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
Applicant’s amendments filed on 02/04/2026 have been fully considered. Claims 1-13 and 20-23 are pending in this application. Claims 1 , 10, and 13 are amended. Claims 14-19 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
The amendment of claim 1 and claim 13 overcomes the 112b rejection of record. The 112b rejection of claims 1 and 13 are now withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument that Graham does not teach “the container connector formed of a rigid material”, the argument is unpersuasive. The definition of “a rigid material” can be interpreted as a material that is “not able to be bent easily”, as defined by Britannica Dictionary. As seen in the prior art of Graham, the first region 213/drain-back length 301 of the conduit has the higher stiffness, or made by a rigid/stiff material (Figures 2A-2C and Figure 3; Paragraph 0054-0059). More specifically, paragraph 0059 of Graham states “Certain embodiments include the realization that forming the tube 201 with a suitable drain-back length 301 provides for this upward extension while obviating the need for a bulky or complex rigid connector…” meaning that the tube is purposefully rigid/stiff at the drain-back length 302/first region 213 which would be sufficiently rigid to replace a rigid connector. Since the region 213/drain-back length 301 of the tube 201 has a high stiffness, it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the stiff region of the tube is made of a material with rigid properties.
Regarding the argument that Graham does not teach the claim limitation “the container connector configured to maintain a central axis of the proximal mid-section at a negative incline”, the argument is unpersuasive. Firstly, the claim limitation does not require that “a negative incline” to a proximal direction of flow, since the claim only requires the container connector to be “configured to” be at a negative incline. Secondly, the claim language of independent claim 1 does not require the “a negative incline” to be angled relative to the proximal direction of flow, thus the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation is that the catheter connector is fully capable of maintaining a central axis of the proximal mid-section at a negative incline (see rejection of claim 1 below).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-10, 12-13, 21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampotang et al. (Publication No. US 2013/0172840 A1) in view of Graham et al. (Publication No. US 2014/0373840 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Lampotang teaches a fluid drainage system (Abstract; Figures 12A-12B; Paragraphs 0113-0114), comprising:
a catheter (foley catheter; Paragraph 0113-0115; Figures 12A-12B);
a container (drainage container; Figures 12A-12B); and
a tube providing fluid communication between the catheter and the container (drainage hose 120 that provides fluid communication between foley catheter and drainage container; Figures 12A-12B), the tube comprising:
a container connector (end of hose 120 that is attached to container; annotated Figure 12B below);
a proximal mid-section formed of the rigid material or a malleable material (proximal mid-section made of corrugated malleable material; annotated Figure 12B below; Paragraph 0113);
a distal mid-section (distal mid-section; annotated Figure 12B below); and
a catheter connector (catheter connector; annotated Figure 12B below).
PNG
media_image1.png
186
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 12B
Lampotang does not teach the container including an opening in a top surface thereof, the container connector formed of a rigid material, a proximal end of the container connector engages the opening of the container to maintain the proximal end of the container connector in a fixed orientation relative to the container, a central axis of a distal end of the container connector extending at an angle relative to a central axis of the proximal end, the container connector configured to maintain a central axis of the proximal mid-section at a negative incline.
However, Graham teaches the container including an opening in a top surface thereof (container 107 has an opening on the top surface; Figure 3; Paragraph 0057); the container connector formed of a rigid material (drain-back length 301/213 is made with greater stiffness; Figure 2B and 3; Paragraph 0055-0058), a proximal end of the container connector engages the opening of the container to maintain the proximal end of the container connector in a fixed orientation relative to the container (proximal end of length 301/213 is engaged with the container 107 opening in a fixed orientation, since it has a higher stiffness; Paragraph 0055-0058; Figure 2B and 3), a central axis of a distal end of the container connector extending at an angle relative to a central axis of the proximal end of the container connector (central axis of the distal end of container connector is at an angle to a central axis of the proximal end of the container connector; annotated Figure 3 below); the container connector configured to maintain a central axis of the proximal mid-section at a negative incline (central axis of a proximal mid-section is maintained at a negative incline; annotated Figure 3 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
314
475
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3
Lampotang and Graham are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical fluid systems. 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 modified Lampotang to incorporate the teachings of Graham and have the container with the opening, as taught by Graham, be the container of Lampotang, and the tubing with the container connector, proximal and distal mid-section, and catheter connector of Lampotang, have the material properties of Graham and oriented as taught by Graham. This allows for the tube to have a drain-back section, which allows for the drainage of fluid into the container (Graham; Paragraph 0049 and 0057-0058).
Regarding claim 2, Lampotang in view of Graham teaches the fluid drainage system of claim 1. The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham further teaches wherein the rigid material includes one of a plastic, polymer, high density polyethylene (HDPE), nylon, metal, or alloy (Graham; section 213 with higher stiffness/rigidity is made of polymers; Paragraph 0054-0055 and 0074; see rejection of claim 1 above). A “rigid material” is interpreted to be a material that has rigid properties (specification of instant application – paragraph 0004) or stiff (see Cambridge Dictionary definition of “rigid” in attached PTO-892).
Regarding claim 3, Lampotang in view of Graham teaches the fluid drainage system of claim 1. The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham further teaches wherein the malleable material includes one of a plastic, polymer, elastomer, metal, alloy, or Nitinol (Lampotang; corrugated malleable material of proximal mid-section, distal mid-section, and catheter connector; Paragraph 0113; Graham; section 221 is the proximal mid-section and distal mid-section and section 215 is catheter connector; Figure 2B; and made of corrugated/malleable polymer with more flexibility/less stiffness; Paragraph 0054-0055 and 0074; see rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 4, Lampotang in view of Graham teaches the fluid drainage system of claim 1. The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham further teaches wherein one or both of the distal mid-section and the catheter connector are formed of an elastic material including one of a plastic, polymer, elastomer, Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), silicone, or rubber (Lampotang; corrugated malleable material of proximal mid-section, distal mid-section, and catheter connector; Paragraph 0113; Graham; section 221 is the proximal mid-section and distal mid-section and section 215 is catheter connector; Figure 2B; and made of corrugated/malleable polymer with more flexibility/less stiffness; Paragraph 0054-0055 and 0074; see rejection of claim 1 above). It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that malleable/corrugated material, designed for moving the tubular structure, has elastic properties.
Regarding claim 5, Lampotang in view of Graham teaches the fluid drainage system of claim 1. The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham further teaches wherein the container connector provides fluid communication between the container and the proximal mid- section, the proximal mid-section provides fluid communication between the container connector and the distal mid-section, the distal mid-section provides fluid communication between the proximal mid-section and the catheter connector, and the catheter connector provides fluid communication between the distal mid-section and the catheter (see annotated Figure 12B of Lampotang above).
Regarding claim 6, Lampotang in view of Graham teaches the fluid drainage system of claim 1. The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham does not teach wherein one or more portions of the tube are coupled using one of welding, bonding, or adhesive.
However, Graham further teaches wherein one or more portions of the tube are coupled using one of welding, bonding, or adhesive (connectors at the end of the tube are adhesive bonded or welded during manufacturing; Paragraph 0116).
Lampotang and Graham are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical fluid systems. 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 modified Lampotang to incorporate the teachings of Graham and have the connectors of the tube of Lampotang, be welded or adhesive bonded, as taught by Graham. This allows for the connectors to be permanently fixed or air-tight to the tubing (Graham; Paragraph 0116).
Regarding claim 7, Lampotang teaches a drainage kit (Abstract; Figures 12A-12B; Paragraphs 0113-0114), comprising:
a catheter (foley catheter; Paragraph 0113-0115; Figures 12A-12B);
a collection container (drainage container; Figures 12A-12B); and
a modular drainage tube (drainage hose 120 with connectors that provides fluid communication between foley catheter and drainage container; Figures 12A-12B), comprising:
a container connector section, formed of a malleable material (end of hose 120 that is attached to container made of corrugated malleable material; annotated Figure 12B above; Paragraph 0113);
a proximal mid-section (proximal mid-section; annotated Figure 12B above);
a distal mid-section (distal mid-section; annotated Figure 12B above); and
a catheter connector section (catheter connector; annotated Figure 12B above). Lampotang does not teach the collection container including an opening in a top surface thereof; wherein a proximal end of the container connector section configured to engage the opening of the collection container to maintain a central axis of the proximal end of the container connector section in a fixed orientation relative to the collection container; the proximal mid-section formed of a rigid material; the container connector section configured to maintain a central axis of the proximal mid-section at a negative incline.
Graham further teaches the collection container including an opening in a top surface thereof (container 107 has an opening on the top surface; Figure 3; Paragraph 0057); wherein a proximal end of the container connector section configured to engage the opening of the collection container to maintain a central axis of the proximal end of the container connector section in a fixed orientation relative to the collection container (proximal end of length 301/213 is engaged with the container 107 opening in a fixed orientation; Paragraph 0055-0058; Figure 2B and 3); the proximal mid-section formed of a rigid material (section 221/proximal mid-section is more rigid than section 215, thus made of a rigid material; Paragraph 0054-0055; Figure 2B); the container connector section configured to maintain a central axis of the proximal mid-section at a negative incline (central axis of a proximal mid-section is maintained at a negative incline; annotated Figure 3 above).
Lampotang and Graham are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical fluid systems. 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 modified Lampotang to incorporate the teachings of Graham and have the container with the opening, as taught by Graham, be the container of Lampotang, and the tubing with the container connector, proximal and distal mid-section, and catheter connector of Lampotang, have the material properties of Graham and oriented as taught by Graham. This allows for the tube to have a drain-back section, which allows for the drainage of fluid into the container (Graham; Paragraph 0049 and 0057-0058).
Regarding claim 8, Lampotang in view of Graham teaches the drainage kit of claim 7. The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham further teaches wherein the rigid material includes one of a plastic, polymer, high density polyethylene (HDPE), nylon, metal, or alloy (Graham; section 221 with higher stiffness/rigidity than section 215 is made of polymers; Paragraph 0054-0055 and 0074; see rejection of claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 9, Lampotang in view of Graham teaches the drainage kit of claim 7. The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham further teaches wherein the malleable material includes one of a plastic, polymer, elastomer, metal, alloy, or Nitinol (Lampotang; corrugated malleable material of proximal mid-section, distal mid-section, and catheter connector; Paragraph 0113; Graham; section 221 is the proximal mid-section and distal mid-section and section 215 is catheter connector; Figure 2B; and made of corrugated/malleable polymer; Paragraph 0054-0055 and 0074; see rejection of claim 7 above).
Regarding claim 10, Lampotang in view of Graham teaches the drainage kit of claim 7. The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham further teaches wherein one or both of the distal mid-section and the catheter connector section are formed of the malleable material or of an elastic material including one of a plastic, polymer, elastomer, Polyvinyl chloride (PVC), silicone, or rubber (Lampotang; corrugated malleable material of proximal mid-section, distal mid-section, and catheter connector; Paragraph 0113; Graham; section 221 is the proximal mid-section and distal mid-section and section 215 is catheter connector; Figure 2B; and made of corrugated/malleable polymer; Paragraph 0054-0055 and 0074; see rejection of claim 7 above). It is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that malleable/corrugated material, designed for moving the tubular structure, has elastic properties.
Regarding claim 12, Lampotang in view of Graham teaches the drainage kit of claim 7. The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham further teaches wherein the central axis of the container connector section proximal end is configured to be angled to a first angle relative to a vertical axis and remain at the first angle until angled to a second angle (first angle is an acute angle – obvious that tubing is able to be manipulated by the user to a second angle; annotated Figure 3 of Graham above; see rejection of claim 7 above). The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham does not expressly teach the first angle being greater than 0° and less than 90°.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first angle being greater than 0° and less than 90° since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)(MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, the tubing of Lampotang in view of Graham would not operate differently with the claimed first angle since it has the same function of removing fluid from the user through the catheter and into a container. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed (Paragraph 0031 of specification).
Regarding claim 13, Lampotang in view of Graham teaches the drainage kit of claim 12. The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham wherein the container connector section proximal end at the first angle maintains a central axis of the proximal mid-section at an angle (central axis of container connector section proximal end and central axis of the proximal mid-section at an angle; see annotated Figure 3 above; see rejection of claim 7 above). The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham does not expressly teach the angle that is greater than 0° and less than 90° relative to the vertical axis.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the angle being greater than 0° and less than 90° relative to the vertical axis since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)(MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, the tubing of Lampotang in view of Graham would not operate differently with the claimed angle since it has the same function of removing fluid from the user through the catheter and into a container. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed since the instant application’s specification is silent to the given dimension. Regarding claim 21, Lampotang in view of Graham teaches the system of claim 1. The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham further teaches wherein the tube providing fluid communication between the catheter and the container defines a first axial length (obvious that the tubing of Lampotang in view of Graham has a length). The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham does not expressly teach the proximal mid-section and the distal mid-section together define a second axial length equal to or greater than 75% of the first axial length.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the proximal mid-section and the distal mid-section together define a second axial length equal to or greater than 75% of the first axial length since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)(MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, the tubing of Lampotang in view of Graham would not operate differently with the claimed second axial length since it has the same function of removing fluid from the user through the catheter and into a container. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed since the instant application’s specification is silent to the given dimension.
Regarding claim 23, Lampotang in view of Graham teaches the kit of claim 7. The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham further teaches wherein the container connector section, the proximal mid-section, the distal mid-section, and the catheter connector section, when assembled together define a first axial length (obvious that the tubing of Lampotang in view of Graham has a length). The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham does not expressly teach an axial length of the proximal mid-section and the distal mid-section of the assembly defining a second axial length that is equal to or greater than 75% of the first axial length.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an axial length of the proximal mid-section and the distal mid-section of the assembly defining a second axial length that is equal to or greater than 75% of the first axial length since it has been held that “where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device” Gardner v. TEC Syst., Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 SPQ 232 (1984)(MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)). In the instant case, the tubing of Lampotang in view of Graham would not operate differently with the claimed second axial length since it has the same function of removing fluid from the user through the catheter and into a container. Further, applicant places no criticality on the range claimed since the instant application’s specification is silent to the given dimension.
Claim(s) 11, 20, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lampotang et al. (Publication No. US 2013/0172840 A1) in view of Graham et al. (Publication No. US 2014/0373840 A1), as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Sealfon (Publication No. US 2015/0374911 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Lampotang in view of Graham teaches the drainage kit of claim 7. The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham does not teach wherein each of the container connector section, the proximal mid-section, the distal mid-section, and the catheter connector section include a coupling device configured to couple with a corresponding coupling device and provide fluid communication therebetween.
However, Graham teaches wherein the front end and second end of tube include a coupling device configured to couple with a corresponding coupling device and provide fluid communication therebetween (connectors on each end of tubing to couple to user and to container; Figure 2B; Paragraph 0056).
Lampotang and Graham are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical fluid systems. 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 modified Lampotang in view of Graham to incorporate the teachings of Graham and have the connectors, of Graham, at the end of the tubing of Lampotang in view of Graham, located at the container connector section and the catheter connector sections. This allows for the tube to have a drain-back section, which allows for the drainage of fluid into the container (Graham; Paragraph 0049 and 0057-0058).
The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham does not teach wherein the proximal mid-section and the distal mid-section include a coupling device configured to couple with a corresponding coupling device and provide fluid communication therebetween.
However, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have made the proximal mid-section, distal mid-section, and catheter and container connector sections of Lampotang in view of Graham separable, since that it has been held that making known elements separable is within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Dulberg, 129 USPQ 348 (CCPA 1961)(MPEP 2144.04 V.C.).
Additionally, Sealfon teaches that the tubing segments 22, 32, and 42 comprises luer connectors 21, 23, 31, and 42 (Figure 1; Paragraph 0010 and 0020).
Lampotang in view of Graham and Sealfon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical tubing systems. 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 modified Lampotang in view of Graham to incorporate the teachings of Sealfon and have the connectors, of Graham, at the ends of the proximal mid-section, distal mid-section, catheter and container connector sections of Lampotang in view of Graham. This allows for the user to change the flow rate through the tubing, by removing or adding tubing sections (Sealfon; Paragraph 0018-0019).
Regarding claim 20, Lampotang in view of Graham teaches the fluid drainage system of claim 1. The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham does not teach wherein the proximal end of the container connector engages the opening of the container with a coupler selected from a group consisting of a luer slip, a luer lock, a spin nut, and a twist lock.
However, Sealfon teaches wherein the proximal end of the tubing 32 engages the opening of the tubing 22 with a luer slip coupler 21 selected from a group consisting of a luer slip, a luer lock, a spin nut, and a twist lock (Figure 1; Paragraph 0010 and 0020).
Lampotang in view of Graham and Sealfon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical tubing systems. 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 modified Lampotang in view of Graham to incorporate the teachings of Sealfon and have proximal end of the container connector and the container opening of Lampotang in view of Graham to have the female/male luer slip connectors, as taught by Sealfon. This allows for the user to change the flow rate through the tubing, by removing or adding tubing sections (Sealfon; Paragraph 0018-0019).
Regarding claim 22, Lampotang in view of Graham teaches the fluid drainage system of claim 7. The combination of Lampotang in view of Graham does not teach wherein the proximal end of the container connector section is configured to engage the opening of the collection container with a coupler selected from a group consisting of a luer slip, a luer lock, a spin nut, and a twist lock.
However, Sealfon teaches wherein the proximal end of the tubing 32 engages the opening of the tubing 22 with a luer slip coupler 21 selected from a group consisting of a luer slip, a luer lock, a spin nut, and a twist lock (Figure 1; Paragraph 0010 and 0020).
Lampotang in view of Graham and Sealfon are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of medical tubing systems. 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 modified Lampotang in view of Graham to incorporate the teachings of Sealfon and have proximal end of the container connector and the container opening of Lampotang in view of Graham to have the female/male luer slip connectors, as taught by Sealfon. This allows for the user to change the flow rate through the tubing, by removing or adding tubing sections (Sealfon; Paragraph 0018-0019).
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 KATHERINE-PH M PHAM whose telephone number is (571)272-0468. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8AM to 5PM 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, 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.
/KATHERINE-PH MINH PHAM/Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/KAI H WENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights