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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed April 23, 2026, have been entered. Claims 1-8, 10-25, 27, and 31-35 are currently pending. Claims 9, 26 and 28-30 have been canceled. Claims 31-35 are newly added. Claims 1, 7-8, 12, 20-21, 25, and 27 have been amended. The drawing rejections have been withdrawn due to claim 9 being canceled. The 112(b) rejection has been resolved due to the amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 23, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The claims have been amended and as a result the amendments require new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 10-12, 14, 25, 27 and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis US 2018/0228642 A1.
With regards to claim 1, Davis discloses a urine collection device (abstract), comprising: a fluid impermeable barrier (20, fig 1 and [0052] which discloses impermeability of the external covering 20) that is adjustable between an extended configuration and a compact configuration (abstract and [0077] discloses how the device is able to be further curved or compacted to better fit the user), the fluid impermeable barrier at least partially defining a chamber, an aperture configured to receive a conduit therethrough for connecting the urine collection device to a vacuum source, and an opening (fig 7 shows the external cover 20 is hollow to accommodate additional elements thereby having a chamber, additionally an opening can clearly been seen (element 30) and conduit (or tube 32) allows urine to pass from the collection device to a vacuum source (via an aperture in the tube) if applied [0060]); and a fluid permeable structure (40 and 42, fig 7 and [0057-59]) positioned within the chamber to extend across at least a portion of the opening, the fluid permeable structure being configured to wick fluid away from the opening (fig 7 shows element 42 fits inside of the chamber and [0059]describes the wicking properties).
Davis fails to disclose the fluid impermeable barrier has a thickness of about 0.1 mm to 2 mm and is configured to form a roll in the compact configuration.
However, Davis does teach the device is able to be rolled or compacted ([0077]); therefore, adjusting the thickness of the impermeable barrier fall under routine optimization such that the barrier is still able to be rolled while being durable enough to be used and adjusted as needed. Additionally, a thicker bulkier product would be aesthetically unattractive and make the user feel like the device is more noticeable instead of being discreet. (MPEP 2144.05 II) Therefore it would have been obvious toone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adjusted the thickness as needed to provide a discreet while functional device.
With regards to claim 3, Davis discloses wherein the fluid impermeable barrier includes a fluid impermeable fabric material ([0053] discloses the material for the outer layer (20) or impermeable barrier can be silicone or polyurethane or other polymeric material or film).
With regards to claim 6, Davis discloses further comprising a support member (32c wires fig 11c, [0064]) secured to the fluid impermeable barrier, the support member configured to retain the fluid impermeable barrier in the extended configuration and in the compact configuration (the support member resides within the fluid permeable barrier and therefore it is secured to the barrier and provides adjustability of the device [0064]).
With regards to claim 7, Davis discloses wherein the support member includes a slotted support member secured to the fluid impermeable barrier opposite to the opening, the slotted support member having a plurality of slots extending laterally across the support member generally perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the urine collection device (the wires are wrapped in the slotted manner element 32c- fig 11c and see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
305
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 8, Davis discloses wherein a fluid impermeable barrier (20, fig 1 and [0052]) is adjustable between an extended configuration and a compact configuration ([0077] discloses how the device is able to be further curved or compacted to better fit the user), the fluid impermeable barrier at least partially defining a chamber, an aperture configured to receive a conduit therethrough for connecting the urine collection device to a vacuum source, and an opening (Fig 7 shows the external cover 20 is hollow to accommodate additional elements thereby having a chamber, additionally an opening can clearly been seem (element 30) and conduit (or tube 32) allows urine to pass from the collection device to a vacuum source if applied [0060]) wherein the fluid impermeable barrier includes a first axial length in the extended configuration; a second axial length in the compact configuration, the first axial length being greater than the second axial length; a first width in the extended configuration; and a second width in the configuration, the second width being greater than the first width (when the device as whole is moved from a flat or less curved to curved or more curved configuration the dimensions will change as claimed e.g. if I increase the curvature the length will decrease along an axis and the width will also increase as the curve is increased);
a fluid permeable structure (40 and 42, fig 7 and [0057-59]) positioned within the chamber to extend across at least a portion of the opening, the fluid permeable structure being configured to wick fluid away from the opening (fig 7 shows element 42 fits inside of the chamber and [0059] describes the wicking properties)
a support member (32c wires fig 11c, [0064]) secured to the fluid impermeable barrier, the support member configured to retain the fluid impermeable barrier in the extended configuration and in the compact configuration (the support member resides within the fluid permeable barrier and therefore it is secured to the barrier and provides adjustability of the device [0064]), wherein the support member expands the fluid impermeable barrier from the first width to the second width responsive to manipulation of the fluid impermeable barrier from the extended configuration to the compact configuration with a longitudinal dimension of the opening being substantially equal in the compact configuration and the extended configuration (when the device as whole is moved from a flat or less curved to curved or more curved configuration the overall dimensions will change as claimed e.g. if I increase the curvature the length will decrease along an axis and the width will also increase as the curve is increased; while the opening will remain the same and the device is being bent and not stretched or compressed. Is a sheet of paper having a cut out is rolled up the dimensions of the paper overall will change but the cut out will remain the same.)
With regards to claim 10, Davis discloses wherein the fluid permeable structure is secured to the fluid impermeable barrier proximate to the opening (the support member resides within the fluid permeable barrier and therefore it is secured to the barrier [0064]).
With regards to claim 11, Davis discloses wherein the fluid permeable structure expands to extend across the opening when the fluid impermeable barrier is manipulated from the extended configuration to the compact configuration (the fluid permeable structure is extended across the opening regardless of the configuration therefore the claim is met).
With regards to claim 12, Davis discloses further comprising a conduit extending through the aperture at least partially into the chamber (fig 7 shows the external cover 20 is hollow to accommodate additional elements thereby having a chamber, additionally an opening can clearly been seen (element 30) and conduit (or tube 32) allows urine to pass from the collection device to a vacuum source if applied [0060] as such the conduit extends into the chamber via an aperture).
With regards to claim 14, Davis discloses wherein the conduit includes a first portion positioned at least partially within the chamber and a second portion slidably connected to the first portion, the second portion at least partially positioned outside the chamber and at least partially retractable within the chamber ([0060] the tube (32) resides within the chamber and extends outside the chamber such that is can be connected to the vacuum source, [0078] notes the tube is spaced away from the terminal end of the device which could prevent urine flow, as such the tube since it is not permanently fixed can be moved or retracted within the chamber).
With regards to claim 25, Davis discloses a method of collecting urine ([0002]), comprising: adjusting a fluid impermeable barrier (20, fig 1 and [0052] which discloses impermeability of the external covering 20), the fluid impermeable barrier at least partially defining a chamber, an aperture configured to receive a conduit therethrough for connecting the urine collection device to a vacuum source, and an opening wherein adjusting a configuration of a fluid impermeable barrier includes unrolling and/or unfolding the fluid impermeable barrier and the fluid permeable structure from a compact configuration to an extended configuration (fig 7 shows the external cover 20 is hollow to accommodate additional elements thereby having a chamber, additionally an opening can clearly been seen (element 30) and conduit (or tube 32) allows urine to pass from the collection device to a vacuum source (via an aperture in the tube) if applied [0060] and figs 33-34 which is flow chart for the method of using the device and [0077] discloses how the device is able to adjusted to fit the user);
positioning a fluid permeable structure (40 and 42, fig 7 and [0057-59]) of the urine collection device at least proximate to a urethra of a user (fig 34 step 404), the fluid permeable structure extending at least partially across the opening defined by the impermeable structure (fig 7 shows elements 40 and 42 fits inside of the impermeable structure (20);
receiving fluids discharged from urethra into the chamber (fig 33 step 305); promoting urine from the chamber through the conduit fluidly coupled to the reservoir and connected to a vacuum source (Fig 33 step 305 which removed the urine from the device vias suction thereby promoting urine through the conduit).
Davis fails to disclose the fluid impermeable barrier has a thickness of about 0.1 mm to 2 mm and is configured to form a roll in the compact configuration.
However, Davis does teach the device is able to be rolled or compacted ([0077]); therefore, adjusting the thickness of the impermeable barrier fall under routine optimization such that the barrier is still able to be rolled while being durable enough to be used and adjusted as needed. Additionally, a thicker bulkier product would be aesthetically unattractive and make the user feel like the device is more noticeable instead of being discreet. (MPEP 2144.05 II) Therefore it would have been obvious toone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have adjusted the thickness as needed to provide a discreet while functional device.
With regards to claim 27, Davis discloses retaining the fluid impermeable barrier in the compact configuration or the extended configuration with a support member (32c wires fig 11c, [0064]) secured to the fluid impermeable barrier (the support member resides within the fluid permeable barrier and therefore it is secured to the barrier and provides adjustability of the device [0064]).
With regards to claim 31, Davis discloses extending a length of a conduit positioned at least partially within the chamber by pulling a portion of the conduit slidably connected to a second portion of the conduit ([0060] the tube (32) resides within the chamber and extends outside the chamber such that is can be connected to the vacuum source, [0078] notes the tube is spaced away from the terminal end of the device which could prevent urine flow, as such the tube since it is not permanently fixed can be moved or retracted within the chamber).
With regards to claim 32, Davis discloses wherein the support member is selectively adjustable to remain at any width between the first width and the second width (as the support is adjusted for curved the width remains the same).
Claim(s) 2, 4 and 15-22, 24 and 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis US 2018/0228642 A1 in view of Washington US 4886508.
Regarding claim 2, Davis fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fluid impermeable barrier and the fluid permeable structure are rollable or foldable over one another to form a roll in the compact configuration. (Emphasis added by the examiner as claim 2 requires both impermeable barrier and the fluid permeable structure to be rollable not just the impermeable barrier to be adjustable.)
Davis teaches the overall device can be flexed or curved to fit various body curvatures ([0063]) rolling is narrower than simply forming a curve as rolling requires rotation about an axis. Davis however teaches the material for the outer layer (20) or impermeable barrier can be silicone or polyurethane or other polymeric material ([0053]). Additionally, Davis teaches the fluid permeable structure (40 and 42) or outer collection layer (40) and inner collection core (42) can be formed from an athletic clothing material ([0057-59]) and athletic clothing is known to be flexible and rollable. Applicant’s specification allows for the same materials for the impermeable barrier such as silicone or polyurethane (applicant’s specification [0028]). Applicant’s specification allows for the same material for the fluid permeable structure such as “any material that can wick fluid” such as polyethylene (applicant’s specification [0032-33]).
Washington teaches a flexible urine collection device that is used for urine collection (abstract) thereby being in a related field of endeavor. Washington teaches a silicone impermeable barrier (or catheter body) that is able to be rolled up (Col 2 lines 40-51). Washington additionally teaches a screen insert (or the fluid permeable structure) that is made from polypropylene or other nonabsorbent plastic material (Col 12 lines 17-31) and able to be deformed (Col 2 lines 60-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have deformed the article of Davis firstly because the same material would be expected to have the same properties (e.g. the ability to be rolled) and secondly because Washington teaches a similar device formed from similar material can be rolled or compacted. Compacting the article has an obvious advantage for storing and shipping considerations as space is limited and expensive.
With regards to claim 4, Davis discloses wherein: the fluid impermeable barrier includes a distal end positioned distal to the aperture (fig 1 which shows the external covering 20 extending beyond the opening 30). Davis fails to disclose the fluid impermeable barrier tapers for at least about 2.5 cm towards the distal end.
Washington teaches a flexible urine collection device that is used for urine collection (abstract) thereby being in a related field of endeavor. Washington teaches the overall length is 25cm and the entire length of the opening is 8.3cm (Col 11 line 60- Col 12 line 15). As seen in figure 1 the opening is centrally positioned as such fluid impermeable barrier tapers at least 2.5cm beyond the opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified and optimized the distance the impermeable barrier extended and tapered beyond the opening to meet the claimed limitation as Washington clearly teaches the specific measurements and Davis’s figures suggest it providing a reasonable expectation of success as the measurements are known. Furthermore, “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)” MPEP 2144.05. II. A.
With regards to claim 15 and 16, Davis discloses a urine collection device (abstract), comprising: a fluid impermeable barrier (20, fig 1 and [0052] which discloses impermeability of the external covering 20) that is adjustable between an extended configuration and a compact configuration (abstract and [0077] discloses how the device is able to be further curved or compacted to better fit the user), the fluid impermeable barrier at least partially defining a chamber, an aperture configured to receive a conduit therethrough for connecting the urine collection device to a vacuum source, and an opening (fig 7 shows the external cover 20 is hollow to accommodate additional elements thereby having a chamber, additionally an opening can clearly been seen (element 30) and conduit (or tube 32) allows urine to pass from the collection device to a vacuum source (via an aperture in the tube) if applied [0060]); and a fluid permeable structure (40 and 42, fig 7 and [0057-59]) positioned within the chamber to extend across at least a portion of the opening, the fluid permeable structure being configured to wick fluid away from the opening (fig 7 shows element 42 fits inside of the chamber and [0059]describes the wicking properties).
Davis fails to disclose the fluid impermeable barrier tapers for at least about 2.5 cm towards the distal end.
Washington teaches a flexible urine collection device that is used for urine collection (abstract) thereby being in a related field of endeavor. Washington teaches the overall length is 25cm and the entire length of the opening is 8.3cm (Col 11 line 60- Col 12 line 15). As seen in figure 1 the opening is centrally positioned as such fluid impermeable barrier tapers at least 2.5cm beyond the opening.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified and optimized the distance the impermeable barrier extended and tapered beyond the opening to meet the claimed limitation as Washington clearly teaches the specific measurements and Davis’s figures suggest it providing a reasonable expectation of success as the measurements are known. Furthermore, “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)” MPEP 2144.05. II. A.
Regarding claim 17, Davis fails to explicitly disclose wherein the fluid impermeable barrier and the fluid permeable structure are rollable or foldable over one another to form a roll in the compact configuration. (Emphasis added by the examiner as claim 2 requires both impermeable barrier and the fluid permeable structure to be rollable not just the impermeable barrier to be adjustable.)
Davis teaches the overall device can be flexed or curved to fit various body curvatures ([0063]) rolling is narrower than simply forming a curve as rolling requires rotation about an axis. Davis however teaches the material for the outer layer (20) or impermeable barrier can be silicone or polyurethane or other polymeric material ([0053]). Additionally, Davis teaches the fluid permeable structure (40 and 42) or outer collection layer (40) and inner collection core (42) can be formed from an athletic clothing material ([0057-59]) and athletic clothing is known to be flexible and rollable. Applicant’s specification allows for the same materials for the impermeable barrier such as silicone or polyurethane (applicant’s specification [0028]). Applicant’s specification allows for the same material for the fluid permeable structure such as “any material that can wick fluid” such as polyethylene (applicant’s specification [0032-33]).
Washington teaches a flexible urine collection device that is used for urine collection (abstract) thereby being in a related field of endeavor. Washington teaches a silicone impermeable barrier (or catheter body) that is able to be rolled up (Col 2 lines 40-51). Washington additionally teaches a screen insert (or the fluid permeable structure) that is made from polypropylene or other nonabsorbent plastic material (Col 12 lines 17-31) and able to be deformed (Col 2 lines 60-65).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have deformed the article of Davis firstly because the same material would be expected to have the same properties (e.g. the ability to be rolled) and secondly because Washington teaches a similar device formed from similar material can be rolled or compacted. Compacting the article has an obvious advantage for storing and shipping considerations as space is limited and expensive.
With regards to claim 18, Davis discloses wherein the fluid impermeable barrier includes a fluid impermeable fabric material ([0053] discloses the material for the outer layer (20) or impermeable barrier can be silicone or polyurethane or other polymeric material or film).
With regards to claim 19, Davis discloses wherein the fluid permeable structure includes an wicking layer (40- outer collection layer, fig 7 and [0056]) and an transport layer (42- inner collection core, fig 7 and [0056] which discloses the layer maybe a moisture wicking layer such as jersey mesh or athletic fabric (which can include as nylon) or polyester blend [0059]) configured to wick fluid from the opening to the chamber of the fluid impermeable barrier ([0056]).
With regards to claim 20, Davis discloses further comprising a support member (32c wires fig 11c, [0064]) secured to the fluid impermeable barrier, the support member configured to retain the fluid impermeable barrier in the extended configuration and in the compact configuration (the support member resides within the fluid permeable barrier and therefore it is secured to the barrier and provides adjustability of the device [0064]).
Davis fails to disclose the support member tapper to a distal tip of the support member. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have tapered the support layer to prevent a better fit with in the device and prevent unnecessary moving of the support member.
With regards to claim 21, Davis discloses wherein the support member includes a slotted support member secured to the fluid impermeable barrier opposite to the opening (the wires are wrapped in the slotted manner element 32c- fig 11c); the slotted support member having a plurality of slots extending laterally across the support member generally perpendicular to a longitudinal axis of the urine collection device (the wires are wrapped in the slotted manner element 32c- fig 11c and see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
305
537
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With regards to claim 22, Davis discloses further comprising a conduit extending through the aperture at least partially into the chamber (fig 7 shows the external cover 20 is hollow to accommodate additional elements thereby having a chamber, additionally an opening can clearly been seen (element 30) and conduit (or tube 32) allows urine to pass from the collection device to a vacuum source if applied [0060] as such the conduit extends into the chamber via an aperture).
With regards to claim 24, Davis discloses wherein the conduit includes a first portion positioned at least partially within the chamber and a second portion slidably connected to the first portion, the second portion at least partially positioned outside the chamber and at least partially retractable within the chamber ([0060] the tube (32) resides within the chamber and extends outside the chamber such that is can be connected to the vacuum source, [0078] notes the tube is spaced away from the terminal end of the device which could prevent urine flow, as such the tube since it is not permanently fixed can be moved or retracted within the chamber).
With regards to claim 33, Davis fails to disclose wherein the fluid impermeable barrier tapers substantially continuously for at least about 2.5 cm towards the distal end from at least a distal end of the opening.
Washington teaches a flexible urine collection device that is used for urine collection (abstract) thereby being in a related field of endeavor. Washington teaches the overall length is 25cm and the entire length of the opening is 8.3cm (Col 11 line 60- Col 12 line 15). As seen in figure 1 the opening is centrally positioned as such fluid impermeable barrier tapers at least 2.5cm beyond the opening and continuous to taper substantially until the distal end where the connector to undergarment is present.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified and optimized the distance the impermeable barrier extended and tapered beyond the opening to meet the claimed limitation as Washington clearly teaches the specific measurements and Davis’s figures suggest it providing a reasonable expectation of success as the measurements are known. Furthermore, “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)” MPEP 2144.05. II. A.
With regards to claim 34, Davis discloses comprising a support member (32c wires fig 11c, [0064]) secured to the fluid impermeable barrier, the support member configured to retain the fluid impermeable barrier in the extended configuration and in the compact configuration, wherein the support member includes an outer periphery positioned substantially opposite to the opening. (the support member resides within the fluid permeable barrier and therefore it is secured to the barrier and provides adjustability of the device [0064]).
With regards to claim 35, Davis discloses wherein the support member includes a plurality of slots each having an outer periphery space inward from the outer periphery of the support member.
PNG
media_image2.png
348
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis US 2018/0228642 A1 in view of Sanchez US 8287508 B1.
With regards to claim 5, Davis discloses wherein the fluid permeable structure includes an outer portion (40- outer collection layer, fig 7 and [0056]) and an inner porous nylon portion (42- inner collection core, fig 7 and [0056] which discloses the layer maybe a moisture wicking layer such as jersey mesh or athletic fabric (which can inculde as nylon) or polyester blend [0059]) configured to wick fluid from the opening to the chamber of the fluid impermeable barrier ([0056]). Davis fails to disclose the fluid permeable structure includes an outer portion made form gauze.
Sanchez teaches an external urinary catheter (abstract) thereby being in the same field of endeavor. Sanchez teaches gauze can be used as wicking material (Col 4 lines 10-15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted one wicking material for another known wicking material such as gauze as taught by Sanchez with a reasonable expectation of success since it is a simple substitution that is known in the art.
Claim(s) 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis US 2018/0228642 A1 in view of Skow US 5628735.
With regards to claim 13, Davis fails to disclose wherein at least a portion of conduit positioned in the chamber includes a plurality of slots or eyelets sized to pull urine from the chamber into the conduit when the conduit is fluidly coupled to a vacuum.
Skow teaches a fluid removing device thereby being in the same field of endeavor. Skow teaches eyelets or holes (32) within a suction tube (26) (fig 1) with the purpose of pulling fluid at specific locations into the tube and away from less desirable sites (Col. 5 lines 19-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added additional holes to the tube of Davis with a reasonable expectation of success since Skow teaches multiple holes in a tube under vacuum pressure is not only functional but also provides improved fluid transfer from one area to an area by the hole for improved fluid removal and wicking.
Claim(s) 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davis US 2018/0228642 A1 in view of Washington US 4886508 and in further view of Skow US 5628735.
With regards to claim 23, Davis and Washington fail to disclose wherein at least a portion of conduit positioned in the chamber includes a plurality of slots or eyelets sized to pull urine from the chamber into the conduit when the conduit is fluidly coupled to a vacuum.
Skow teaches a fluid removing device thereby being in the same field of endeavor. Skow teaches eyelets or holes (32) within a suction tube (26) (fig 1) with the purpose of pulling fluid at specific locations into the tube and away from less desirable sites (Col. 5 lines 19-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have added additional holes to the tube of Davis with a reasonable expectation of success since Skow teaches multiple holes in a tube under vacuum pressure is not only functional but also provides improved fluid transfer from one area to an area by the hole for improved fluid removal and wicking.
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 GABRIELLA E BURNETTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9574. The examiner can normally be reached M-S: 0830-1900 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, Rebecca Eisenberg can be reached at (571) 270-5879. 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.
/GABRIELLA E BURNETTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/REBECCA E EISENBERG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights