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 .
Summary
Claims 1-7, 28-30, and 34-35 are pending in this office action. Claims 8-27 and 33 have been withdrawn from consideration. Applicant is encouraged to amend the withdrawn claims for their correct alignment with the pending claims. All pending claims are under examination in this application.
Priority
The current application filed on May 18, 2023 is a 371 of PCT/US2021/059949 filed November 18, 2021. The current application claims to provisional patent application 63/115,199 filed on November 18, 2020.
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.
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 non-obviousness.
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 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harley et al. (US2014/0309738A1) in view of Yow et al. (Polymers, 2011), Lynn et al. (US2010/0248368A1), Alegret et al. (Biomacromolecules, 2019), Weisgerber et al. (Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials, 2013) and Wei (WO2017/196595A1).
[The Examiner is going to introduce each reference and then combine them where appropriate to reject the instant claims.]
1. Harley et al.
Harley et al. is regarded as being the prior art closest to the subject-matter of the present application as it teaches membrane-scaffold composites for tissue engineering applications (see title). Additionally, Harley et al. disclose collagen-glycosaminoglycan membrane shell scaffold core composites for connective tissue engineering that avoids aspects of the typical tradeoff between mechanical properties (i.e. modulus, failure strength) and bioactivity (i.e., permeability and porosity) for porous tissue engineering scaffolds. The relative density of the collagen glycosaminoglycan scaffold core can be about 0.5 to about 0.95 while the membrane shell can be about 0.001 to 25 about 0.2. The core-shell composite can be tubular and the composite can have a diameter of about 1 mm to about 20 mm. The collagen glycosaminoglycan membrane shell can be perforated with about 25 to about 1000 micrometers openings or alternatively can be embossed with any range of pattern features from about 25 to about 1000 micrometers in size. The porous collagen glycosaminoglycan scaffold core can be populated with cells such as adult or embryonic stem cells, tenocytes, osteoblasts, nerve cells, cardiac cells, myocytes, fibroblasts or combinations thereof (see abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
200
400
media_image1.png
Greyscale
2. Yow et al.
Yow et al. teach a 3D electroactive polypyrrole-collagen fibrous scaffold for tissue engineering (see title). Additionally, Yow et al. disclose that fibers can provide topographical, biochemical and electrical cues that would be attractive for directing the differentiation of stem cells into electro-responsive cells such as neuronal or muscular cells. Here we report on the fabrication of polypyrrole-incorporated collagen-based fibers via interfacial polyelectrolyte complexation (IPC). The mean ultimate tensile strength of the fibers is 304.0 ± 61.0 MPa and the Young’s Modulus is 10.4 ± 4.3 GPa. Human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells (hMSCs) are cultured on the fibers in a proliferating medium and stimulated with an external electrical pulse generator for 5 and 10 days. The effects of polypyrrole in the fiber system can be observed, with hMSCs adopting a neuronal-like morphology at day 10, and through the upregulation of neural markers, such as noggin, MAP2, neurofilament, β tubulin III and nestin. This study demonstrates the potential of this fiber system as an attractive 3D scaffold for tissue engineering, where collagen is present on the fiber surface for cellular adhesion, and polypyrrole is encapsulated within the fiber for enhanced electrical communication in cell-substrate and cell-cell interactions. (see abstract).
3. Lynn et al.
Lynn et al. teach biomaterials (see title). Furthermore, Lynn et al. disclose a process for the preparation of a composite biomaterial comprising: providing a first substantially solid component comprising one or more of collagen, a glycosaminoglycan, albumin, hyaluronan, chitosan, and synthetic polypeptides comprising a portion of the polypeptide sequence of collagen, and optionally an inorganic material, said component having at least a surface portion that is porous; providing a fluid composition comprising one or more of collagen, a glycosaminoglycan, albumin, hyaluronan, chitosan, and synthetic polypeptides comprising a portion of the polypeptide sequence of collagen, and a liquid carrier, and optionally an inorganic material; contacting said fluid composition with said porous surface portion of said first component; cooling said fluid composition to a temperature at which the liquid carrier transforms into a plurality of solid crystals or particles; removing at least some of the plurality of solid crystals or particles by sublimation and/or evaporation (see abstract).
4. Alegret et al.
Alegret et al. teach 3D scaffolds based on conductive polymers for biomedical applications (see title). In addition, Alegret et al. disclose 3D scaffolds appear to be a cost-effective ultimate answer for biomedical applications, facilitating rapid results while providing an environment similar to in vivo tissue. These biomaterials offer large surface areas for cell or biomaterial attachment, proliferation, biosensing and drug delivery applications. Among 3D scaffolds, the ones based on conjugated polymers (CPs) and natural nonconductive polymers arranged in a 3D architecture provide tridimensionality to cellular culture along with a high surface area for cell adherence and proliferation as well electrical conductivity for stimulation or sensing. However, the scaffolds must also obey other characteristics: homogeneous porosity, with pore sizes large enough to allow cell penetration and nutrient flow; elasticity and wettability similar to the tissue of implantation; and a suitable composition to enhance cell−matrix interactions. In this Review, we summarize the fabrication methods, characterization techniques and main applications of conductive 3D scaffolds based on conductive polymers. The main barrier in the development of these platforms has been the fabrication and subsequent maintenance of the third dimension due to challenges in the manipulation of conductive polymers. In the last decades, different approaches to overcome these barriers have been developed for the production of conductive 3D scaffolds, demonstrating a huge potential for biomedical purposes. Finally, we present an overview of the emerging strategies developed to manufacture 3D conductive scaffolds, the techniques used to fully characterize them, and the biomedical fields where they have been applied (see abstract).
4. Weisgerber et al.
Weisgerber et al. teach the impact of discrete compartments of a multi-compartment collagen–GAG scaffold on overall construct biophysical properties (see title). Also, Weisgerber et al. disclose that orthopedic interfaces such as the tendon-bone junction (TBJ) present unique challenges for biomaterials development. Here we describe a multi-compartment collagen–GAG scaffold fabricated via lyophilization that contains discrete mineralized (CGCaP) and non-mineralized (CG) regions joined by a continuous interface. Modifying CGCaP preparation approaches, we demonstrated scaffold variants of increasing mineral content (40 vs. 80 wt% CaP). We report the impact of fabrication parameters on microstructure, composition, elastic modulus, and permeability of the entire multi-compartment scaffold as well as discrete mineralized and non-mineralized compartments. Notably, individual mineralized and non-mineralized compartments differentially impacted the global properties of the multi-compartment composite. Of particular interest for the development of mechanically-loaded multi-compartment composites, the elastic modulus and permeability of the entire construct were governed primarily by the non-mineralized and mineralized compartments, respectively. Based on these results we hypothesize spatial variations in scaffold structural, compositional, and mechanical properties may be an important design parameter in orthopedic interface repair (see abstract).
5. Wei
Wei teaches osteoinductive fibrous bone chips (see title). Furthermore, Wei discloses an osteoinductive composition is provided which includes a plurality of surface demineralized fibrous bone chips. Each fibrous bone chip has a BET surface area from about 10 m2/gm to about 70 m2/gm. The osteoinductive composition can also include fully demineralized bone fibers. The osteoinductive composition including the surface demineralized fibrous bone chips with or without fully demineralized bone fibers can be placed in a covering, such as a mesh bag. The osteoinductive composition can include other bone structures and/or bioactive agents and/or ceramics. A method of treating a bone cavity in a patient in need thereof with the osteoinductive composition including a plurality of surface demineralized fibrous bone chips with or without fully demineralized bone fibers is also provided (see abstract).
Combination of Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., and Alegret et al.
Regarding instant claim 1, Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., and Alegret et al. teach a multicompartment conductive collagen scaffold composite, comprising a scaffold comprising collagen and an electrically conductive material. The necessary citations within Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., and Alegret et al. that correspond to instant claim 1 are compiled within Table I.
Table I
Instant Claim 1
Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., and Alegret et al. Citations
A multicompartment conductive collagen scaffold composite comprising: a first compartment comprising a first collagen scaffold comprising collagen and an electrically conductive material, wherein the electrically conductive material comprises electrically conductive particles; and a second compartment comprising a second collagen scaffold;
Harley et al. disclose a multicompartment collagen scaffold composite (see paragraph [0005] within Harley et al.), comprising a scaffold comprising collagen (see paragraph [0005] within Harley et al.). Additionally, Harley et al. disclose a core-shell composite comprising a porous collagen glycosaminoglycan scaffold core and a collagen glycosaminoglycan membrane shell; wherein the core and shell have different densities (see paragraph [0005] within Harley et al.).
Harley et al. fails to explicitly disclose conductive collagen scaffold; an electrically conductive material, wherein the electrically conductive material comprises electrically conductive particles.
However, Yow et al. does disclose this limitation. Yow et al. is in the art of a collagen scaffold for tissue engineering (see title and abstract within Yow et al.). Yow et al. disclose development of an interfacial polyelectrolyte complexation (IPC)-based strategy that incorporates FeCl3-doped polypyrrole into a collagen-based polyelectrolyte complexation (PEC) fiber for the creation of a 3D electroactive biofunctional fibrous scaffold (see page 529, paragraph 5 within Yow et al.). Additionally, Yow et al. disclose that atomic force microscopy (AFM) confirmed the successful encapsulation of polypyrrole particles within the PEC fibers (see page 529, paragraph 5 and page 530, paragraph 1 within Yow et al.). Figure 2b within Yow et al. confirms the approximate size of these particles at approximately 1.4-3.0 mm (also see page 532, paragraph 1 within Yow et al.).
Alegret et al. supports both the Harley et al. and Yow et al. disclosures in their review (see page 74, 2. Fabrication methods of 3D scaffolds based on conductive polymers and page 80, Table 1 within Alegret et al.).
and an interdiffusion zone, wherein the interdiffusion zone is disposed between the first compartment and the second non-conductive compartment to form a gradient of conductivity
Lynn et al. disclose that the first and second layers are preferably integrally formed. Advantageously, this may be achieved by a process involving liquid phase co-synthesis. This encompasses any process in which adjacent layers, either dense or porous, of a material comprising multiple layers are formed by placing the slurries comprising the precursors to each layer in integral contact with each other before removal of the liquid carrier or carriers from said slurries, and in which removal of said liquid carrier or carriers from all layers is preferably performed at substantially the same time. Placing the precursor slurries in integral contact before removal of the liquid carrier (i.e. while still in the liquid phase) allows interdiffusion to occur between adjacent slurries. This results in a zone of interdiffusion at the interface between adjacent layers of the resulting material, within which the material composition is intermediate to the material compositions of the adjacent layers. The existence of a zone of interdiffusion can impart mechanical strength and stability to the interface between adjacent layers. Accordingly, the first and second layers are preferably joined to one another through an inter-diffusion layer (see paragraph [0274] within Lynn et al.).
Therefore, a research and development scientist (POSITA; person having ordinary skill in the art) could easily combine the teachings of Harley et al., Yow et al., and Alegret et al. to afford a multicompartment conductive collagen scaffold composite, comprising a scaffold comprising collagen and an electrically conductive material.
[Henceforth within the Office Action, all elements of instant claim 1 are taught by the combination of Harley et al., Yow et al., and Alegret et al.].
Regarding instant claim 3, Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., and Alegret et al. teach wherein the scaffold comprising collagen, the first collagen scaffold and/or the second collagen scaffold comprises collagen-glycosaminoglycan (CG). Harley et al. disclose the scaffold comprising collagen, the first collagen scaffold and/or the second collagen scaffold comprises collagen-glycosaminoglycan (CG) (see paragraph [0005] within Harley et al.).
Regarding instant claims 6 and 7, Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., and Alegret et al. teach wherein the electrically conductive particles are microparticles. Yow et al. disclose developed an IPC-based strategy that incorporates FeCl3-doped polypyrrole into a collagen-based PEC fiber for the creation of a 3D electroactive biofunctional fibrous scaffold (see page 529, paragraph 5 within Yow et al.). Additionally, Yow et al. disclose that AFM confirmed the successful encapsulation of polypyrrole particles within the PEC fibers (see page 529, paragraph 5 and page 530, paragraph 1 within Yow et al.). Figure 2b within Yow et al. confirms the approximate size of these particles at approximately 1.4-3.0 mm (also see page 532, paragraph 1 within Yow et al.). Furthermore, Yow et al. disclose that in the presence of an electrical stimulation, these conductive polymers can modulate cell adhesion, migration, protein secretion and DNA synthesis of electrically responsive cells, such as nerve, bone, muscle and cardiac cells (see page 529, paragraph 1 within Yow et al.). Yow et al. disclose the fabrication of PPy-PEC fibers (see section 2.1 and 3.1; both within Yow et al.). Yow et al. does not disclose a wt% of the PPy incorporated into the PEC fiber. However, a common wt% value within the tissue engineering arts is ~3wt (see PTO-892 NPL V; see page 1768, left column, 1st paragraph; see also PTO-892 NPL U).
Regarding instant claim 28, Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., and Alegret et al. teach wherein pore size ranges from about 50 mm to about 250 mm. Harley et al. disclose that the transverse pore size can be about 500 to about 20 μm, or any range or value between about 500 to about 20 μm [see paragraph [0030] within Harley et al.; see also PTO-892 NPL W (NF)].
Regarding instant claim 29, Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., and Alegret et al. teach wherein the pores are elongated. Harley et al. disclose that an anisotropic scaffold, for example a cylindrical scaffold, has a significantly greater pore aspect ratio in the longitudinal than in the transverse planes meaning that the pores are elongated in the direction of the scaffold longitudinal axis (see paragraph [0029] within Harley et al.). Regarding instant claim 35, Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., and Alegret et al. teach the multicompartment conductive collagen scaffold composite of instant claim 1, wherein the first collagen scaffold comprises a first plurality of pores and the second collagen scaffold comprises a second plurality of pores, and wherein the first plurality of pores of the first collagen scaffold of the first compartment and the second plurality of pores of the second collagen scaffold of the second compartment are aligned along a longitudinal plane to mimic native skeletal muscle and tendon tissue architecture. Please see the discussion and citations within instant claims 1 and 2 for the necessary rejection text.
Combination of Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., Alegret et al., Weisgerber et al., and Wei
Regarding instant claim 2, Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., Alegret et al., Weisgerber et al. and Wei teach further comprising a first compartment comprising a first collagen scaffold and an electrically conductive material, wherein the electrically conductive material comprises electrically conductive particles, and a second compartment comprising a second collagen scaffold, and wherein the second compartment is disposed on the first compartment and the pores are longitudinally aligned between the compartments. Harley et al. disclose that the multicompartment collagen scaffold further comprises longitudinally aligned pores (see paragraph [0029] within Harley et al.). Also, please see the citations and discussion regarding instant claim 1 for the supporting rejection text.
Weisgerber et al. is in the art of collagen-glycosaminoglycan (collagen-GC) scaffolds, and the introduction of calcium phosphate (CG-CaP) within two discrete compartments (see abstract within Weisgerber et al.). The two compartments have different collagen-based scaffolds and the two compartments are joined by a continuous interface (see abstract within Weisgerber et al.). This supports the different concentrations of the collagen-based scaffolds.
In addition, Wei is in the field of a multicompartment scaffold [polymer cell scaffolds with parenchymal cells; see page 39, lines 14-15 within Wei; also see PTO-892 NPL X (NF)] (…the porous biodegradable graft body may be a single or multicompartment structure…; see page 25, lines 11-12 within Wei). Wei discloses both a distinct first and second compartment. For example, an angiogenic growth factor may be provided with the first compartment and an osteoinductive growth factor may be provided with the second compartment (see page 29, lines 10-12 within Wei). Although the Wei reference is not in the collagen scaffold art with an electrically conductive material, this citation provides the skilled artisan (POSITA) the framework to provide the necessary composition taught by Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., and Alegret et al. Implementation of the collagen-based scaffold for purposes of tissue engineering could be envisioned within muscle and tendons as opposed to osteoinductive medicinal aspects of health.
The combination of the Weisgerber et al. and Wei references provide the instant claim limitations that make the present invention obvious.
Regarding instant claim 4, Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., Alegret et al., Weisgerber et al. and Wei teach wherein a collagen concentration of the first collagen scaffold varies as compared to a collagen concentration of the second collagen scaffold. Please see the citations and discussion within instant claim 2 for the necessary rejection text.
Regarding instant claim 5, Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., Alegret et al., Weisgerber et al. and Wei teach wherein the collagen concentration for the first collagen scaffold ranges from about 0.5 weight percent (wt%) to about 1.5 wt% and the collagen concentration for the second collagen ranges from about 1.5 wt% to about 5 wt%. Please see the citations and discussion within instant claim 2 for the necessary rejection text. Weisgerber et al. disclose fabrication of CG and CG-CaP precursor suspensions CG scaffolds were afforded from a suspension consisting of 0.5 w/w% type I collagen from bovine Achilles tendon (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) and 0.044 w/w% chondroitin sulfate from shark cartilage (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO) in 0.05 M acetic acid (see page 27, left column, 2.1 Fabrication of scaffolds within Weisgerber et al.). Thus, maintaining a constant level collagen within the scaffolds. However, this instant claim limitation would be met under routine experimental procedures by a skilled artisan (POSITA) depending upon the tissue or biological material of choice.
Regarding instant claim 30, Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., Alegret et al., Weisgerber et al. and Wei teach wherein cells are seeded to the composite, wherein the cells comprise muscle-derived cells (including myoblasts and satellite cells), fibroblasts, neural cells (including neural stem cells, motor neurons), and combinations thereof. Harley et al. disclose the scaffold can be populated by a variety of cells (see paragraph [0032] and abstract; including adult or embryonic stem cells, tenocytes, osteoblasts, nerve cells, cardiac cells, myocytes, fibroblasts or combinations thereof; see paragraph [0005]; all within Harley et al.). Furthermore, Harley et al. disclose stem cells derived from muscle can be used (see paragraph [0032] within Harley et al.). Additionally, Wei discloses that the mesh (as part of the multicompartment invention) material further may be loaded with cells, growth factors, or bioactive agents (see page 27, lines 9-10; also see abstract; both within Wei). Therefore, a skilled artisan (POSITA) would rely on both the Harley et al. and Wei references to incorporate cells into the overall scaffold.
Analogous Art
The combination of the Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., Alegret et al., Weisgerber et al. and Wei references are relevant for the rejection of instant claims 1-7 and 28-30 due to their direct application to the present invention.
Obviousness
It would have been prima face obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the collagen-CG scaffold disclosed by Harley et al., using the teachings of Yow et al., Lynn et al., Alegret et al., Weisgerber et al. and Wei to incorporate the necessary claim limitations. The motivation to combine the Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., Alegret et al., Weisgerber et al. and Wei references relies on the common underlying thread of a biological scaffold. Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., Alegret et al. support the fabrication of the instant claim 1 conductive scaffold material. While the Weisgerber et al. and Wei references cite examples of distinct multicompartment scaffolds for treating biological issues.
Starting with Harley et al., the skilled person only had to try the necessary claimed limitations disclosed by Yow et al., Lynn et al., Alegret et al., Weisgerber et al. and Wei. The combination of Harley et al., Yow et al., Lynn et al., Alegret et al., Weisgerber et al. and Wei would allow one to arrive at the present application without employing inventive skill. This combination of the collagen-CG scaffold taught by Harley et al. along with the necessary use of the claimed limitations taught by Yow et al., Lynn et al., Alegret et al., Weisgerber et al. and Wei would allow a research and development scientist (POSITA) to develop the invention taught in the instant application. It would have only required routine experimentation to modify the collagen-CG scaffold disclosed by Harley et al. with the use of the necessary claimed limitations disclosed taught by Yow et al., Lynn et al., Alegret et al., Weisgerber et al. and Wei. This combined modification would have led to an enhanced multicompartment collagen-CG conductive scaffold, and thus beneficial for patients.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 34 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The claim limitation wherein the electrically conductive material comprises electrically conductive particles comprising an average diameter of about 530 nm, is absent within the prior art. The electrically conductive particles within Yow et al. have an average diameter of approximately greater than 1 µm. Motivation is lacking to add this much smaller average diameter (specifically 530 nm) to the electrically conductive particles of Yow et al.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The instant claim amendments were sufficient to address the claim objections and the 35 U.S.C. §112(b) rejection. Therefore, they are both withdrawn from the non-final office action dated November 28, 2025.
The amendments did necessitate a new ground of rejection.
Applicant Argument: The Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach an interdiffusion zone.
Examiner’s Rebuttal: The argument is now moot. The Examiner has found the Lynn et al. reference to address this new claim limitation.
Applicant Argument: The Applicant argues that no prima facie case of obviousness has been established.
Examiner’s Rebuttal: The Examiner respectfully disagrees. All of the instant claim limitations have been successfully mapped to the prior art of record. Therefore, the prima facie case of obviousness is sound.
[Furthermore, Applicant may also argue impermissible hindsight reasoning. However, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight [or piece-meal reasoning.] But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).]
Thus, the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection for instant claims 1-7, 28-30, and 35 is maintained.
Conclusion
No claims are allowed.
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 JOHN W LIPPERT III whose telephone number is (571)270-0862. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Robert A Wax can be reached on 571-272-0623. 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.
/JOHN W LIPPERT III/Examiner, Art Unit 1615
/Robert A Wax/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1615
Prosecution Insights