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 .
The Amendment filed 9/8/2025 has been entered. The previous objection to the claims is withdrawn in light of applicant’s amendments. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, and 18-20 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to applicant’s argument on page 10 that the assembly of Pressacco comprises a four-piece layer structure whereas the claimed assembly comprises only a three-layer structure, the examiner disagrees. Pressacco teaches a three-piece monobloc structure comprising a ball (metal support; 30), an open-cell, highly porous metallic coating (solidarization layer; 11 in combination with compact layer; 14 that are made as the same body as disclosed in col. 5, lines 21-27), and a thermoplastic coating (plastic insert; 13). The three-piece monobloc structure is clearly shown in fig. 9a of Pressacco, for example. Though Pressacco also discloses that the inner/second surface of the ball (30) comprises a layer or porous structure (16) suitable to optimize the anchorage of the bone (col. 2, lines 61-66), Pressacco clearly sets forth that the term “layer” is used for convenience but does not mean two separate layers later joined (col. 5, lines 21-27). Therefore, when taken as a whole, the examiner maintains that Pressacco meets the limitation that the femoral head only comprises a three-piece monobloc structure, the inner surface of which is made porous for osteo-integration, as recited in claim 1.
In response to applicant's argument on page 10 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a solid ball member) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
With regard to applicant’s argument on pages 11 and 12 that it would not have been obvious to modify Pressacco to include a solid ball having a female morse taper, the examiner disagrees. It is first noted that the claims do not recite “a solid ball”, as explained above. If applicant is intending to argue that Pressacco does not teach the newly added limitation “a solid core throughout its cross-section” having a female morse taper, the examiner disagrees. The term “solid” is defined as: the basic and most important part of something; a state of matter that is not a liquid or a gas. When applying broadest reasonable interpretation, and in view of the lack of any special definition or specific disclosure of the term “solid”, the examiner maintains that the metal support (30), which forms an important portion of a prosthetic element (10) for the head/ball of the femur, and is not a liquid or a gas, meets the limitation of a solid core throughout the cross-section of the head/ball as shown in fig. 6. The examiner also maintains that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the femoral head/ball having a solid core throughout its cross-section of Pressaco to include a female morse taper, similar to the configuration shown in fig. 8 of Townley, in order to maintain the bone-preserving configuration of Pressacco and also provide a stable Morse fit between the head/ball and a stem of an assembled total hip prosthesis, as taught by Townley, and particularly since the “solid core” of applicant’s ball is also shown to have a female morse taper in fig. 5 (see 112 rejection above). There would be no need to eliminate the interior porous layer (16) of Pressacco because the inner surface of the prosthesis of Pressacco in view of Townley would engage the remaining portion of the bone, as shown in fig. 8 of Townley, for example. See rejection below for further explanation.
With regard to applicant’s argument on page 12 that there is no real teaching which would permit Raeymaekers to be combined with Pressacco in order to render the claimed assembly obvious because incorporating a solid ball element into Pressacco would effectively destroy the utility of the Pressacco assembly because such a solid ball would effectively eliminate the internal layer (16) of Pressacco for promoting osseointegration, the examiner disagrees. It is first noted that the claims do not recite “a solid ball”, as explained above. Secondly, it is noted that the rejection does not attempt to include the solid ball (122) of Raeymaekers into the assembly of Pressacco. Therefore, this argument is moot. The examiner maintains that it would have been obvious to modify the invention of Pressacco to also include an acetabular cup and liner, in order to provide a bone-preserving total hip prosthesis, in which the head of Pressacco articulates within a liner and cup assembly, as taught by Raeymaekers. See rejection below for further explanation.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3, 4, 11, 13, 14 are each objected to because of the following informalities: Each of the claims listed above recite the limitation “said ball” which appears to be referring to – said spherical ball – as recited in amended claims 1 and 11. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-14, 16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 11 recite “a spherical ball” in line 9 and line 8, respectively. The specification discloses a ball which includes a female taper (paragraph 0005) and fig. 5 shows the ball with a linear bottom such that the ball appears to be substantially or generally spherical. However, a spherical ball is not properly described in the application as filed. Claims 1 and 11 also recite “a solid core throughout its cross-section” in lines 9-10 and lines 8-9, respectively. The specification discloses a ball which includes a female taper (paragraph 0005) as shown in fig. 5. However, a solid core throughout its cross-section is not properly described in the application as filed.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 9, 11-14, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 8,864,826 B2 to Pressacco (Pressacco) in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0148910 A1 to Raeymaekers et al. (Raeymaekers), and further in view of US Patent No. 6,096,084 to Townley (Townley). Regarding at least claim 1
Pressacco teaches an integrated prosthetic element for bone implant operations or as a bone filler or replacement (abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
228
362
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Pressacco meets the limitations of a prosthetic hip replacement assembly (col. 6, lines 30-33), comprising: a femoral head adapted to be fixedly secured to said femoral stem (fig. 6 shows application of the prosthetic element 10 to a prosthesis for the head of the femur which is intended to be fixedly secured to a femoral stem as claimed); wherein said femoral head only comprises a three-piece, monobloc structure (col. 5, lines 61-64) comprising a spherical ball (metal support; 30 – the term “spherical” is defined as: like a sphere in shape – the metal support 30 is shown to have a rounded convex surface like a sphere; see 112 rejection above) having a solid core throughout its cross-section (the term “solid” is defined as: the basic and most important part of something and/or a state of matter that is not a liquid or a gas - the metal support 30 forms an important portion of a prosthetic element 10 for the head/ball of the femur, is not a liquid or a gas, and therefore meets the limitation of a solid core throughout the cross-section of the head/ball as shown in fig. 6); an open-cell, highly porous metallic coating formed upon outer surface portions of said spherical ball (solidarization layer; 11 in combination with compact layer; 14 which are made as the same body having parts with different morphological properties as disclosed in col. 5, lines 21-27) and defining a micro-pore structure (cavities; 12 as disclosed in col. 5, lines 14-20); and a thermoplastic coating (plastic insert; 13) formed upon outer surface portions of said open-cell, highly porous metallic coating such that said thermoplastic coating infiltrates said micro-pore structure of said open-cell, highly porous metallic coating whereby said femoral head comprises said three-piece monobloc structure comprising said spherical ball, said open-cell, highly porous metallic coating, and said thermoplastic coating (col. 5, lines 14-20 and col. 5, lines 54-53 disclose that the thermoplastic coating infiltrates the porous coating of the ball to allow anchoring of the plastic and making it solid with the ball which is construed to be a monobloc structure as claimed).
Pressacco clearly teaches that the prosthetic element (10) is applied to a prosthesis for the head of the femur (fig. 6). However, Pressacco does not explicitly teach a femoral stem, an acetabular shell adapted to be inserted into a surgically prepared acetabulum; and a liner fixedly secured within said acetabular shell and within which said femoral head is adapted to fully articulate.
Raeymaekers teaches a prosthetic hip joint (100) that includes a femoral component (femoral stem; 104) attached to a head (121) and an acetabular cup (111) and liner (paragraph 0026, lines 27-29), for the purpose of using the prosthetic as a total hip replacement.
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 assembly of Pressacco to include a femoral stem, as well as an acetabular shell adapted to be inserted into a surgically prepared acetabulum; and a liner fixedly secured within said acetabular shell and within which said femoral head is adapted to fully articulate, in order to use the prosthetic as a total hip replacement, as taught by Raeymaekers.
However, Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers does not teach that the femoral stem comprises a male morse taper or that the ball has a female morse taper defined therein such that when said male and female morse tapers are fixedly connected together, said femoral head is fixedly mounted upon said femoral stem.
Townley teaches a modular ball and socket joint having a cupped ball head with a distally facing surface having a distally opening stem receiving bore preferably centrally located in the support body and an interchangeable modular stem insertable into the bore of the head (abstract).
PNG
media_image2.png
752
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Townley also teaches that the cupped ball head is mounted as part of a bone-preserving, conservative, resurfacing arthroplasty joint replacement (col. 5, lines 44-46; the examiner notes that, similar to Pressacco, it can be seen that the ball of Townley is meant to preserve bone and not fully replace the femoral head, and would also benefit from the porous layer of Pressacco to secure the implant to the remaining bone) and includes a distally facing surface with a distally opening stem receiving bore (130) containing a Morse taper side wall (132; female morse taper) such that the trunnion upper cap (220; male morse taper) fits within (as shown in fig. 8), for the purpose of providing a stable Morse fit between the two parts of the assembled prosthesis (col. 8, lines 43-50).
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 total hip replacement prosthesis of Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers to specify that the femoral stem comprises a male morse taper or that the ball has a female morse taper defined therein such that when said male and female morse tapers are fixedly connected together, said femoral head is fixedly mounted upon said femoral stem, in order to maintain the bone-preserving configuration of Pressacco and also provide a stable Morse fit between the two parts of the assembled prosthesis, as taught by Townley.
Regarding at least claim 11
Similar to the explanation above, Pressacco teaches a prosthetic hip replacement assembly, comprising: a femoral head (fig. 6) adapted to be fixedly secured to said femoral stem; wherein said femoral head only comprises a three-piece, monobloc structure comprising a spherical ball (30– the term “spherical” is defined as: like a sphere in shape – the metal support 30 is shown to have a rounded convex surface like a sphere; see 112 rejection above) having a solid core throughout its cross-section (the term “solid” is defined as: the basic and most important part of something and/or a state of matter that is not a liquid or a gas - the metal support 30 forms an important portion of a prosthetic element 10 for the head/ball of the femur, is not a liquid or a gas, and therefore meets the limitation of a solid core throughout the cross-section of the head/ball as shown in fig. 6); an open-cell, highly porous metallic coating formed upon outer surface portions of said spherical ball (solidarization layer; 11 in combination with compact layer; 14 as disclosed in col. 5, lines 21-27) and defining a micro-pore structure (cavities; 12 as disclosed in col. 5, lines 14-20); and a thermoplastic coating (plastic insert; 13) formed upon outer surface portions of said open-cell, highly porous metallic coating such that said thermoplastic coating infiltrates said micro-pore structure of said open-cell, highly porous metallic coating whereby said femoral head comprises said three-piece monobloc structure comprising said spherical ball, said open-cell, highly porous metallic coating, and said thermoplastic coating (col. 5, lines 14-20 and col. 5, lines 54-53 disclose that the thermoplastic coating infiltrates the porous coating of the ball to allow anchoring of the plastic and making it solid with the ball which is construed to be a monobloc structure as claimed).
Pressacco clearly teaches that the prosthetic element (10) is applied to a prosthesis for the head of the femur (fig. 6). However, Pressacco does not explicitly teach a femoral stem, an acetabular shell adapted to be inserted into a surgically prepared acetabulum; and a liner fixedly secured within said acetabular shell and within which said femoral head is adapted to fully articulate.
Raeymaekers teaches a prosthetic hip joint (100) that includes a femoral component (femoral stem; 104) attached to a head (121) and an acetabular cup (111) and liner (paragraph 0026, lines 27-29), for the purpose of using the prosthetic as a total hip replacement.
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 assembly of Pressacco to include a femoral stem, as well as an acetabular shell adapted to be inserted into a surgically prepared acetabulum; and a liner fixedly secured within said acetabular shell and within which said femoral head is adapted to fully articulate, in order to use the prosthetic as a total hip replacement, as taught by Raeymaekers.
However, Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers does not teach that the femoral stem comprises a male morse taper or that the solid ball has a female morse taper defined therein such that when said male and female morse tapers are fixedly connected together, said femoral head is fixedly mounted upon said femoral stem.
Townley teaches a modular ball and socket joint having a cupped ball head with a distally facing surface having a distally opening stem receiving bore preferably centrally located in the support body and an interchangeable modular stem insertable into the bore of the head (abstract).
PNG
media_image2.png
752
440
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Townley also teaches that the cupped ball head is mounted as part of a bone-preserving, conservative, resurfacing arthroplasty joint replacement (col. 5, lines 44-46; the examiner notes that, similar to Pressacco, it can be seen that the ball of Townley is meant to preserve bone and not fully replace the femoral head, and would also benefit from the porous layer of Pressacco to secure the implant to the remaining bone) and includes a distally facing surface with a distally opening stem receiving bore (130) containing a Morse taper side wall (132; female morse taper) such that the trunnion upper cap (220; male morse taper) fits within (as shown in fig. 8), for the purpose of providing a stable Morse fit between the two parts of the assembled prosthesis (col. 8, lines 43-50).
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 total hip replacement prosthesis of Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers to specify that the femoral stem comprises a male morse taper or that the ball has a female morse taper defined therein such that when said male and female morse tapers are fixedly connected together, said femoral head is fixedly mounted upon said femoral stem, in order to maintain the bone-preserving configuration of Pressacco and also provide a stable Morse fit between the two parts of the assembled prosthesis, as taught by Townley.
Regarding at least claims 2 and 12
Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers and Townley teaches the assembly as set forth in Claims 1 and 11. Raeymaekers also teaches wherein: said femoral stem is fabricated from a material selected from the group comprising a cobalt-chromium composition, tantalum, stainless steel, and titanium (paragraph 0027 discloses the claimed suitable materials for fabricating the femoral stem).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the femoral stem is fabricated from a material selected from the group comprising a cobalt-chromium composition, tantalum, stainless steel, and titanium, since these are well known suitable materials, as taught by Raeymaekers, and also since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for an intended purpose (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding at least claims 3 and 13
Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers and Townley teaches the assembly as set forth in Claims 1 and 11. Pressacco also teaches wherein: said ball of said femoral head is fabricated from a material selected from the group comprising a cobalt-chromium composition, tantalum, stainless steel, and titanium (col. 1, lines 23-26 discloses the claimed materials used for the metal support/head).
Regarding at least claims 4 and 14
Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers and Townley teaches the assembly as set forth in Claims 1 and 11. Pressacco also teaches wherein: said ball of said femoral head is fabricated from a material selected from the group comprising a cobalt-chromium composition, tantalum, stainless steel, and titanium (col. 1, lines 23-26 discloses the claimed materials used for the metal support/head). However, Pressacco does not teach wherein the femoral stem is fabricated from a material selected from the group comprising a cobalt-chromium composition, tantalum, stainless steel, and titanium.
Raeymaekers teaches wherein: said femoral stem is fabricated from a material selected from the group comprising a cobalt-chromium composition, tantalum, stainless steel, and titanium (paragraph 0027 discloses the claimed suitable materials for fabricating the femoral stem).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the femoral stem is fabricated from a material selected from the group comprising a cobalt-chromium composition, tantalum, stainless steel, and titanium, such that both said femoral stem and said ball of said femoral head are fabricated from a material selected from the group comprising a cobalt-chromium composition, tantalum, stainless steel, and titanium, since these are well known suitable materials, as taught by Raeymaekers, and also since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for an intended purpose (See MPEP 2144.07).
Regarding at least claims 8 and 18
Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers and Townley teaches the assembly as set forth in Claims 1 and 11. Pressacco also teaches wherein: said open-cell, highly porous metallic coating has pores (12) which are within the range of 1200 to 2500 mm (col. 4, lines 51-52). However, Pressacco does not teach that the pores are within the range of 100-1000 microns.
Pressacco also discloses that the pores (12) can have any form whatsoever that allow to solidarize the plastic material (thermoplastic coating; 13) after it has been cast and cooled (col. 5, lines 9-13). Further, it appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the Pressacco device to have pores that are within the claimed range, as it involves only adjusting the size of a component disclosed to be variable depending on the solidarization of the plastic material of the thermoplastic coating. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Pressacco by making the pores within the range of 100-1000 microns as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding at least claims 9 and 19
Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers and Townley teaches the assembly as set forth in Claims 1 and 11. Pressacco also teaches wherein: said thermoplastic coating comprises polyethylene (col. 5, lines 32-38 discloses polyethylene as a suitable polymer for use as the plastic material of the insert/coating). However, Pressacco does not explicitly teach that the polyethylene is highly cross-linked polyethylene (HCLPE).
Raeymaekers teaches the use of highly cross-linked polyethylene in a prosthetic hip implant (paragraph 0026).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill int eh art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify wherein: said thermoplastic coating comprises highly cross-linked polyethylene (HCLPE), since HCLPE is a well-known suitable material in the art, as taught by Raeymaekers, and also since it is prima facie obvious to select a known material based on its suitability for an intended purpose (See MPEP 2144.07).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers and Townley, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2005/0071015 A1 to Sekel (Sekel).
Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers and Townley teaches the assembly as set forth in Claim 1. However, Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers and Townley does not teach wherein: said liner of said assembly is fabricated from a suitable metal.
Sekel teaches an acetabular prosthesis assembly comprising an acetabular cup (3) and a liner (13) that provides a wear inhibiting surface (abstract). More specifically, Sekel teaches that the liner is formed from a metallic material which opposes a concave inner surface of the cup and is integral with a polymeric insert (9), for the purpose of resulting in non-toxic metallic wear during the metal to metal contact that occurs between the liner and the inner surface of the cup (paragraph 0062).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the liner of the assembly taught by Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers and Townley is fabricated from a suitable metal, in order to result in non-toxic metallic rather than polymeric wear, as taught by Sekel.
Claim(s) 10, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers and Townley, as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of US Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0129298 A1 to Kavolus, II et al. (Kavolus).
Regarding at least claims 10 and 20
Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers and Townley teaches the assembly as set forth in Claims 1 and 11. Pressacco also teaches that the plastic insert (coating; 13) is formed with a desired height or thickness (col. 5, lines 9-20). However, Pressacco does not explicitly teach wherein: said thermoplastic coating has a thickness dimension within the range of 2-18 mm.
Kavolus teaches an artificial femoral head that includes a head portion designed to connect to a femoral stem portion (abstract). The head portion (200) includes a polymeric outer shell (210) and a non-polymeric core (215) and the polymeric outer shell may have a thickness in a range of between about 30 mm and about 4 mm, for the purpose of providing a head having a desired size range (paragraphs 0038 and 0040).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify that the thickness of the thermoplastic coating of Pressacco is within the range of 30 mm and about 4 mm, in order to provide a head having a desired size range, as taught by Kavolus. It would also have been obvious to further modify the range taught by Kavolus to be within the claimed range of 2-18 mm as applicant appears to have placed no criticality on the claimed range (see paragraph 0021 indicating the thickness “may” be within the claimed range). Therefore, it would have been a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding at least claim 16
Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers and Townley teaches the assembly as set forth in Claim 11. Pressacco also teaches a polymeric outer articulation surface of the femoral head (fig. 6). However, Pressacco does not teach wherein: said acetabular shell comprises a polished internal surface fabricated from a metal upon which said femoral head can fully articulate.
Kavolus teaches an artificial femoral head that includes a head portion designed to connect to a femoral stem portion (abstract). Kavolus also teaches that a total hip replacement usually consists of replacing the acetabulum with a metal cup (paragraph 0004). Kavolus aims to minimize metal-on-metal wear during articulation while maintaining the desired head size for reducing the chances of dislocation of the hip arthroplasty by providing a polymeric femoral head (paragraph 0011, lines 36-39 and paragraph 0012, lines 11-15).
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 inner surface of the acetabular shell of Pressacco in view of Raeymaekers and Townley to include a polished internal surface fabricated from a metal upon which said femoral head can fully articulate, in order to minimize metal-on-metal wear during articulation while maintaining the desired head size for reducing dislocation, as taught by Kavolus.
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 MELISSA A HOBAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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.
/M.A.H/ Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/MELANIE R TYSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3774