DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 2/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 7, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, 27-28, 30-31, 33, 35, 48, 55, 62, 64, 70, and 73 are pending in the application. Claims 48, 55, 62, 64, 70, and 73 remain withdrawn. Claims 5-6, 8-13, 15-16, 18, 20, 22-23, 25-26, 29, 32, 34, 36-47, 49-54, 56-61, 63, 65-69, and 71-72 are cancelled. The amendments to the Specification and claims overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/13/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the plurality of side holes being distributed along an entire length of the catheter tube (see lines 2-4 of claim 1) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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, 7, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, 27-28, 30-31, 33, and 35 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.
Claim 1 recites “a catheter tube comprising a lumen and a plurality of side holes, wherein the plurality of side holes are distributed along an entire length of the catheter tube in a spiraling corkscrew pattern”. The written description only appears to provide support for the side holes being distributed along a length, but not necessarily the entire length, of the catheter tube (see at least par. [0004], [0005], [0029], [0037], [0052], [0077], [0083], [00121], [00124], [00150], [0156]).
Claims 2-4, 7, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, 27-28, 30-31, 33, and 35 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4, 7, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, 27-28, 30-31, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a catheter tube comprising a lumen and a plurality of side holes, wherein the plurality of side holes are distributed along an entire length of the catheter tube in a spiraling corkscrew pattern”. As written, this would appear to require that the side holes are spaced at intervals from one end of the catheter tube all the way to the opposite end of the catheter tube. However, since the catheter is intended to be inserted into a blood vessel and removed from the blood vessel, it is generally understood that at least part of the catheter would be intended to remain outside of the patient. Should the portion of the catheter which is intended to remain outside of the patient contain side holes, it would appear that leakage between the interior and exterior of the catheter may occur. Thus, it is unclear whether the aforementioned limitation is intended to require that the side holes are distributed along an entire length of an insertable portion of the catheter, or whether the limitation should truly be interpreted to mean that the side holes are spaced at intervals from one end of the catheter tube all the way to the opposite end of the catheter tube as written.
Claims 2-4, 7, 14, 17, 19, 21, 24, 27-28, 30-31, 33, and 35 are rejected by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 14, 17, 19, 21, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stankus et al. (US 8,038,991 B1) in view of O’Connell et al. (US 2017/0080178 A1) and further in view of Desai et al. (US 2019/0119462 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Stankus discloses an intravascular catheter comprising:
a catheter tube comprising a lumen (see col. 16 lines 11-22, col. 41 lines 9-29); and
a biocompatible bioscaffold, wherein the biocompatible bioscaffold is contained within the lumen (see col. 16 lines 11-22).
However, Stankus fails to state the catheter tube comprising a plurality of side holes, wherein the plurality of side holes are distributed along an entire length of the catheter tube in a spiraling corkscrew pattern; the biocompatible bioscaffold comprising a plurality of macropores and micropores; the plurality of side holes are arranged to allow blood to flow through the catheter and waste products to be removed from the catheter when the catheter is placed into a vein.
O’Connell teaches an intravascular catheter (guide extension catheter 100, see Figs. 1-5 and 14, par. [0047], [0060]) comprising a catheter tube (distal shaft 104) comprising a plurality of side holes (perfusion openings 106), wherein the plurality of side holes (perfusion openings 106) are distributed along an entire length of the catheter tube (distal shaft 104) in a spiraling corkscrew pattern (see Figs. 1-5 and 14, par. [0060]), the plurality of side holes (perfusion openings 106) are arranged to allow blood to flow through the catheter (guide extension catheter 100) and waste products to be removed from the catheter (guide extension catheter 100) when the catheter (guide extension catheter 100) is placed into a vein (see par. [0047]-[0048], the perfusion openings 106 allow fluid communication between the interior and exterior of the distal shaft 104 such that this functional limitation can be achieved).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intravascular catheter of Stankus to include the catheter tube comprising a plurality of side holes, wherein the plurality of side holes are distributed along an entire length of the catheter tube in a spiraling corkscrew pattern; the plurality of side holes are arranged to allow blood to flow through the catheter and waste products to be removed from the catheter when the catheter is placed into a vein, as taught by O’Connell, in order to allow the inserted catheter to allow material to be transferred between the interior and the exterior of the catheter in a manner that provides increased flexibility for the vasculature (see O’Connell par. [0047]-[0048], [0060]).
However, modified Stankus still fails to state the biocompatible bioscaffold comprising a plurality of macropores and micropores.
Desai teaches a biocompatible bioscaffold comprising a plurality of macropores and micropores (see par. [0003], [0076], [0080], [0139]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biocompatible bioscaffold of the intravascular catheter of modified Stankus to include a plurality of macropores and micropores, as taught by Desai, in order to implant the pores with therapeutic cells to treat a disease (see Desai par. [0139]) and to provide desirable nutrient transport and vascular integration to grow and maintain cells (see Desai par. [0080]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Stankus teaches the intravascular catheter of claim 1 substantially as claimed. However, modified Stankus fails to state wherein the biocompatible bioscaffold comprises polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS), collagen, or graphene.
Desai teaches a biocompatible bioscaffold comprising collagen (see par. [0003], and [0114]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biocompatible bioscaffold of the intravascular catheter of modified Stankus to include collagen, as taught by Desai, in order to promote encapsulation of therapeutic cells (see Desai par. [0114]).
Regarding claim 14, modified Stankus teaches the intravascular catheter of claim 1 substantially as claimed. However, modified Stankus fails to state wherein the plurality of macropores have an average diameter ranging from about 150 micrometers to about 800 micrometers, the plurality of micropores have an average diameter of 30 micrometers or less, and the biocompatible bioscaffold has a porosity ranging from 30 percent to 95 percent.
Desai teaches a biocompatible bioscaffold wherein the plurality of macropores have an average diameter ranging from about 150 micrometers to about 800 micrometers (see par. [0084]), the plurality of micropores have an average diameter of 30 micrometers or less (see par. [0085]), and the biocompatible bioscaffold has a porosity ranging from 30 percent to 95 percent (see par. [0087]-[0088]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biocompatible bioscaffold of the intravascular catheter of modified Stankus to include wherein the plurality of macropores have an average diameter ranging from about 150 micrometers to about 800 micrometers, the plurality of micropores have an average diameter of 30 micrometers or less, and the biocompatible bioscaffold has a porosity ranging from 30 percent to 95 percent, as taught by Desai, because these characteristics provide a biocompatible bioscaffold which can implant the pores with therapeutic cells to treat a disease (see Desai par. [0139]) and to provide desirable nutrient transport and vascular integration to grow and maintain cells (see Desai par. [0080]).
Regarding claim 17, modified Stankus teaches the intravascular catheter of claim 1 substantially as claimed. However, modified Stankus fails to state wherein the biocompatible bioscaffold further comprises one or more drugs, growth factors, angiogenic agents, cytokines, therapeutic cells, or extracellular matrix components, or a combination thereof.
Desai teaches a biocompatible bioscaffold wherein the biocompatible bioscaffold further comprises one or more drugs (see par. [0115]-[0118], growth factors (see par. [0100] and [0115]-[0118]), cytokines (see par. [0101]), therapeutic cells (see par. [0100]-[0101] and [0139]), or extracellular matrix components (see par. [0114]), or a combination thereof.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biocompatible bioscaffold of the intravascular catheter of modified Stankus to include one or more drugs, growth factors, cytokines, therapeutic cells, or extracellular matrix components, or a combination thereof, as taught by Desai, because these characteristics provide a bioscaffold which can treat a disease (see Desai par. [0139]).
Regarding claim 19, modified Stankus teaches the intravascular catheter of claim 17 substantially as claimed. However, modified Stankus fails to state wherein the therapeutic cells are stem cells, progenitor cells, mature cells, or genetically modified cells.
Desai teaches a biocompatible bioscaffold wherein the therapeutic cells are stem cells (see par. [0137]), progenitor cells (see par. [0137], partially differentiated cells), mature cells (see par. [0137], fully differentiated cells), or genetically modified cells (see par. [0100]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biocompatible bioscaffold of the intravascular catheter of modified Stankus to include wherein the therapeutic cells are stem cells, progenitor cells, mature cells, or genetically modified cells, as taught by Desai, because these characteristics provide a bioscaffold which can treat a disease (see Desai par. [0139]).
Regarding claim 21, modified Stankus teaches the intravascular catheter of claim 17 substantially as claimed. However, modified Stankus fails to state wherein the therapeutic cells secrete a cytokine, a chemokine, a growth factor, or a hormone.
Desai teaches a biocompatible bioscaffold wherein the therapeutic cells secrete a cytokine (see par. [0101]), a growth factor (see par. [0100]), or a hormone (see par. [0100]-[0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biocompatible bioscaffold of the intravascular catheter of modified Stankus to include wherein the therapeutic cells secrete a cytokine, a growth factor, or a hormone, as taught by Desai, because these characteristics provide a bioscaffold which can treat a disease (see Desai par. [0139]).
Regarding claim 24, modified Stankus teaches the intravascular catheter of claim 17 substantially as claimed. However, modified Stankus fails to state wherein the therapeutic cells are insulin-secreting cells.
Desai teaches a biocompatible bioscaffold wherein the therapeutic cells are insulin-secreting cells (see par. [0111]-[0113]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biocompatible bioscaffold of the intravascular catheter of modified Stankus to include wherein the therapeutic cells are insulin-secreting cells, as taught by Desai, because these characteristics provide a bioscaffold which can treat type 1 or type 2 diabetes, pre- diabetes, or hyperglycemia (see Desai par. [0139]).
Claims 2, 27-28, 30-31, 33, and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stankus et al. (US 8,038,991 B1) in view of O’Connell et al. (US 2017/0080178 A1) and further in view of Desai et al. (US 2019/0119462 A1), as applied to claims 1, 17, and 24 above, and further in view of Schon et al. (US 2003/0153898 A1).
Regarding claim 2, modified Stankus teaches the intravascular catheter of claim 1 substantially as claimed. However, modified Stankus fails to state wherein the catheter tube comprises polyurethane or silicone.
Schon teaches an intravascular catheter (see Fig. 1, par. [0047]) wherein the catheter tube (either of distal end tubes 14 or 16) comprises polyurethane (see par. [0104]-[0105]) or silicone (see par. [0107]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intravascular catheter of modified Stankus to include wherein the catheter tube comprises polyurethane or silicone, as taught by Schon, in order to provide a soft durometer (see Schon par. [0105]) and/or a flexible, durable, soft, and biocompatible catheter that reduces risk of harming vessel walls (see Schon par. [0107]).
Regarding claim 27, modified Stankus teaches a method of implanting therapeutic cells in a subject, the method comprising placing the intravascular catheter of claim 17 (see claim 17 rejection above) within the subject (see rejections of claims 1 and 17 above wherein the intravascular catheter of Stankus includes a biocompatible bioscaffold that was previously modified in view of Desai to comprise therapeutic cells for treating a disease; the catheter of modified Stankus is placed within the subject to deliver the scaffold as taught by Stankus col. 16 lines 11-22).
However, modified Stankus fails to expressly state placing the intravascular catheter within a major vein of the subject.
Schon further teaches a method comprising placing the intravascular catheter (see Fig. 1, par. [0047]) within a major vein of the subject (see par. [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Stankus to include placing the intravascular catheter within a major vein of the subject, as taught by Schon, in order to deliver the bioscaffold into a suitable major vein of the subject depending upon the desired procedure (see Schon par. [0047]).
Regarding claim 28, modified Stankus teaches the method of claim 27 substantially as claimed. Modified Stankus further teaches wherein the major vein is selected from the group consisting of an internal jugular vein, a subclavian vein, and a femoral vein (see Schon par. [0047], see previous modifications in rejection of claim 27 above).
Regarding claim 30, modified Stankus teaches the method of claim 27 substantially as claimed. However, modified Stankus fails to state retrieving the intravascular catheter from the subject and exchanging the intravascular catheter for another intravascular catheter comprising the therapeutic cells.
Desai teaches a method comprising retrieving the intravascular catheter from the subject and exchanging the intravascular catheter for another intravascular catheter comprising the therapeutic cells (see par. [0144], after the bioscaffold is implanted, another catheter can administer another therapeutic drug).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Stankus to include retrieving the intravascular catheter from the subject and exchanging the intravascular catheter for another intravascular catheter comprising the therapeutic cells, as taught by Desai, in order to provide additional therapies (see Desai par. [0144]).
Regarding claim 31, modified Stankus teaches a method of treating a subject for type 1 diabetes, the method comprising placing the intravascular catheter of claim 24 (see claim 24 rejection above) within the subject (see rejections of claims 1, 17, and 24 above wherein the intravascular catheter of Stankus includes a biocompatible bioscaffold that was previously modified in view of Desai to comprise therapeutic insulin-secreting cells for treating type 1 diabetes, see Desai par. [0139]; the catheter of modified Stankus is placed within the subject to deliver the scaffold as taught by Stankus col. 16 lines 11-22).
However, modified Stankus fails to expressly state placing the intravascular catheter within a major vein of the subject.
Schon further teaches a method comprising placing the intravascular catheter (see Fig. 1, par. [0047]) within a major vein of the subject (see par. [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Stankus to include placing the intravascular catheter within a major vein of the subject, as taught by Schon, in order to deliver the bioscaffold into a suitable major vein of the subject depending upon the desired procedure (see Schon par. [0047]).
Regarding claim 33, modified Stankus teaches the method of claim 31 substantially as claimed. Modified Stankus further teaches wherein the insulin-secreting cells are autologous, allogeneic, or xenogeneic pancreatic beta cells or islets, or insulin-secreting cells derived from stem cells or pancreatic progenitor cells (see Desai par. [0016], [0102], [0111]-[0113], see previous modifications in rejection of claim 24 above).
Regarding claim 35, modified Stankus teaches the method of claim 31 substantially as claimed. However, modified Stankus fails to state retrieving the intravascular catheter from the subject and exchanging the intravascular catheter for another intravascular catheter comprising therapeutic cells.
Desai teaches a method comprising retrieving the intravascular catheter from the subject and exchanging the intravascular catheter for another intravascular catheter comprising insulin-secreting cells (see par. [0111]-[0113] and [0144], after the bioscaffold is implanted, another catheter can administer another therapeutic insulin-secreting cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of modified Stankus to include retrieving the intravascular catheter from the subject and exchanging the intravascular catheter for another intravascular catheter comprising insulin-secreting cells, as taught by Desai, in order to provide additional therapies (see Desai par. [0144]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stankus et al. (US 8,038,991 B1) in view of O’Connell et al. (US 2017/0080178 A1) and further in view of Desai et al. (US 2019/0119462 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chian et al. (WO 2008/069760 A1).
Regarding claim 4, modified Stankus teaches the intravascular catheter of claim 1 substantially as claimed. However, modified Stankus fails to state wherein the biocompatible bioscaffold further comprises a coating comprising an anticoagulant.
Chian teaches a biocompatible bioscaffold comprising a coating comprising an anticoagulant (see par. [021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the biocompatible bioscaffold of the intravascular catheter of modified Stankus to include a coating comprising an anticoagulant, as taught by Chian, in order to reduce the thrombogenic reaction at the site where the bioscaffold is implanted (see Chian par. [021]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stankus et al. (US 8,038,991 B1) in view of O’Connell et al. (US 2017/0080178 A1) and further in view of Desai et al. (US 2019/0119462 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schon et al. (US 2003/0153898 A1), further in view of Fang (US 2017/0251977 A1), and further in view of Sverdlik et al. (US 2013/0218068 A1).
Regarding claim 7, modified Stankus teaches the intravascular catheter of claim 1 substantially as claimed. However, modified Stankus fails to state wherein each of the plurality of side holes are about 0.2 to about 5.0 mm wide, and adjacent ones of the plurality of side holes are about 3 mm to about 10 mm apart, and rotated about 30 degrees to about 60 degrees.
Schon teaches an intravascular catheter (see Fig. 1, par. [0047]) wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of side holes (side holes 50) are rotated 60 degrees (see par. [0101]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intravascular catheter of modified Stankus to include wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of side holes are rotated 60 degrees, as taught by Schon, in order to provide additional flow paths and optimal flow properties (see Schon par. [0100]-[0101]).
However, modified Stankus still fails to state wherein each of the plurality of side holes are about 0.2 to about 5.0 mm wide, and adjacent ones of the plurality of side holes are about 3 mm to about 10 mm apart.
Fang teaches an intravascular catheter (see Figs. 1-2, par. [0003], [0033]), wherein each of the plurality of side holes (side holes 131) are about 0.6 mm wide (see par. [0038], [0054]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intravascular catheter of modified Stankus to include wherein each of the plurality of side holes are about 0.6 mm wide, as taught by Fang, in order to prevent the side holes from being blocked (see Fang par. [0038], [0054]).
However, modified Stankus still fails to state wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of side holes are about 3 mm to about 10 mm apart.
Sverdlik teaches an intravascular catheter (see Fig. 4A, par. [0195]), wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of side holes (ports 1250) are about 3 mm to about 10 mm apart (see par. [0196] and [0200]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the intravascular catheter of modified Stankus to include wherein adjacent ones of the plurality of side holes are about 3 mm to about 10 mm apart, as taught by Sverdlik, in order to properly space the side holes apart for customizable injection of substances into the blood vessel (see Sverdlik par. [0196] and [0200]-[0202]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 AVERY SMALE whose telephone number is (571)270-7172. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 8-4 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571) 272-4965. 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.
/AVERY SMALE/Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/KAMI A BOSWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights