction toward the insertional end of the insertional portion,” and “wherein the insertional portion has an outer circumferential surface that is configured to contact surfaces forming the ear canal of the user along an entirety of the insertional length to inhibit said surfaces forming the ear canal from collapsing” overcome the previous rejection, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. The Examiner has expanded what the flange portion is to be, as it is now interpreted to be the outside ridge of the top of the implant, into the inner surface of the lumen of the device, in which said inner surface forms a funnel that slopes toward the channel (see Figures 1A and Figure 2 below). The term “portion” is significantly broad to encompass various The channel, being the lumen in the insertional end portion of the device, slopes inward toward the center of the lumen, where the longitudinal axis sits (see again Figures 1A and 2 below). Furthermore, the device has a circumferential service, and said service contacts an ear canal as the device of Roberts is explicitly disclosed to be inserted into the ear canal of a patient. Lastly, the limitation “to inhibit said surfaces forming the ear canal from collapsing” is treated as functional language, that is not given full patentable weight. The prior art is not required to disclose this function, but merely have the capability of performing the recited function. Due to the ear stent of the prior art being able to be inserted into the ear canal (see page 3, lines 16-20 denoting that the device is inserted into the ear canal), the device would be capable for inhibiting collapse of the ear canal.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 21 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The new matter rejection of claim 22 has been withdrawn, as support for the limitations is found at [0056] of the specification and Figure 8A.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 1-2, 4-5, 7-8, 14-15, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/186182 (Roberts), in further view of US 20170095372 A1 (hereafter –Aceti--).
Regarding Claim 1, Roberts discloses an ear stent for insertion into an ear canal of a user (see page 3, lines 16-18), the ear stent having a longitudinal axis (see longitudinal axis in Figure 2 below) and comprising: an insertional portion that extends along and surrounds the longitudinal axis between an insertional end and an outer end (see annotated insertional end, outer end, and insertional portion in Figures 2 and 1A below), wherein the insertional portion is configured to be inserted into the ear canal (see page 8, line 4-8), wherein the insertional portion defines a channel therethrough from the insertional end to the outer end (see channel 113 in Figure 2 below); and a flange portion that extends outwardly from the insertional portion at the outer end of the insertional portion (see annotated flange portion in Figure 1A), wherein the insertional portion and the flange portion are monolithically formed as a unitary body (see Figures 1A and 2 below), wherein the flange portion has an inner surface that defines a funnel that tapers along the longitudinal axis toward the channel (see annotated channel, axis, insertional end, insertional portion, and flange portion in Figures 1A and Figure 2, see Abstract, inner surface of flange portion is the start of the funnel wall leading to the channel), and wherein, along an entire circumference of the flange portion, at least a portion of the channel slopes toward the longitudinal axis in a direction toward the insertional end of the insertional portion (see annotated channel, axis, insertional end, insertional portion, and flange portion in Figures 1A and Figure 2), wherein the ear stent has an insertional length from the insertional end of the insertional portion to the flange portion (see below), wherein the insertional length is between 3.6 mm and 6.9 mm (see page 3, lines 29-31, see also measured L1 in Figure 2 below), wherein the insertional portion has an outer circumferential surface that is configured to contact surfaces forming the ear canal of the user along an entirety of the insertional length (see annotated outer circumference in Figure 2, see page 3, lines 16-20 denoting that the device is inserted into the ear canal), wherein the ear stent does not comprise any electronic components (no electronic components are present in the reference).
PNG
media_image1.png
522
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Roberts fails to disclose wherein the insertional length is between 10 mm and 20 mm.
Aceti discloses an ear stent implant for insertion into an ear canal of a user, the ear stent having a longitudinal axis and comprising: an insertional portion that extends along the longitudinal axis between an insertional end and a flange end that extends outwardly from the insertional portion at the outer end, wherein the insertional portion and flange portion are monolithically forms as a unitary body (see annotated insertional end, insertional portion, flange portion, and longitudinal axis in Figure 2 below). Aceti teaches wherein the ear stent has an insertional length from the insertional end of the insertional portion to the flange portion (entirety of component 104), wherein the insertional length is between 10 mm and 15 mm (see paragraph [0045] talking about the possible length of component 104), a range that overlaps with the claimed range of about 10-20 mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the length of Robert’s insertional portion with the length taught by Aceti with a reasonable expectation for yielding an insertional portion having a suitable length for insertion into the ear canal as taught by Aceti. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of Robert’s modified insertional portion from about 10 to 15 mm as taught by Aceti to about 10 to 20 mm as claimed, since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range of from about 10 mm to 20 mm (see paragraph [0036] saying the range “can optionally” be from about 10 mm to about 20 mm).
The limitation “to inhibit said surfaces forming the ear canal from collapsing” is treated as functional language, that is not given full patentable weight. The prior art is not required to disclose this function, but merely have the capability of performing the recited function. Due to the ear stent of the prior art being able to be inserted into the ear canal (see page 3, lines 16-20 denoting that the device is inserted into the ear canal), the device would be capable for inhibiting collapse of the ear canal.
PNG
media_image2.png
391
527
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2, Roberts as modified discloses the ear stent of claim 1, further comprising a protrusion that extends outwardly from the flange along the longitudinal axis a sufficient distance for a user to grip to pull the ear stent from the ear canal (see protrusion 122 in Figure 2 above).
PNG
media_image3.png
309
611
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 4, Roberts as modified discloses the ear stent of claim 2, wherein the protrusion is integrally formed with the flange portion as a unitary, monolithic structure (see Figure 1A above).
Regarding Claim 5, Roberts as modified discloses the ear stent of claim 2, wherein the insertional portion (see annotated insertional portion in Figures 1A and 2 above) has an outer surface that defines an oblong shape having a major dimension and a minor dimension (see page 7, lines 9-14 denoting that the opening 109 can have an oval shape, ovals always having a major and minor dimensions, see paragraph [0039] of Instant Application’s specification denoting the oblong shape can be an oval shape), wherein the protrusion is offset from the longitudinal axis along the transverse axis (see annotated protrusion in Figures 1A, 1B, and 2 above).
However, Roberts as modified fails to disclose wherein the insertional portion has an outer surface in a cross-sectional plane that is transverse to the longitudinal axis, wherein the major dimension extends along a transverse axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis.
Nevertheless, the alternate embodiment of Figures 4-8 of Roberts discloses an ear stent having a longitudinal axis (see longitudinal axis 17 in Figures 4, 5, and 6 below) and comprises an insertional portion that extends along the longitudinal axis between an insertional end and an outer end (see annotated insertional end, outer end, and insertional portion in Figures 4, 5, and 6 below), wherein the insertional portion defines a channel therethrough from the insertional end to the outer end (see channel 16 in Figures 4, 5, and 6 below). The alternate embodiment of Figures 4-8 of Roberts teaches the insertional portion having an outer surface in a cross-sectional plane that is transverse to the longitudinal axis (see transverse axis/plane in Figures 4, 5, and 6 below), wherein the opening on the insertional end extends along a transverse axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see Figures 4 and 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ear stent of Figures 1-3 of Roberts such that the opening on the insertional end extends along a transverse axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see transverse axis/plane in Figures 4, 5, and 6 below), as Roberts teaches that an ear stent that is straight along the longitudinal axis is an alternate shape that is recognized in the art as suitable for use in an ear canal. The modification would result in the major dimension of the oblong cross-sectional shape of the insertional portion being oriented transverse to the longitudinal axis, and the protrusion offset from the longitudinal axis along the transverse axis.
PNG
media_image4.png
502
797
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7, Roberts as modified discloses the ear stent of claim 1, wherein the insertional length is from 12 mm to 18.5 mm (see claim 1 rejection above, wherein the range of 12 mm to 18.5 mm is within the range 10 mm to 20 mm).
Regarding Claim 8, Roberts as modified discloses the ear stent of claim 1, wherein the insertional portion has an outer surface that defines an oblong shape having a major dimension and a minor dimension (see page 7, lines 9-14 denoting that the opening 109 can have an oval shape, ovals always having a major and minor dimension, see paragraph [0039] of Instant Application’s specification denoting the oblong shape can be an oval shape, see also page 4, line 3). However, Roberts fails to disclose wherein the outer surface of the insertional portion is in a cross-sectional plane that is transverse to the longitudinal axis.
Nevertheless, the alternate embodiment of Figures 4-8 of Roberts discloses an ear stent having a longitudinal axis (see longitudinal axis 17 in Figures 4, 5, and 6 above) and comprising: an insertional portion that extends along the longitudinal axis between an insertional end and an outer end (see annotated insertional end, outer end, and insertional portion in Figures 4, 5, and 6 above), wherein the insertional portion defines a channel therethrough from the insertional end to the outer end (see channel 16 in Figures 4, 5, and 6 above). The alternate embodiment of Figures 4-8 of Roberts teaches wherein the outer surface of the insertional portion is in a cross-sectional plane that is transverse to the longitudinal axis (see transverse axis/plane in Figures 4, 5, and 6 above).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ear stent of Figures 1-3 of Roberts such that the opening on the insertional end extends along a transverse axis that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see transverse axis/plane in Figures 4, 5, and 6 above), as Roberts teaches that an ear stent that is straight along the longitudinal axis is an alternate shape that is recognized in the art as suitable for use in an ear canal. The modification would result in the major dimension of the oblong cross-sectional shape of the insertional portion being oriented transverse to the longitudinal axis, and the protrusion offset from the longitudinal axis along the transverse axis.
Regarding Claim 14, Roberts as modified discloses the ear stent of claim 1, were in the ear stent consists essentially of silicone (see page 7, lines 26-27).
Regarding Claim 15, Roberts discloses a method comprising: inserting an ear stent into an ear canal of a user (see page 3, lines 16-18), the ear stent having a longitudinal axis (see longitudinal axis in Figure 2 above) and comprising: an insertional portion that extends along the longitudinal axis between an insertional end and an outer end (see annotated insertional end, outer end, and insertional portion in Figures 2 and 1A above), wherein the insertional portion is configured to be inserted into the ear canal (see page 8, line 4-8), wherein the insertional portion defines a channel therethrough from the insertional end to the outer end (see channel 113 in Figure 2 above); and a flange portion that extends outwardly from the insertional portion at the outer end of the insertional portion (see annotated flange portion in Figure 1A), wherein the insertional portion and the flange portion are monolithically formed as a unitary body (see Figures 1A and 2 above), wherein the flange portion has an inner surface that defines a funnel that tapers along the longitudinal axis toward the channel, and wherein, along an entire circumference of the flange portion, at least a portion of the channel slopes toward the longitudinal axis in a direction toward the insertional end of the insertional portion (see annotated channel, axis, insertional end, insertional portion, and flange portion in Figures 1A and Figure 2, see Abstract, inner surface of flange portion is the start of the funnel wall leading to the channel), wherein the ear stent has an insertional length from the insertional end of the insertional portion to the flange portion (see annotated insertional end and flange portion in Figures 1A and 2 above), wherein the insertional portion has an outer circumferential surface that is configured to contact surfaces forming the ear canal of the user along an entirety of the insertional length (see annotated outer circumference in Figure 2, see page 3, lines 16-20 denoting that the device is inserted into the ear canal), wherein the ear stent does not comprise any electronic components (no electronic components are present in the reference).
Roberts fails to disclose wherein the insertional length is between 10 mm and 20 mm.
Aceti discloses an ear stent implant for insertion into an ear canal of a user, the ear stent having a longitudinal axis and comprising: an insertional portion that extends along the longitudinal axis between an insertional end and a flange end that extends outwardly from the insertional portion at the outer end, wherein the insertional portion and flange portion are monolithically forms as a unitary body (see annotated insertional end, insertional portion, flange portion, and longitudinal axis in Figure 2 of Aceti above). Aceti teaches wherein the ear stent has an insertional length from the insertional end of the insertional portion to the flange portion (entirety of component 104), wherein the insertional length is between 10 mm and 15 mm (see paragraph [0045] talking about the possible length of component 104), a range that overlaps with the claimed range of about 10-20 mm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the length of Robert’s insertional portion with the length taught by Aceti with a reasonable expectation for yielding an insertional portion having a suitable length for insertion into the ear canal as taught by Aceti. Further, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the length of Robert’s modified insertional portion from about 10 to 15 mm as taught by Aceti to about 10 to 20 mm as claimed, since in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Further, applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range of from about 10 mm to 20 mm (see paragraph [0036] saying the range “can optionally” be from about 10 mm to about 20 mm).
The limitation “inhibit” in “to inhibit said surfaces forming the ear canal from collapsing” is being given its broadest reasonable interpretation to encompass any degree of prevention of collapse. Due to the ear stent of the prior art being able to be inserted into the ear canal (see page 3, lines 16-20 denoting that the device is inserted into the ear canal), the device would be capable for inhibiting collapse of the ear canal at least to some degree as the stent is placed within the canal.
PNG
media_image1.png
522
974
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 23, Roberts as modified discloses the ear stent of claim 1, wherein the insertional portion has an outer surface that defines (see annotated insertional portion and outer surface in Figure 2 below), in a cross sectional plane that is perpendicular to the longitudinal axis (see annotated plane and axis in Figure 2 below), an oblong shape having a major dimension and a minor dimension (see major and minor dimensions in Figure 1F below), wherein the channel is radially offset from the outer surface by a consistent radial dimension (see annotated outer surface and channel in Figure 2 below), wherein the channel comprises: an open portion (see annotated open portion in Figure 2 below); and at least one filled portion corresponding to a region of increased wall thickness of the insertional portion (see annotated filled portion in Figure 2 below, that portion of the channel being filled more than the other section of the insertional portion, as the wall thickness increases in that region).
PNG
media_image5.png
535
984
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
203
610
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/186182 (Roberts), in further view of US 20170095372 A1 (hereafter –Aceti--), as applied to claim 1 above, and in even further view of US 20070150057 A1 (hereafter --Kurz--).
Regarding Claim 21, Roberts as modified discloses the ear stent of claim 1.
Roberts as modified fails to disclose wherein the ear stent comprises at least one alphanumeric indicator, wherein each alphanumeric indicator of the at least one indicator is indicative of a respective dimension of the ear stent.
Kurz discloses a device for sizing middle ear prosthesis, in which the devices have boss. Kurz teaches wherein the device has a label corresponding to the outer diameter of the middle ear prosthesis (see paragraph [0011], see also Figure 5b below).
PNG
media_image7.png
494
555
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention for the ear stent of Roberts as modified to comprise comprises at least one alphanumeric indicator having a boss projecting outwardly from the flange part, wherein each alphanumeric indicator of the at least one indicator is indicative of a respective dimension of the ear stent, as by doing so would enable the operator to select at a glance the correct size of the middle ear prosthesis to be inserted as taught by Kurz (see paragraph [0011]).
Regarding Claim 22, Roberts as modified discloses the claim 21, wherein each alphanumeric indicator of the at least one alphanumeric indicator comprises a boss that is integrally formed with the flange and projects outwardly from the inner surface of the flange portion that defines the funnel (see claim 21 rejection above).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/186182 (Roberts), in further view of US 20170095372 A1 (hereafter –Aceti--), as applied to claim 1 above, and even further view of US 7464786 B2 (hereafter –Falco--).
Regarding Claim 3, Roberts as modified discloses the ear stent of claim 2. However, Roberts fails to disclose wherein the sufficient distance is at least 5 mm.
Nevertheless, Falco discloses an ear insert (10) with an insertional portion (12), insertional end (16), an outer end (18), and a protrusion (14) along a longitudinal axis (A) that extends outwardly from the insert along the longitudinal axis (A) a sufficient distance for a user to grip to pull the ear stent from the ear canal (see Figure 1 of Falco). Falco teaches wherein the sufficient distance the protrusion extends is at least 5 mm, specifically within a range of 6.35 mm -12.7 mm. (see column 7, lines 11-14). Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ear stent of Figures 1-3 of Roberts to have the protrusion extend at least 5mm, as the dimension is suitable for facilitating insertion and removal of the ear insert in the ear canal as taught by Falco (see column 7, lines 23-27, see also column 3, lines 24-27).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/186182 (Roberts), in further view of US 20170095372 A1 (hereafter –Aceti--), as applied to claim 8 above, in even further view of non-patent literature “Ear Canal Dimensions” (hereafter—Hearing--).
Regarding Claim 9, Roberts as modified discloses the ear stent of claim 8.
However, Roberts as modified fails to disclose wherein the major dimension is between 6 mm and 9 mm.
Nevertheless, Hearing discloses the dimensions of an ear canal, as the ear canal’s entrance and cross-sectional shape is of an oval throughout. The dimensions of the oval of the ear canal tapers and decreases from the entrance to the end of the ear canal as it approaches the tympanic membrane (see Figure below). Hearing teaches the major and minor dimensions of the oval cross section towards the inner ear canal, where the insertional portion of the ear stent with the major and minor dimensions would sit. The minor dimension of the inner ear canal is taught to be between 4.5 mm and 7 mm, and the major dimension is taught to be 6.25 mm to 10.1 mm (see “pre-TM” measurement in the Figure below to represent the inner ear canal oval cross-section dimensions prior to the ear drum). These dimensions of the oval cross-section of the ear canal overlap with the claimed range, as the claimed range 2 mm to 5mm overlaps with the minor dimensions of the ear canal of 4.5 and 7mm, and the claimed range 6mm to 9mm overlaps with the major dimensions of the ear canal of 6.25 mm to 10.1 mm.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the ear stent of the Figures 1-3 of Roberts to have an oval cross-section at the insertional end, the major dimension being between 6mm and 9mm and the minor dimension being between 2 and 5 mm, the exact measurement depending on the size of the ear canal of the user, so that the ear stent fits properly within the ear canal of a patient (see Figure below).
PNG
media_image8.png
560
745
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 10, Roberts as modified discloses the ear stent of claim 8, wherein the minor dimension is between 2 mm and 5 mm (see explanation above).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/186182 (Roberts), in further view of US 20170095372 A1 (hereafter –Aceti--), as applied to claim 15 above, and even further view of non-patent literature reference “A Composite Foley Catheter Stent Used to Successfully Manage Recurrent Canal Stenosis Caused by Fibrous Dysplasia of the Temporal Bone” (hereafter –Chao-Yin--).
Regarding Claim 16, Roberts as modified discloses the method of claim 15.
However, Roberts as modified fails to disclose wherein the user has a collapsed or collapsing ear canal, and wherein the ear stent supports the ear canal of the user in an at least partially open condition.
Nevertheless, Chao-Yin disclosed an ear stent (see Figure 2 in reference) with an outer end, insertional end, and insertional portion that tapers form the outer end to the insertional end. The ear stent is made out of Foley catheters, and is a hollow tube having a channel from the outer end to the insertional end (see text under Figure 2, see also the second paragraph of the discussion section on page 2 of the attached reference). Chao-Yin teaches the user has a collapsed or collapsing ear canal, and the ear stent supports the ear canal of the user in an at least partially open condition (see last paragraph of the reference denoting it’s a useful tool for preventing canal restenosis, see also first paragraph of the case presentation section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the ear stent of Roberts to treat the condition of a collapsed or collapsing ear canal, as Chao-Yin teaches that ear stents are useful for supporting an ear canal to prevent canal restenosis (see last paragraph of the Chao-Yin)).
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 PARIS MARIE BLASS whose telephone number is (703)756-5375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9 a.m. - 7 p.m. ET.
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, Melanie Tyson can be reached at 571-272-9062. 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.
/PARIS MARIE BLASS/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/SARAH W ALEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774
