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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-20 are currently pending. Claims 1-2, 7, 10, 13, 18, and 20 are amended. No new subject matter is added.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rishton (US 5634893 A) in view of Henkin (US 3661143 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Rishton teaches a drainage container (12) for use in a medical fluid drainage system (autotransfusion apparatus for collecting salvaged blood, see Abstract), the drainage container comprising
one or more walls (generally cylindrical housing of reservoir 12, see Figure 1-2) that define a reservoir for holding a fluid therein (an upper chamber 16 for collecting blood and a lower chamber 14 for receiving blood from the upper chamber, see Figure 1; Abstract), wherein one of the one or more walls includes a lid (top cap 50) and a gas-permeable, liquid-impermeable membrane (hydrophobic filters 36 and 44 allow the passage of air but not the passage of liquids and bacteria to and from upper chamber 16 and lower chamber 14, see Col. 3 ln 45-48; and ) is positioned on a bottom surface of the lid (see Figures 1-2);
an inlet port (54) defined within one of the one or more walls (see Figure 1) and configured to be fluidly coupled to a drainage catheter (22);
a lower region (14) having an outlet port (70) defined within one of the one or more walls (see Figure 2) and configured to be fluidly coupled to a drainage bag (76); and
an upper region (16) having a vacuum port (35) defined within one of the one or more walls (see Figure 2) and configured to be fluidly coupled to a negative pressure source (vacuum source 32).
However, Rishton does not explicitly disclose wherein the vacuum port in the upper region of the container is in fluid communication with the outlet port in the lower region effective to allow the negative pressure source to apply a suction force on the drainage bag.
Henkin teaches a drainage container (drainage system 50, see Figure 5) for use in a medical fluid drainage system (urine drainage system, see Abstract) comprising: a lower region (drip chamber 27) having an outlet port (see below) defined within one of the one or more walls and configured to be fluidly coupled to a drainage bag (on the bottom wall of chamber 27 and fluidly coupled to urine collection bag 38, see Figure 5); and
PNG
media_image1.png
844
458
media_image1.png
Greyscale
an upper region (chamber 52) having a vacuum port (see below) defined within one of the one or more walls and configured to be fluidly coupled to a negative pressure source (the flexible wall 52a of the chamber 52 enables the chamber 52 to be used as a hand operated air pump to assure immediate clearing of all tubes and chambers when desired, see Col. 6 ln 1-3);
wherein the vacuum port in the upper region of the container is in fluid communication with the outlet port in the lower region (tube 35 drains the urine in the drip chamber 27 into a urine collection bag 38, while the tube 36 allows air from the bag 38 to enter the drip chamber and replace the liquid leaving the chamber. Hence, tube 35 functions as a liquid drain tube, while tube 36 functions as a vent tube, see Col. 4 ln 23-27) effective to allow the negative pressure source to apply a suction force on the drainage bag (tube 36 allows air from the bag 38 to enter the drip chamber and replace the liquid leaving the chamber, see Col. 4 ln 24-26).
Rishton and Henkin are analogous art because both teaches a drainage container for use in a medical fluid drainage system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the upper and lower region of Rishton and replace it with the upper and lower region wherein the vacuum port in the upper region of the container is in fluid communication with the outlet port in the lower region effective to allow the negative pressure source to apply a suction force on the drainage bag, as taught by Henkin. Henkin teaches a new and improved system for draining, collecting and monitoring a selected body fluid, e.g., urine, and includes a pair of substantially vertically oriented drain tubes in fluid communication with each other via an upper venting passage, the relative elevations of the lower terminal ends of the tubes producing a hydrostatic pressure differential, whereby one of the tubes functions as a liquid drain while the other tube functions as a positive pressure air vent for initiating liquid drainage flow and insuring both complete drainage and unidirectional flow. The pair of tubes communicate with various drip chamber configurations, including drip chambers embodying flexible walls, to increase the magnitude of the hydrostatic pressure differential and facilitate hand pumping wherever necessary or desirable. Valves in the air vent tube and drip chamber further enhance the unidirectional flow and total drainage characteristics of the system. In addition, the dual tube drip chamber functions as a very effective gas barrier to ascending infection (see Col. 2 ln 6-27).
Regarding Claim 2, Rishton and Henkin teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1 and Rishton further teaches wherein the lid forms a top surface of the upper region of the drainage container (top cap 50 that covers upper region 16, see Figure 2) and the vacuum port is defined within the lid (see Figure 2-3).
Regarding Claim 3, Rishton and Henkin teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 2 and Rishton further teaches wherein the inlet port is further defined within the lid (see Figures 2-3).
Regarding Claim 4, Rishton and Henkin teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 2 and Rishton further teaches wherein at least some of the one or more walls define an upper opening in the drainage container (without the top cap 50 there would be an opening on the upper wall of the reservoir 12, see Figure 2) and the lid is removably attached to the drainage container to seat upon and cover the upper opening (a top cap 50 that covers reservoir 12, see Col. 4 ln 67; Col. 5 ln 1).
Regarding Claim 5, Rishton and Henkin teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 2 and Rishton further teaches wherein the lid is configured to form a fluid tight seal with edges of the one or more walls defining the upper opening (see Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Rishton and Henkin teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1 and Rishton further teaches wherein the gas-permeable, liquid- impermeable membrane is further positioned to extend across a vent aperture located on the lid (a pressure-relief valve 46 connects upper chamber 16 to vent 45, via a hydrophobic filter 44, see Col. 3 ln 42-44).
Regarding Claim 7, Rishton and Henkin teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1 and Rishton further teaches wherein the gas-permeable, liquid-impermeable membrane (vacuum hydrophobic filter 36 allow the passage of air but not the passage of liquids and bacteria to and from upper chamber 16 and lower chamber 14, see Col. 3 ln 45-48) is positioned to extend across a lumen of the vacuum port (see Figure 1-2).
Regarding Claim 9, Rishton and Henkin teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1 and Rishton further teaches wherein the vacuum port includes an annular wall that extends beyond an outer surface of the one of the plurality of walls (see Figure 2-3) and is formed with a locking connection structure (male connector 33) configured to connect with an opposing connector (female connector 31) attached to the negative pressure source (see Figures 2-3).
Regarding Claim 10, Rishton teaches a medical fluid drainage system (10), comprising
a drainage tube (22) with a first end (end with suction holes 22a, see Figure 2) configured to be placed within a hollow organ or body cavity of a patient (for suctioning blood from a wound or operation site, see Col. 3 ln 17-18) and a second end (end connected to connector 34, see Figure 2);
an evacuation tube (male connector 33 and female connector 31) with a first end (female connector 31) configured to attach to a negative pressure source (32) and a second end (male connector connected to vacuum port 35);
a transfer tube (72) with a first end (connected to connector 70) and a second end (end connected to bag 76);
a drainage container (12) that defines a reservoir for holding a fluid therein (an upper chamber 16 for collecting blood and a lower chamber 14 for receiving blood from the upper chamber, see Figure 1; Abstract), wherein the drainage container includes a removable lid (top cap 50) and a gas-permeable, liquid-impermeable membrane (vacuum hydrophobic filter 36 and 44 allow the passage of air but not the passage of liquids and bacteria to and from upper chamber 16 and lower chamber 14, see Col. 3 ln 45-48) is positioned on a bottom surface of the removable lid (see Figures 1-2);
an inlet port (54) defined within a first portion of the drainage container (defined in upper chamber 16) and configured to be fluidly coupled to the second end of the drainage tube (fluidly coupled to tube 22, see Figure 2);
an outlet port (70) defined within a lower second portion of the drainage container (lower chamber 14, see Figure 2) and configured to be fluidly coupled to the first end of the transfer tube (see Figure 2);
a vacuum port (35) defined within an upper third portion of the drainage container or the lid (partition 60 is separated from dam 64 by moat 62 and also extends across cove 19 to isolate moat 62, dam 64 and valve 18 from the central portion 16b of upper chamber 16, see Col. 6 ln 11-14; Figure 1 and 6) and configured to be fluidly coupled to the second end of the evacuation tube (coupled to the male connector 33); and
a drainage bag (76) with an inlet port configured to be fluidly coupled to the second end of the transfer tube (see Figure 2).
However, Rishton does not explicitly disclose wherein the vacuum port in the upper third region of the container is in fluid communication with the outlet port in the lower region effective to allow the negative pressure source to apply a suction force on the drainage bag.
Henkin teaches a drainage container (drainage system 50, see Figure 5) for use in a medical fluid drainage system (urine drainage system, see Abstract) comprising: a lower region (drip chamber 27) having an outlet port (see annotated Figure 5 above) defined within one of the one or more walls and configured to be fluidly coupled to a drainage bag (on the bottom wall of chamber 27 and fluidly coupled to urine collection bag 38, see Figure 5); and
an upper region (chamber 52) having a vacuum port (see annotated Figure 5 above) defined within one of the one or more walls and configured to be fluidly coupled to a negative pressure source (the flexible wall 52a of the chamber 52 enables the chamber 52 to be used as a hand operated air pump to assure immediate clearing of all tubes and chambers when desired, see Col. 6 ln 1-3),
wherein the vacuum port in the upper third region of the container is in fluid communication with the outlet port in the lower region (tube 35 drains the urine in the drip chamber 27 into a urine collection bag 38, while the tube 36 allows air from the bag 38 to enter the drip chamber and replace the liquid leaving the chamber. Hence, tube 35 functions as a liquid drain tube, while tube 36 functions as a vent tube, see Col. 4 ln 23-27) effective to allow the negative pressure source to apply a suction force on the drainage bag (tube 36 allows air from the bag 38 to enter the drip chamber and replace the liquid leaving the chamber, see Col. 4 ln 24-26).
.
Rishton and Henkin are analogous art because both teaches a drainage container for use in a medical fluid drainage system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the upper and lower region of Rishton and replace it with the upper and lower region wherein the vacuum port in the upper region of the container is in fluid communication with the outlet port in the lower region effective to allow the negative pressure source to apply a suction force on the drainage bag, as taught by Henkin. Henkin teaches a new and improved system for draining, collecting and monitoring a selected body fluid, e.g., urine, and includes a pair of substantially vertically oriented drain tubes in fluid communication with each other via an upper venting passage, the relative elevations of the lower terminal ends of the tubes producing a hydrostatic pressure differential, whereby one of the tubes functions as a liquid drain while the other tube functions as a positive pressure air vent for initiating liquid drainage flow and insuring both complete drainage and unidirectional flow. The pair of tubes communicate with various drip chamber configurations, including drip chambers embodying flexible walls, to increase the magnitude of the hydrostatic pressure differential and facilitate hand pumping wherever necessary or desirable. Valves in the air vent tube and drip chamber further enhance the unidirectional flow and total drainage characteristics of the system. In addition, the dual tube drip chamber functions as a very effective gas barrier to ascending infection (see Col. 2 ln 6-27).
Regarding Claim 11, Rishton and Henkin teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 10 and Rishton further teaches a negative pressure source (32) coupled to the vacuum port (35) via the evacuation tube (male connector 33 and female connector 31) and configured to pull air from the drainage container to maintain a pressure equilibrium within the drainage container and the drainage bag (vacuum source 32 creates a vacuum within upper chamber 16 and lower chamber 14 , see Col. 3 ln 60-61).
Regarding Claim 13, Rishton and Henkin teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 10 and Rishton further teaches wherein the upper third portion (Partition 60 is separated from dam 64 by moat 62 and also extends across cove 19 to isolate moat 62, dam 64 and valve 18 from the central portion 16b of upper chamber 16, see Col. 6 ln 11-14; Figure 1 and 6) of the drainage container defining the vacuum port forms a portion of the removable lid (form cove 19, see Figure 5 ).
Regarding Claim 14, Rishton and Henkin teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 13 and Rishton further teaches wherein the first portion (16) of the drainage container defining the inlet port (54) forms another portion of the removable lid (see Figure 3).
Regarding Claim 15, Rishton and Henkin teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 10 and Rishton further teaches wherein the gas-permeable, liquid-impermeable membrane (36) is positioned to extend across a lumen of the vacuum port (see Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 17, Rishton and Henkin teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 10 and Rishton further teaches wherein the lid (50) further comprises a vent opening (vent 45) covered by the gas-permeable, liquid-impermeable membrane (covered by hydrophobic filter 44, see Figures 1-2).
Regarding Claim 18, Rishton teaches a method of providing medical fluid drainage to a patient (autotransfusion apparatus 10), the method comprising
receiving a bodily fluid from a patient (autotransfusion apparatus for collecting salvaged blood, see Abstract) into a drainage container (12) through a drainage tube (22) secured to an inlet port of the drainage container (secured to inlet port 54, see Figure 2);
transferring at least a portion of the bodily fluid from the drainage container to a drainage bag (76) fluidly connected to the drainage container (see Figure 2) with a transfer tube (tubing 72) secured to an outlet port (70) on a lower region of the drainage container (secured to lower chamber 14, see Figure 2);
removing excess air from (in the event that pressure within upper chamber 16 rises excessively, pressure-relief valve 46 opens to the atmosphere, see Col. 4 ln 42-44) and reducing pressure within the drainage container using a negative pressure source (vacuum source 32 creates a vacuum within upper chamber 16 and lower chamber 14, see Col. 3 ln 60-61) connected to the drainage container (see Figure 2) with a vacuum tube (female connector 31) secured to a vacuum port (35) on an upper region of the drainage container (on upper chamber 16); and
removing excess air from the drainage bag via the fluid connection with the drainage container to provide an equilibrium pressure in the drainage bag (removing excess air allows the pressure in lower chamber 14 at atmospheric, blood contained lower chamber 14 to drains freely from lower chamber 14 into blood bag 76 via tubing 72 see Col. 4 ln 23-33)
However, Rishton does not explicitly disclose removing excess air from the drainage bag via the fluid connection with the drainage container between the vacuum port and the outlet port.
Henkin teaches a drainage container (drainage system 50, see Figure 5) for use in a medical fluid drainage system (urine drainage system, see Abstract) comprising: a lower region (drip chamber 27) having an outlet port (see annotated Figure 5 above) defined within one of the one or more walls and configured to be fluidly coupled to a drainage bag (on the bottom wall of chamber 27 and fluidly coupled to urine collection bag 38, see Figure 5); and
an upper region (chamber 52) having a vacuum port (see annotated Figure 5 above) defined within one of the one or more walls and configured to be fluidly coupled to a negative pressure source (the flexible wall 52a of the chamber 52 enables the chamber 52 to be used as a hand operated air pump to assure immediate clearing of all tubes and chambers when desired, see Col. 6 ln 1-3),
removing excess air from the drainage bag via the fluid connection with the drainage container between the vacuum port and the outlet port (tube 35 drains the urine in the drip chamber 27 into a urine collection bag 38, while the tube 36 allows air from the bag 38 to enter the drip chamber and replace the liquid leaving the chamber. Hence, tube 35 functions as a liquid drain tube, while tube 36 functions as a vent tube, see Col. 4 ln 23-27).
Rishton and Henkin are analogous art because both teaches a drainage container for use in a medical fluid drainage system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the upper and lower region of Rishton and replace it with the upper and lower region removing excess air from the drainage bag via the fluid connection with the drainage container between the vacuum port and the outlet port, as taught by Henkin. Henkin teaches a new and improved system for draining, collecting and monitoring a selected body fluid, e.g., urine, and includes a pair of substantially vertically oriented drain tubes in fluid communication with each other via an upper venting passage, the relative elevations of the lower terminal ends of the tubes producing a hydrostatic pressure differential, whereby one of the tubes functions as a liquid drain while the other tube functions as a positive pressure air vent for initiating liquid drainage flow and insuring both complete drainage and unidirectional flow. The pair of tubes communicate with various drip chamber configurations, including drip chambers embodying flexible walls, to increase the magnitude of the hydrostatic pressure differential and facilitate hand pumping wherever necessary or desirable. Valves in the air vent tube and drip chamber further enhance the unidirectional flow and total drainage characteristics of the system. In addition, the dual tube drip chamber functions as a very effective gas barrier to ascending infection (see Col. 2 ln 6-27).
Regarding Claim 20, Rishton and Henkin teaches all of the limitations, as discussed above in claim 18 and Rishton further teaches wherein the drainage container comprises a removable lid (top cap 50) defining the vacuum port (35) connected to the negative pressure source (see Figures 1-2) and the step of removing excess air from the drainage container further comprises flowing air out of the drainage container through the vacuum port (reconnecting lower chamber 14 to vacuum source 32 and subjecting lower chamber 14 to a vacuum. This removes the pressure differential between upper chamber 16 and lower chamber 14, allowing drain valve 18 to open and blood collected in upper chamber 16 to again flow into lower chamber 14, see Col 4 ln 36-41).
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rishton and Henkin, as applied in claim 7 and 15, in further view of Haldopoulos et al. (US 20030178360 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Haldopoulos”.
Regarding Claim 8, Rishton and Henkin teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 7 and Rishton further teaches the gas-permeable, liquid-impermeable membrane (36). However, Rishton and Henkin do not explicitly disclose wherein the gas-permeable, liquid-impermeable membrane is held in place by a retention plate affixed to the bottom surface of the lid.
Haldopoulos teaches a membrane (filter 10) for use with a suction canister (see Abstract) wherein the membrane (10) is held in place by a retention plate (filter shield 30) affixed to the bottom surface of the lid (the filter shield 30 can be attached to the canister lid 20, see Figure 1; Paragraph [0027]).
Rishton, Henkin, and Haldopoulos are analogous art because both teach a suction canister comprising a filter.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the gas-permeable, liquid-impermeable membrane of modified Rishton and further include wherein the membrane is held in place by a retention plate affixed to the bottom surface of the lid, as taught by Haldopoulos. Haldopoulos teaches the filter shield functions both to reduce the likelihood of premature fluid contact on the filter from the lateral direction, and to attach the filter onto the underside of the suction canister lid (see Paragraph [0009]).
Regarding Claim 16, Rishton and Henkin teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 15 and Rishton further teaches the second gas- permeable, liquid-impermeable membrane (36). However, Rishton and Henkin do not explicitly disclose wherein a perimeter edge of the membrane is positioned between a retention plate and the bottom surface of the lid.
Haldopoulos teaches a membrane (filter 10) for use with a suction canister (see Abstract) wherein a perimeter edge of the membrane (edge of filter 10) is positioned between a retention plate (30) and the bottom surface of the lid (20, see Figures 1-2).
Rishton, Henkin, and Haldopoulos are analogous art because both teach a suction canister comprising a filter.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the gas- permeable, liquid-impermeable membrane of modified Rishton and further include wherein a perimeter edge of the membrane is positioned between a retention plate and the bottom surface of the lid, as taught by Haldopoulos. Haldopoulos teaches the filter shield functions both to reduce the likelihood of premature fluid contact on the filter from the lateral direction, and to attach the filter onto the underside of the suction canister lid (see Paragraph [0009]).
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rishton and Henkin, as applied in claim 10 and 18, in further view of Budig et al. (WO 2008012278 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Budig”.
Regarding Claim 12, Rishton and Henkin teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 10. However, Rishton and Henkin do not explicitly disclose a positive pressure source coupled with the drainage tube and configured to provide air flow through the drainage tube and into the drainage container.
Budig teaches a canister, suction device and system for collection of effluents, in particular exudates, from a wound during vacuum treatment (see Abstract) comprising a positive pressure source coupled with the drainage tube and configured to provide air flow through the drainage tube and into the drainage container (a source of positive pressure may be provided to apply a pressure above atmospheric pressure to the upstream side of the occlusion, see Col. 3 ln 12-13).
Rishton, Henkin, and Budig are analogous art because both teach a suction canister comprising drainage tube.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the drainage tube of modified Rishton and further include a positive pressure source coupled with the drainage tube configured to provide air flow, as taught by Budig. Budig teaches the positive pressure source allows for an occlusion to be efficiently removed, as the occlusion is not only affected by negative pressure downstream of the occlusion, but also by a positive pressure upstream of the wound (see Col. 3 ln 4-6).
Regarding Claim 19, Rishton and Henkin teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 10. However, Rishton and Henkin do not explicitly disclose introducing a positive pressure air flow into the drainage tube that flows into the drainage container.
Budig teaches a canister, suction device and system for collection of effluents, in particular exudates, from a wound during vacuum treatment (see Abstract) comprising introducing a positive pressure air flow into the drainage tube that flows into the drainage container (a source of positive pressure may be provided to apply a pressure above atmospheric pressure to the upstream side of the occlusion, see Col. 3 ln 12-13).
Rishton, Henkin, and Budig are analogous art because both teach a suction canister comprising drainage tube.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to modify the drainage tube of modified Rishton and further include a positive pressure source coupled with the drainage tube configured to provide air flow, as taught by Budig. Budig teaches the positive pressure source allows for an occlusion to be efficiently removed, as the occlusion is not only affected by negative pressure downstream of the occlusion, but also by a positive pressure upstream of the wound (see Col. 3 ln 4-6).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to Claim 10 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objection of claim 10 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 1-2, filed 12/10/2025, with respect to Claims 7-8 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claims 7-8 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to Claims 1, 10, and 18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in 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 ERIC RASSAVONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00am-5:30pm PT.
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, Sarah Al-Hashimi can be reached at (571) 272-7159. 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.
/ERIC RASSAVONG/ (3/17/2026)Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/CATHARINE L ANDERSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781