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
This action is entered in response to Applicant's amendment and reply of 11/19/25. The claims 1-11, 13-26 are pending. The claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 11 are amended. Claims 12, 27-36 are cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to claim 8 and 11 are sufficient to withdraw the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 5 and 6 overcome the claim objections.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 11/19/25 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US2009/0248142) in view of Falwell (US2008/0039918) and McGuckin (US2018/0360607) have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues, the motivation for modifying the coil of Perkins to include a locking bead at the proximal end of the coil body by stating Perkins never discloses or contemplates a removable coil; therefore, it would not have been obvious to incorporate a removal structure as taught by McGuckin. Specifically stating Perkins never expresses difficulty in removing the clip structure as a deficiency. Examiner disagrees, as stated in MPEP 2144 section IV, the reason or motivation to modify the reference may often suggest what the inventor has done, but for a different purpose or to solve a different problem. It is not necessary that the prior art suggest the combination to achieve the same advantage or result discovered by applicant. See, e.g., In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (motivation question arises in the context of the general problem confronting the inventor rather than the specific problem solved by the invention); Cross Med. Prods., Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 424 F.3d 1293, 1323, 76 USPQ2d 1662, 1685 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“One of ordinary skill in the art need not see the identical problem addressed in a prior art reference to be motivated to apply its teachings.”); In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 173 USPQ 560 (CCPA 1972); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 16 USPQ2d 1897 (Fed. Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991).
Applicant further amends claim 1 to recite “the locking bead is configured to anchor the implantable coil to a luminal surface of a vein by way of an opening of a wall of the vein”. Where the locking bead and coil of Perkins/McGuckin is capable of anchoring the implantable coil 94 to a vein by the opening of a wall of the vein by the structure of the locking bead and coil 94 being the same structurally as the claimed invention and having the bead extending off the surface of the coil 94 to catch the vessel wall and anchor the device. MPEP 2114 section II states “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co.v.Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).
Applicant, states Perkins and McGuckin teach away from the proposed combination. Since modifying Perkins to have a bead could block the lumen of the penetrator 85. Examiner respectfully disagrees, where one having ordinary skill in the art would size the bead so that it would not interfere with translation of the coil 94 through the lumen of the penetrator 85. Furthermore, Applicant’s argument is unfounded considering the diameters of the lumen of the penetrator 85 or the coil 94 are not disclosed or discussed as being nearly the same. Applicant further argues, the bead diameter being larger than the coil diameter would obstruct the lumen of the opening of the clip member and prevent insertion of the mandrel. Examiner disagrees, where the bead would be added to the outer surface of the coil 94 and not on an inner surface of the coil 94; therefore, not interrupting the passage of the mandrel 96. Where one having ordinary skill in the art would understand how to modify the coil 94 to include the bead without closing the lumen of the coil 94.
Applicant further argues, the limitation “wherein the implantable coil is disposed distal of a distal end of the mandrel” is not taught by Perkins. Examiner disagrees, the coil 94 is disposed distal of the distal end of the mandrel 96 when the mandrel is removed from the coil 94 as shown in Fig. 8D.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US2009/0248142 – cited in Applicant’s IDS) in view of Falwell (US2008/0039918) and McGuckin (US2018/0360607).
Regarding claim 1, Perkins disclose a system for restoring venous valve function, comprising:
an implantable coil (94) having a non-coiled configuration in a first state (first state is when the coil 94 extends longitudinally through the penetrator 85 in a straightened state, [0073]) and a coiled configuration in a second state (second state is when the coil 94 is released from the penetrator and assumes the coiled shape, [0073]), the implantable coil having a coil body (body of the coil 94) extending between a distal end and a proximal end and defining a first diameter therebetween (proximal end and distal end of the coil 94 are interpreted as the two ends of the structure, see Fig. 8D); and
a deployment device, comprising;
a handle (19);
an outer sheath (11) extending from the handle, the outer sheath including a side opening (opening that the penetrator 85 extends from, see Fig. 5A, [0073]) proximate a distal end;
a needle (85); and
a mandrel (mandrel 96) operatively coupled to the second actuator, the mandrel configured to push the implantable coil through a needle tip of the needle (the mandrel 96 and clip member 94 are advanced together through the lumen of penetrator 85, [0073]; where the mandrel is capable of pushing the clip member 94 by the clip conforming to the shape of the mandrel, [0073]), thereby allowing the implantable coil to transition from the first state within the deployment device to the second state outside of the deployment device ([0073]), wherein the implantable coil is disposed distal of a distal end of the mandrel (the coil 94 is disposed distal a distal end of the mandrel 96 when the mandrel 96 is removed, see Fig. 8D).
Perkins is silent regarding a locking bead coupled to the proximal end of the coil body and aligned axially therewith, the locking bead extending radially from a central axis of the coil body to define a second diameter, larger than the first diameter, wherein the locking bead is configured to anchor the implantable coil to a luminal surface of a vein by way of an opening of a wall of the vein. McGuckin teaches a vascular device for treating valve insufficiency (see Abstract). Where the vascular device to be deployed in a vessel is a coil by having loops 30, 32, 40, 42 made of a wire and includes a retrieval structure (interpreted as the claimed locking bead) positioned on the end of the main wire 20 that includes a ball ([0055]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the coil of Perkins to include a locking bead at the proximal end of the coil body as taught by McGuckin in order to provide a structure that can be grasped by a removal tool to remove the device ([0055] of McGuckin). Where the locking bead as taught by McGuckin would have a second diameter defined by the bead that would be larger than the first diameter of the coil body. Where the locking bead and coil of Perkins/McGuckin is capable of anchoring the implantable coil to a vein by the opening of a wall of the vein by the structure of the locking bead and coil being the same as the claimed invention and having the bead extending off the surface of the coil to catch the vessel wall and anchor the device.
Perkins is silent regarding the handle including a first actuator and a second actuator, the needle operatively coupled to the first actuator and the mandrel operatively connected to the second actuator. However, Perkins further discloses advancing and retracting the needle 85 with the handle 19 by some actuation mechanism ([0054]). Falwell teaches a handle having three actuators 122, 124, and 124a for controlling movement of the tip assembly 140 ([0137]). Where the thumbwheel actuator 122 may be used to change the orientation of the tip assembly 140 relative to the longitudinal axis of the shaft of the catheter 100 dependent on the cables/pull wires attached ([0137]) a first slide actuator 124 or a thumbwheel actuator and a second slide actuator ([0137]). The first slide actuator 124 can be used to increase or decrease the curvature of the distal end and the second slide actuator 124A may be used to move a sliding electrode proximally and distally (interpreted as the coil). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have incorporated the handle assembly and three actuators of Falwell into the system of Perkins in order to provide a handle with actuation structures for operation of the mandrel and needle as desired by Perkins and also provide an actuation structure for changing the curvature at the tip of the catheter for orienting the implant in a desired manner for delivery ([0137]).
Regarding claim 2, Perkins/Falwell/McGuckin makes obvious the system of claim 1, Perkins further discloses wherein the needle tip is configured to pierce a luminal surface of a vein from the side opening of the outer sheath and form an opening in a wall of the vein ([0072], see Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 3, Perkins/Falwell/McGuckin makes obvious the system of claim 2, McGuckin further teaches wherein the locking bead is configured to anchor the implantable coil in the opening of the wall of the vein, seal the opening in the wall of the vein, prevent migration of the implantable coil, or a combination thereof (the modified invention with the bead as taught by McGuckin is capable of preventing migration of the coil by being an enlargement at the end of the coil).
Regarding claim 4, Perkins/Falwell/McGuckin makes obvious the system of claim 3, Perkins further discloses wherein the implantable coil is configured to wrap around an abluminal surface of the vein and constrict a valve area thereof, thereby bringing leaflets within the valve area closer together (see Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, Perkins/Falwell/McGuckin makes obvious the system of claim 4, Perkins further discloses wherein the implantable coil is a shape-set nitinol implantable coil ([0065]).
Claims 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US2009/0248142 – cited in Applicant’s IDS) in view of Falwell (US2008/0039918) and McGuckin (US2018/0360607) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Griffin (US2020/0163767).
Regarding claim 6, Perkins/Falwell/McGuckin makes obvious the system of claim 5; yet, is silent regarding wherein the implantable coil includes one or more echogenicity-enhancing features for ultrasound visualization of the implantable coil. Griffin teaches methods for treating a valve in the human body, where components 120 of the device used for performing the procedure may comprise one or more markers 124, disposed thereon for identifying a location of retractable and extendable member 120 during a venous valve repair procedure, for example, by using markers 124 with external imaging, internal imaging, or both. Where markers 124 can include radiopaque markers to enhance visualization by X-ray, or etched grooves to enhance visualization by ultrasound imaging ([0078]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the coil of Perkins/Falwell/McGuckin to include echogenicity enhancing features such as grooves for ultrasound visualization as taught by Griffin in order to identify the location of the coil during implantation to ensure proper placement ([0078] of Griffin).
Regarding claim 7, Perkins/Falwell/McGuckin/Griffin makes obvious the system of claim 6; yet, is silent regarding wherein the implantable coil includes one or more radiopacity-enhancing feature for X-ray visualization of the implantable coil. Griffin further teaches methods for treating a valve in the human body, where components 120 of the device used for performing the procedure may comprise one or more markers 124, disposed thereon for identifying a location of retractable and extendable member 120 during a venous valve repair procedure, for example, by using markers 124 with external imaging, internal imaging, or both. Where markers 124 can include radiopaque markers to enhance visualization by X-ray, or etched grooves to enhance visualization by ultrasound imaging ([0078]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the coil of Perkins/Falwell/McGuckin/Griffin to include radiopacity enhancing features for X-ray visualization as taught by Griffin in order to identify the location of the coil during implantation to ensure proper placement ([0078] of Griffin).
Regarding claim 8, Perkins/Falwell/McGuckin/Griffin makes obvious the system of claim 7, Falwell further teaches wherein the first actuator is configured to distally slide in a first-actuator slot of the handle to advance the needle tip through the opening of the outer sheath and proximally slide in the first-actuator slot of the handle to withdraw the needle tip into the outer sheath (the actuator 124 of McGuckin when added to the system of Perkins would be capable of advancing and withdrawing the needle into the outer sheath by the actuation, where the actuator 124 slides in some slot within the handle to move as shown in Fig. 1 of Falwell).
Regarding claim 9, Perkins/Falwell/McGuckin/Griffin makes obvious the system of claim 8, Falwell further teaches wherein the first-actuator sliding element includes a deflection wheel (thumbwheel actuator 122) coupled to the needle tip by a pull wire (where the system of Perkins is modified to couple the thumbwheel actuator 122 and cables with the needle of Perkins, [0137]), the deflection wheel configured to pull the pull wire by rotation of the deflection wheel for setting of a needle-tip angle prior to advancing the needle tip through the side opening of the outer sheath (the needle tip of Perkins/Falwell/McGuckin is capable of being deflected prior to release from the outer sheath by actuation of the thumbwheel of Falwell).
Regarding claim 10, Perkins/Falwell/McGuckin/Griffin makes obvious the system of claim 8, Perkins further discloses wherein the needle is a shape set with a curved shape in a distal-end portion of the needle (the needle 85 is intended to be delivered curved by being 90 degrees from the valve commissure and as shown in Fig. 5A) for advancing the needle through the side opening of the outer sheath without setting a needle-tip angle prior to advancing the needle tip through the side opening of the outer sheath (the needle tip of Perkins/Falwell/McGuckin/Griffin is capable of not being set prior to advancing from the opening of the sheath by not actuating the thumbwheel of Falwell).
Regarding claim 11, Perkins/Falwell/McGuckin/Griffin makes obvious the system of claim 10, Falwell further teaches wherein the second actuator is configured to distally slide in a second-actuator slot of the handle to advance the mandrel and push the implantable coil through the needle tip (where the second actuator 124A slides in some slot within the handle to move as shown in Fig. 1 of McGuckin, where the movement would advance the mandrel to push the coil as described in [0037] of Perkins).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US2009/0248142 – cited in Applicant’s IDS) in view of McGuckin (US2018/0360607).
Regarding claim 13, Perkins discloses an implantable coil for restoring venous valve function (see Abstract), comprising:
a coil body (94) defining a first diameter (diameter of body of coil 94) and having a non-coiled configuration in a first state of the implantable coil (first state is when the coil 94 extends longitudinally through the penetrator 85 in a straightened state, [0073]) and a coiled configuration in a second state (second state is when the coil 94 is released from the penetrator and assumes the coiled shape, [0073]) of the implantable coil for coiling around an abluminal surface of a vein and constricting a valve area thereof to bring leaflets within the valve area closer together (see Abstract).
Perkins does not explicitly disclose a locking bead at a proximal end of the coil body opposite a distal end thereof, the locking bead aligned axially with a central axis of the coil body and defining a second diameter larger than the first diameter, the locking bead configured to anchor the implantable coil to a luminal surface of the vein by way of an opening of a wall of the vein. Perkins is silent regarding a locking bead coupled to the proximal end of the coil body and aligned axially therewith, the locking bead extending radially from a central axis of the coil body to define a second diameter, larger than the first diameter. McGuckin teaches a vascular device for treating valve insufficiency (see Abstract). Where the vascular device to be deployed in a vessel is a coil by having loops 30, 32, 40, 42 made of a wire and includes a retrieval structure (interpreted as the claimed locking bead) positioned on the end of the main wire 20 that includes a ball ([0055]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the coil of Perkins to include a locking bead at the proximal end of the coil body as taught by McGuckin in order to provide a structure that can be grasped by a removal tool to remove the device ([0055] of McGuckin). Where the locking bead as taught by McGuckin would have a second diameter defined by the bead that would be larger than the first diameter of the coil body.
Regarding claim 14, Perkins/McGuckin makes obvious the implantable coil of claim 13, McGuckin further teaches wherein the locking bead is configured to seal the opening in the wall of the vein and prevent migration of the implantable coil (the modified invention with the bead as taught by McGuckin is capable of preventing migration of the coil by being an enlargement at the end of the coil).
Claims 15-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US2009/0248142 – cited in Applicant’s IDS) in view of McGuckin (US2018/0360607) as applied to claim 14, and further in view of Case (US2007/0100432).
Regarding claim 15, Perkins/McGuckin makes obvious the implantable coil of claim 14; yet, is silent regarding wherein the locking bead is formed of a bioresorbable material. Case teaches a frame for venous valve insufficiency (see Abstract). Where the frame can be coated or formed from bioabsorbable materials ([0055]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to have modified the entirety of the coil including the bead of Perkins/McGuckin to be coated with bioabsorbable materials as taught by Case in order to have the coil be partially absorbed by the body after a period of time to eliminate some of the structure from the vessel, before, during, or after the remodeling process ([0075]).
Regarding claim 16, Perkins/McGuckin/Case makes obvious the implantable coil of claim 15, Perkins further discloses wherein the implantable coil is a shape-set nitinol implantable coil ([0065]).
Regarding claim 17, Perkins/McGuckin/Case makes obvious the implantable coil of claim 16, wherein the coil body is shaped into a circular cylinder with circular coils in the second state of the implantable coil (see Fig. 5B).
Regarding claim 18, Perkins/McGuckin/Case makes obvious the implantable coil of claim 16; yet, does not explicitly disclose wherein the coil body is shaped into an elliptic cylinder with elliptical coils in the second state of the implantable coil. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the coil body be shaped into an elliptic cylinder with elliptical coils in the second state, since applicant has not disclosed that having the elliptical shape provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose, it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs as stated in the instant specification Paragraph [0076], and a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the shape of the coil body and coils of Perkins/McGuckin/Case would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification.
Regarding claim 19, Perkins/McGuckin/Case makes obvious the implantable coil of claim 16; yet, does not explicitly disclose wherein the coil body is shaped into a cone with circular coils of increasing diameter from the proximal end to the distal end of the coil body in the second state of the implantable coil. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the coil body be shaped into a cone, since applicant has not disclosed that having the cone shape provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose, it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs as stated in the instant specification Paragraph [0076], and a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the shape of the coil body and coils of Perkins/McGuckin/Case would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification.
Regarding claim 20, Perkins/McGuckin/Case makes obvious the implantable coil of claim 16; yet, does not explicitly disclose wherein the coil body is shaped into an hourglass with circular coils of decreasing diameter from both the proximal and distal ends of the coil body in the second state of the implantable coil. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the coil body be shaped into an hourglass, since applicant has not disclosed that having the hourglass shape provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose, it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs as stated in the instant specification Paragraph [0076], and a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the shape of the coil body and coils of Perkins/McGuckin/Case would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification.
Regarding claim 21, Perkins/McGuckin/Case makes obvious the implantable coil of claim 16; yet, does not explicitly disclose wherein the coil body is shaped into a barrel with circular coils of increasing diameter from both the proximal and distal ends of the coil body in the second state of the implantable coil. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the coil body be shaped into a barrel, since applicant has not disclosed that having the barrel shape provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose, it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs as stated in the instant specification Paragraph [0076], and a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the shape of the coil body and coils of Perkins/McGuckin/Case would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification.
Regarding claim 22, Perkins/McGuckin/Case makes obvious the implantable coil of claim 21, Perkins further discloses wherein the coil body is formed of a single wire ([0048]).
Claims 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US2009/0248142 – cited in Applicant’s IDS) in view of McGuckin (US2018/0360607) and Case (US2007/0100432) as applied to claim 21, and further in view of Bieneman (US2008/0009883).
Regarding claim 23, Perkins/McGuckin/Case makes obvious the implantable coil of claim 21, yet, does not explicitly disclose wherein the coil body is formed of a number of wires braided together. Bieneman teaches a snare device having a guide element 12 that is formed of a wire that has various configurations known in the medical device art ([0027]). Where the configurations of the wire are a single strand, braid, and coil/core configuration ([0027]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have substituted the single strand coil body of Perkins/McGuckin/Case for the braided coil body as taught by Bieneman, since the substitution would have yielded the same predictable result of providing a wire with desired characteristics for use in a vessel.
Regarding claim 24, Perkins/McGuckin/Case makes obvious the implantable coil of claim 21, yet, does not explicitly disclose wherein the coil body is formed of a number of wires wound around a common core wire. Bieneman teaches a snare device having a guide element 12 that is formed of a wire that has various configurations known in the medical device art ([0027]). Where the configurations of the wire are a single strand, braid, and coil/core configuration ([0027]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have substituted the single strand coil body of Perkins/McGuckin/Case for the coil around a core wire as taught by Bieneman, since the substitution would have yielded the same predictable result of providing a wire with desired characteristics for use in a vessel.
Claims 25 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Perkins (US2009/0248142 – cited in Applicant’s IDS) in view of McGuckin (US2018/0360607), Case (US2007/0100432), and Bieneman (US2008/0009883) as applied to claim 24 and further in view of Griffin (US2020/0163767).
Regarding claim 25, Perkins/McGuckin/Case/Bieneman makes obvious the implantable coil of claim 24; yet, is silent regarding wherein the implantable coil includes one or more echogenicity-enhancing features for ultrasound visualization of the implantable coil. Griffin teaches methods for treating a valve in the human body, where components 120 of the device used for performing the procedure may comprise one or more markers 124, disposed thereon for identifying a location of retractable and extendable member 120 during a venous valve repair procedure, for example, by using markers 124 with external imaging, internal imaging, or both. Where markers 124 can include radiopaque markers to enhance visualization by X-ray, or etched grooves to enhance visualization by ultrasound imaging ([0078]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the coil of Perkins/McGuckin/Case/Bieneman to include echogenicity enhancing features such as grooves for ultrasound visualization as taught by Griffin in order to identify the location of the coil during implantation to ensure proper placement ([0078] of Griffin).
Regarding claim 26, Perkins/McGuckin/Case/Bieneman/Griffin makes obvious the implantable coil of claim 25; yet, is silent regarding wherein the implantable coil includes one or more radiopacity-enhancing feature for X-ray visualization of the implantable coil. Griffin further teaches methods for treating a valve in the human body, where components 120 of the device used for performing the procedure may comprise one or more markers 124, disposed thereon for identifying a location of retractable and extendable member 120 during a venous valve repair procedure, for example, by using markers 124 with external imaging, internal imaging, or both. Where markers 124 can include radiopaque markers to enhance visualization by X-ray, or etched grooves to enhance visualization by ultrasound imaging ([0078]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have modified the coil of Perkins/McGuckin/Case/Bieneman/Griffin to include radiopacity enhancing features for X-ray visualization as taught by Griffin in order to identify the location of the coil during implantation to ensure proper placement ([0078] of Griffin).
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 MIKAIL A MANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1879. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached on (571)272-4746. 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.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/SARAH W ALEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774