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 .
A complete action on the merits of pending claims 1-21 appears herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/11/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “’the joint mechanism 73’ in FIG. 3E of Edelstein does not correspond to ‘two or more jaw linkages, an individual jaw linkage corresponding to a respective one of the jaws’ as recited in claim 1. The configuration that ‘the first jaw 48 may be connected to the second jaw 54 via the joint mechanism 73 to form a single forceps unit 46’ of Edelstein does not correspond to the operation of actuate the at least two jaw linkages independent of one another to move corresponding jaws independent of one another from the respective first jaw position to the respective second jaw position’ as recited in claim 1. Edelstein is completely silent about the operation of ‘actuate the at least two jaw linkages independent of one another to move corresponding jaws independent of one another from the respective first jaw position to the respective second jaw position’ as recited in claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully contends that, as further discussed in the rejection to claim 1 below, Edelstein was merely relied on to teach jaw members being configured to move and be energized independently of each other. (Par. [0018]) Ginnebaugh, as further discussed in the rejection to claim 1 below, teaches using at least one jaw linkage to actuate at least two jaw members. (Fig. 11: slide pin (70); Par. [0076]) The combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein proposed by examiner provided each jaw member of Ginnebaugh with a separate cam sliding pin, (jaw linkage) such that each jaw member of Ginnebaugh could provide the independent movement taught by Edelstein.
Applicant further argues “Edelstein clearly states that ‘Once properly positioned...first and second jaw assemblies may be engaged (clearly describing engaging of the electrodes, not the jaws) and/or energized independently’ and makes no mention that jaws can move independent of each other. In fact, throughout the several figures of Edelstein, a single pivot point 73 is shown, such that Edelstein's jaws clearly cannot be moved independently of each other.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees and contends that Edelstein clearly uses the term “engaging” to refer to positioning/moving, as shown in Par. [0012] and Par. [0014]. Therefore, the recitation of the “first and second jaw assemblies may be engaged” refers to positioning/moving the jaw assemblies and electrodes thereon relative to the target tissue. Furthermore, even if the images of Edelstein only show a single pivot pin, the jaw members can be moved independently relative to each other by moving handles (70) independently. (e.g. holding one handle in place while actuating the other handle)
Applicant further argues “The Office Action further acknowledges that Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein, if combined, fail to establish "three or more jaws", relying on Lichtman (at Col.14, Lines 17-19) to establish this feature of claim 1. Nearly the entirety of Lichtman, including each and every depicted embodiment, concerns forceps having exactly two jaws. Lichtman makes a brief mention regarding, possible modifications of devices described therein: 'Furthermore, it is clear that various modifications may be made while still providing an apparatus which comes within the spirit and scope of the invention. For example, the jaw piece may be narrowed or- curved in one or more dimensions so that the tool may function as a needle holder. Also, the jaw piece may be in the form of a triple equiangularly -spaced Jaws and leaves.’ (Lichtman Col. 14, Lines 17-19)”.
Examiner respectfully contends that even if the majority of the embodiments discussed in Lichtman teaches only two jaw members, Lichtman still teaches a configuration comprising three jaw members as admitted by applicant. Said configuration is not required to be depicted in the drawings.
Applicant further argues “While Lichtman appears to mention once, in passing, that the jaw piece may include three Jaws (rather than the two depicted), Lichtman fails to provide that such jaws would move independent of one another or two or more jaw linkages, each corresponding to one of the three jaws, as required by Applicant's claim 1.”
Examiner respectfully contends that Lichtman was not relied on to teach independent movement/actuation of jaw members. As further discussed above, Edelstein was relied on to teach independent movement/actuation of jaw members.
Applicant further argues “Further, the fleeting mention that the devices taught in Lichtman could be modified (e.g., to add another jaw) would not be sufficient that a person having skill in the art would modify any of Ginnebaugh, Johnson, or Edelstein to include a ‘triple equiangularly-spaced jaw,’ configuration, with any reasonable expectation of success or without incapacitating the respective devices”.
Examiner respectfully contends that, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant further argues “the Office Action does not even allege how Edelstein is supplied to cure the remaining deficiencies of Yamamoto/Ginnebaugh/Johnson, namely three or more jaws controllable by two or more linkages”.
Examiner respectfully contends that in the rejection to claim 11, as further discussed below, the jaw members of Yamamoto were modified to each include a cam sliding pin (70) and angles slots (81) of Ginnebaugh such that each jaw member is independently movable as taught by Edelstein.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 9, and 16-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginnebaugh (US 2011/0288369 A1) in view of Johnson (US 2012/0059372 A1) in view of Edelstein (US 2007/0265613 A1) in view of Lichtman (US 5,318,589).
Regarding claim 1, Ginnebaugh teaches an endoscopic end effector, (Par. [0077]: instrument (9) may be placed in an instrument channel of an endoscope) comprising two or more jaws (Fig. 1, Char. 21 and 23) including an electromagnetic energy signal conductor configured to be coupled to a radiofrequency or other electromagnetic energy signal generator; (Fig. 1, Char. 25: electrode; Par. [0053])
one or more jaw linkages configured to move the jaws from a first jaw position to a second jaw position; (Fig. 11, Char. 70: slide pin; Par. [0076])
an actuator (Fig. 1, Char. 15: actuator) configured to actuate the at least one jaw linkage to move corresponding jaws from the respective first jaw position to the respective second jaw position. (Fig. 11; Par. [0075]-[0076]: Actuator (15) controls movement of actuating rod (36), thereby causing translation of slide pin (70) to open/close the jaw members)
Ginnebaugh, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the endoscopic end effector comprising three or more jaws; the three or more jaws respectively including corresponding electromagnetic energy signal conductor configured to be coupled to the radiofrequency or other electromagnetic energy signal generator; two or more jaw linkages, an individual jaw linkage corresponding to a respective one of the jaws, such that at least two of the jaws are configured to move, independent of one another, from a respective first jaw position to a respective second jaw position; and the actuator configured to actuate the at least two jaw linkages independent of one another to move corresponding jaws independent of one another from the respective first jaw position to the respective second jaw position.
Johnson, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an electrosurgical forceps system (Fig. 1) comprising electrodes disposed on jaw members; (Fig. 2, Char. 118 and 128: sealing plates) wherein the electrodes are configured to operate in both a bipolar and monopolar mode. (Par. [0023])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Ginnebaugh, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Johnson, and configure each jaw member of Ginnebaugh to comprise at least one electrode (25) each such that the electrodes (25) are configured to operate in either a monopolar or bipolar mode. Doing so would increase the number of treatment modalities available to be provided by the system.
The combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the endoscopic end effector comprising three or more jaws; two or more jaw linkages, an individual jaw linkage corresponding to a respective one of the jaws, such that at least two of the jaws are configured to move, independent of one another, from a respective first jaw position to a respective second jaw position; and the actuator configured to actuate the at least two jaw linkages independent of one another to move corresponding jaws independent of one another from the respective first jaw position to the respective second jaw position.
Edelstein, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a first and second jaw member may be moved and energized independently of each other. (Par. [0018]: First and second jaw assemblies may be engaged and/or energized independently.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Edelstein, and configure each jaw member of the surgical device (14) of Ginnebaugh to comprise its own cam sliding pin (70) of Ginnebaugh, such that each jaw member is moveable (via independent actuation of sliding pin (70)) and energizable relative to each other upon activation of actuator (15) of Ginnebaugh. Doing so would grant more control over the placement/orientation of the jaw members and energy delivery.
The combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the endoscopic end effector comprising three or more jaws;
Lichtman, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an endoscopic forceps device (Fig. 1) comprising three equiangularly spaced jaw members (Col. 14, Lines 17-19)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Lichtman, and configure the independently moveable/energizable jaws to comprise three equiangularly spaced jaw members. Doing so would result in less pressure required to applied to the tissue by each individual jaw member, minimizing the risk of unintentional damage to the tissue during clamping/grasping. Furthermore, it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding method claim 16, the claim is rejected by the same or substantially the same rationale as applied to the rejection of apparatus claim 1, since operation of the prior art relied on to reject apparatus claim 1 would naturally result in the step of method claim 16 being satisfied.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman, as applied to claim 2 above, teaches the actuator is further configured to impede supply of an RF signal to the at least two jaws independent of one another and concurrent with moving an individual jaw towards the second jaw position. (Ginnebaugh: Par. [0053]; In the rejection to claim 1 above, the jaw members of the Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman combination were configured to move independently of each other, and would therefore energy delivery to said electrodes would be impeded independently of each other via actuator (15))
Regarding method claim 18, the claim is rejected by the same or substantially the same rationale as applied to the rejection of apparatus claim 3, since operation of the prior art relied on to reject apparatus claim 3 would naturally result in the step of method claim 18 being satisfied.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches at least one of the jaws includes an electrode configured to supply monopolar radiofrequency (MOP) to a target location of the patient. (Ginnebaugh: Par. [0057])
Regarding method claim 19, the claim is rejected by the same or substantially the same rationale as applied to the rejection of apparatus claim 4, since operation of the prior art relied on to reject apparatus claim 4 would naturally result in the step of method claim 19 being satisfied.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the endoscopic end effector includes at least one anode and at least one cathode for supplying bipolar radiofrequency (BOP)to a target location of the patient. (Johnson: Par. [0023]: Sealing plates (118 and 128) are configured to operate in a bipolar mode – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman combination based on the rejection to claim 1 above; while operating in a bipolar mode, one electrode would serve as a cathode and one electrode would serve as an anode.)
Regarding method claim 20, the claim is rejected by the same or substantially the same rationale as applied to the rejection of apparatus claim 5, since operation of the prior art relied on to reject apparatus claim 5 would naturally result in the step of method claim 20 being satisfied.
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the actuator is configured to move at the at least two jaw linkages independent of one another by retracting the corresponding jaw linkage. (Ginnebaugh: Par. [0076]: Actuation of actuator (15) to close the jaws causes actuating rod (36) to retract slide pin (70); In the rejection to claim 1 above, each jaw member of the Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman combination was modified to comprise its own sliding pin (70) such that each jaw member is moveable independently.)
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches at least two of the jaws are configured to grab a foreign body or tissue at the second jaw position. (Ginnebaugh: Par. [0075])
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the two or more jaw linkages are pull wires, rods, push wires, or telescoping mechanisms. (Ginnebaugh: Fig. 11: Sliding pins (70) are rods)
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginnebaugh (US 2011/0288369 A1) in view of Johnson (US 2012/0059372 A1) in view of Edelstein (US 2007/0265613 A1) in view of Lichtman (US 5,318,589), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Parins (US 5,603,711).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the conductor includes a printed metallic trace.
Parins, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a jaw assembly comprising printed metallic traces (Col. 4, Lines 56-60: Conductive coatings (266 and 268) are printed metal traces) configured to deliver Rf energy to a target tissue. (Col. 5, Lines 66-Col. 6, Line 2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Parins, and configure the electrodes (25) of Ginnebaugh to be printed metallic traces. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one electrode structure for another for the predictable result of supplying electrosurgical energy to a target tissue.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginnebaugh (US 2011/0288369 A1) in view of Johnson (US 2012/0059372 A1) in view of Edelstein (US 2007/0265613 A1) in view of Lichtman (US 5,318,589), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Saliman (US 2009/0012538 A1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding at least one of the jaws is constructed of a transparent or semi-transparent material.
Saliman, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a forceps device (Fig. 1-2) comprising jaws made of a transparent material. (Par. [0022])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Saliman, and configure the jaws of Ginnebaugh to be made of the transparent material of Saliman. Doing so would allow for the grasped tissue to be easily viewed through said jaws, as suggested in Saliman. (Par. [0022])
Claim(s) 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ginnebaugh (US 2011/0288369 A1) in view of Johnson (US 2012/0059372 A1) in view of Edelstein (US 2007/0265613 A1) in view of Lichtman (US 5,318,589), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Knighton (US 5,373,840).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman, as applied to claim 1 above, teaches the endoscopic medical system (Fig. 1, Char. 9: instrument) is configured to be used with an endoscope (Par. [0077])
The combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman, as applied to claim 1 above, is silent regarding the endoscopic medical system is attached to a distal tip of the endoscope and the actuator is disposed along a longitudinal axis of an insertion portion of the endoscope.
Knighton, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches positioning a forceps device within an insertion portion of an endoscope, (Fig. 1: Forceps (150) is disposed within lumen (38) of endoscope (30)) such that the forceps device is attached to a distal tip of the endoscope. (Fig. 1: Forceps (150) exits and contacts the distal end of lumen (38))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein/Lichtman, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Knighton, and configure instrument (9) of Ginnebaugh to be inserted into the lumen (38) of endoscope (30) of Knighton. Doing so would be a simple substitution of one endoscope arrangement for another for the predictable result of viewing the target tissue area.
In this combination, actuator (15) of Ginnebaugh would be disposed along a longitudinal axis of an insertion portion of the endoscope (30) of Knighton, at least in that instrument (9) of Ginnebaugh would be positioned in place of forceps (150) of Knighton in Fig. 1 of Knighton.
Claim(s) 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamamoto (US 6,059,719) in view of Ginnebaugh (US 2011/0288369 A1) in view of Johnson (US 2012/0059372 A1) in view of Edelstein (US 2007/0265613 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Yamamoto teaches
a tubular member (Fig. 22, Char. 61: body member) configured to be attached to a distal end of an endoscope; (Fig. 22, Char. 2: endoscope)
three or more jaws; (Fig. 22, Char. 132, 133, 134)
Yamamoto, as applied to claim 11 above, is silent regarding the three or more jaws respectively including a corresponding electromagnetic energy signal conductor configured to be coupled to a radiofrequency or other electromagnetic energy signal generator; and two or more jaw linkages, each individual jaw linkage corresponding to a respective one of the three or more jaws, such that at least two jaw linkages of the two or more jaw linkages are configured to be actuated independent of one another to move corresponding jaws, independent of one another, from a respective first jaw position to a respective second jaw position.
Ginnebaugh, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an endoscopic end effector, (Par. [0077]: instrument (9) may be placed in an instrument channel of an endoscope) comprising at least two jaws (Fig. 1, Char. 21 and 23) including a electromagnetic energy signal conductor configured to be coupled to a radiofrequency or other electromagnetic energy signal generator; (Fig. 1, Char. 25: electrode; Par. [0053])
one or more jaw linkages configured to move the jaws from a first jaw position to a second jaw position; (Fig. 11, Char. 70: slide pin; Par. [0076])
an actuator (Fig. 1, Char. 15: actuator) configured to actuate the one or more jaw linkage to move corresponding jaws from the respective first jaw position to the respective second jaw position. (Fig. 11; Par. [0075]-[0076]: Actuator (15) controls movement of actuating rod (36), thereby causing translation of slide pin (70) to open/close the jaw members)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified Yamamoto, as applied to claim 1 above, to incorporate the teachings of Ginnebaugh, and configure the jaws (132, 133, and 134) of Yamamoto to include at the electrode (25) of Ginnebaugh and the jaw actuation mechanism (at least sliding pin (70), actuating rod (36), and angled slots (81, 83)) of Ginnebaugh, such that jaws (132, 133, and 134) can be opened/closed and energized via actuator (15) of Ginnebaugh. Including the electrode (25) of Ginnebaugh would allow for more treatment modalities, such as ablating a target tissue. Including the actuator (15) and actuation mechanism of Ginnebaugh would be a simple substitution of one jaw actuation mechanism for another for the predictable result of opening/closing the jaws, and would allow for the jaws of Yamamoto to be opened/closed without the need for translation of the jaws.
The combination of Yamamoto/Ginnebaugh, as applied to claim 11 above, is silent regarding the three or more jaws respectively including a corresponding electromagnetic energy signal conductor; two or more jaw linkages, each individual jaw linkage corresponding to a respective one of the three or more jaws, such that at least two jaw linkages of the two or more jaw linkages are configured to be actuated independent of one another to move corresponding jaws, independent of one another, from a respective first jaw position to a respective second jaw position.
Johnson, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches an electrosurgical forceps system (Fig. 1) comprising electrodes disposed on jaw members; (Fig. 2, Char. 118 and 128: sealing plates) wherein the electrodes are configured to operate in both a bipolar and monopolar mode. (Par. [0023])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Yamamoto/Ginnebaugh, as applied to claim 11 above, to incorporate the teachings of Johnson, and configure each jaw member of Yamamoto to comprise at least one electrode (25) of Glinnebraugh each such that the electrodes (25) are configured to operate in either a monopolar or bipolar mode. Doing so would increase the number of treatment modalities available to be provided by the system.
The combination of Yamamoto/Ginnebaugh/Johnson, as applied to claim 11 above, is silent regarding two or more jaw linkages, each individual jaw linkage corresponding to a respective one of the three or more jaws, such that at least two jaw linkages of the two or more jaw linkages are configured to be actuated independent of one another to move corresponding jaws, independent of one another, from a respective first jaw position to a respective second jaw position.
Edelstein, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a first and second jaw member may be moved and energized independently of each other. (Par. [0018]: First and second jaw assemblies may be engaged and/or energized independently.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combination of Yamamoto/Ginnebaugh/Johnson, as applied to claim 11 above, to incorporate the teachings of Edelstein, and configure each jaw member (132, 133, 134) of Yamamoto to comprise at least its own cam sliding pin (70), and angles slots (81) of Ginnebaugh, such that each jaw member is independently moveable via independent actuation of the sliding pin (70) of said moved jaw member and independently energizable relative to each other upon activation of actuator (15) of Ginnebaugh. Doing so would grant more control over the placement/orientation of the jaw members and energy delivery.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Yamamoto/Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein, as applied to claim 11 above, teaches the actuator is further configured to supply an RF signal to the at least two jaws independent of one another and concurrent with moving an individual jaw towards the first jaw position. (Ginnebaugh: Par. [0053] – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Yamamoto/Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein combination based on the rejection to claim 11 above; In the rejection to claim 11 above, the jaw members of the Yamamoto/Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein combination were configured to move independently of each other, and would therefore be configured to be energized independently of each other via actuator (15))
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Yamamoto/Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein, as applied to claim 12 above, teaches the actuator is further configured to impede supply of an RF signal to the at least two jaws independent of one another and concurrent with moving an individual jaw towards the second jaw position. (Ginnebaugh: Par. [0053] – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Yamamoto/Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein combination based on the rejection to claim 11 above; In the rejection to claim 11 above, the jaw members of the Yamamoto/Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein combination were configured to move independently of each other, and would therefore energy delivery to said electrodes would be impeded independently of each other via actuator (15))
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Yamamoto/Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein, as applied to claim 11 above, teaches at least one of the jaws includes an electrode configured to supply monopolar radiofrequency (MOP) to a target location of the patient. (Ginnebaugh: Par. [0057] – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Yamamoto/Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein combination based on the rejection to claim 11 above.)
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Yamamoto/Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein, as applied to claim 11 above, teaches the endoscopic end effector includes at least one anode and at least one cathode for supplying bipolar radiofrequency (BOP)to a target location of the patient. (Johnson: Par. [0023]: Sealing plates (118 and 128) are configured to operate in a bipolar mode – it is implicit that this feature be present in the Yamamoto/Ginnebaugh/Johnson/Edelstein combination based on the rejection to claim 11 above; while operating in a bipolar mode, one electrode would serve as a cathode and one electrode would serve as an anode.)
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NICHOLAS SHEA BORSCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5681. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30AM-5:30PM 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, Linda Dvorak can be reached at 5712724764. 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.
/LINDA C DVORAK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3794
/N.S.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3794