DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. This Office Action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/12/2025. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 4, 7-8, 10-11, 35 have been amended, claims 3 and 9 have been canceled, claims 17-21 and 23-34, 36-37 and 39-47 have been canceled previously, and claims 49-50 have been added. Thus, claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-16, 22, 35, 38 and 48-50 are currently pending in this application, claims 12-16, 22, 38 and 48 remain withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
3. The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
All recitations of “an axis offset from a central axis” should be changed to -- an axis that is offset from a central axis--.
Claim Objections
4. In light of Applicant's Amendment of 12/12/2025, the objection to claims 4, 7 and 8 set forth in the Office Action of 08/12/2025, is hereby withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. In light of Applicant's Amendment of 12/12/2025, the rejection of claims 1-11 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph, set forth in the Office Action of 08/12/2025, is moot.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-11, 35 and 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the housing wall " in line 11. There is insufficient
antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation
will be interpreted as “the peripheral wall”.
Claim 35 recites the limitation " the housing wall " in line 12. There is insufficient
antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this limitation
will be interpreted as “the peripheral wall”.
Further, claims 2, 4-8, 10-11 and 49- 50 are rejected for their dependency
from claims 1 and 35, respectively
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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 nonobviousness.
8. Claims 1-2, 5-6, 11 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhama (Patent No.: US 4,957,420 A) in view of BJOERK (Patent No.: WO0035514 (A1)).
Regarding claims 1 and 35, Furuhama discloses a valveless pump (vane pump, as stated in Abstract) for pulsatile fluid blood flow and/or a mechanical circulatory support device comprising a pump for pulsatile fluid flow comprising:
a housing (defined by a center housing 10 and/or front housing 11 and rear housing 12 holding the center housing therebetween, see column 3 lines 25-22 )with a central circular opening defined by a peripheral wall (as best seen immediately below, a central circular opening O10 is undoubtedly defined by a peripheral wall or enclosure wall that encircles or bounds an internal region);
an inlet (inlet port 41, as discussed in column 3 lines 64-67& column 4 lines 37-54) in fluid communication with the central circular opening (the inlet port 41 is inherently being in communication with the central circular opening O10); and
an outlet (outlet port 42 as discussed in column 3 lines 64-67& column 4 lines 37-54) in fluid communication with the central circular opening (the outlet 42 is undoubtedly being in communication with the central circular opening O10, as depicted in annotated Figure 2); and
(ii) a single vane (single vane 30 that diametrically passes through the rotor 20, as discussed in column 3 lines 40-53) within the central circular opening (within the central circular opening O10, as depicted in annotated Figure 2),
wherein the single vane (single vane 30) is slidably received in a slot of a rotary cylinder (the single vane 30 is clearly slidably received in the vane groove 27 of a rotor 20, as shown in annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
474
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Particularly, Furuhama demonstrates the valveless pump or vane pump, wherein, as stated in column 3 lines 42-48, “the vane 30 diametrically passes through the rotor 20 and has long holes 35 into which spacers 25 and bolts 26 are inserted. The vane 30 is slightly shorter than an inner diameter of the inner surface of the center housing 10, so that there remains a small clearance between each tip of the vane and the inner surface of the housing 10”.
Further, in column 4 lines 8-27, Furuhama especially notes that: A method of laying out the inner surface of the center housing is shown by FIG. 3, in which a circle with a diameter equal to the eccentricity C of the rotor has its lowermost point 0 (0, 0) positioned at the origin of X-Y coordinates or axis of the center housing. The circle corresponds to the path of the center of the vane. One tip of the vane is at a point H (X, Y) when the center of the vane is at a given point G (x, y) on the circle. The point His on a line prolonged from the point G through the uppermost point F on the circle and at a distance equal to the radius R of the vane from the point G. The other tip is at a non-illustrated point which is symmetrical to the point H with respect to the point G and obtained by the same way as the point H. After many points have been plotted, the smooth curve drawn through those point is a path of the both tips of the vane. The path is expanded by a preselected clearance to obtain the profile of the inner surface of the center housing.
Essentially, with reference to annotated Figure 2, Furuhama’s pump is designed such that the single vane 30 is being configured to rotate about an axis offset from a central axis of the central circular opening without substantially contacting the peripheral wall of the housing, as instantly claimed.
Furuhama, in column 4 lines 55-67, then goes on to describe how: when the vane 30 rotates in the direction as shown by an arrow, the bearing 33 rolls on the inner surface of the circular hole 17. The rotating vane 30 exerts a centrifugal force to push the vane 30 along the vane groove 27 toward an underside thereof. However, the hole 17 regulates the projection of the vane 30 out of the vane groove 27 through the interme diary of the bearing 33 and maintain a preselected clearance between the tip of the vane 30 and the inner sur face of the center housing. The clearance is too small to decrease the pumping efficiency. On the other hand, the opposite tip of the vane 30 is also prevented from drawing back into the vane groove 27 more than a preselected length. Both tips of the vane 30 always make no contact with the inner surface of the center housing with the result that the vane pump is free from thermal and wearing problems due to frictional contact between the vane and center housing.
PNG
media_image2.png
390
322
media_image2.png
Greyscale
In this disclosure, Furuhama especially teaches: the inner surface of the center housing 10 can have a cross-sectionally arcuate part in the vicinity of the top point T. The arcuate part has a center CR common to the rotor 20 and a radius larger by a preselected clearance CL than the radius of the rotor. For example, the arcuate part has a center angle of 40 degrees about the center CR and a radius larger by 0.05 mm than the radius of the rotor. The arcuate part improves in sealing about the top point T in which the rotor 20 lies in the most proximity to the center housing 10 (see column 5 lines 14-24)
Clearly, as best seen in annotated Figures 2&8, Furuhama explicitly exhibits as how the single vane 30 comprises two ends and/or how the valveless pump comprises a vane gap or clearance between each of the two ends and the peripheral wall, wherein, where the rotary cylinder or rotor 20 is closest to the housing wall or inner wall of the central housing 10, a cylinder gap or clearance CL is present between the rotary cylinder or rotor 20 and the housing wall.
However, although Furuhama discloses the majority of Applicant’s claimed elements, he is silent as to the fact that the vane gap and/or cylinder gap are sufficient to allow for the blood to flow through the gap without inducing blood damage due to shear stress, such as hemolysis and/or platelet activation.
Nonetheless, BJOERK in the same field of endeavor teaches another pumping arrangement, very similar to that seen in annotated Figure 2, and performs as how: a pumping arrangement (1) consisting of a housing or casing (2) with a cavity (2C) whose inner surface (2a) has a circular cross section, one vane or a plurality of vanes (3) arranged inside the casing's cavity to pump by means of a rotary movement a liquid from an inlet (22) in the casing to an outlet (21) in the casing, said inlet and said outlet being separated from one another, and at least one end panel section (7) for the casing. A centre of rotation (4') for said vane (3) is eccentric in relation to an assigned centre (2') of said inner surface (2a), and said vane (3) is capable of reciprocal movement in relation to a shaft (4) at said centre of rotation (see Abstract).
BJOERK expressly states that: Even if the present pumping arrangement is devised for pumping fluids, such as a liquid, of all kinds and for all kinds of applications, it should be noted that the pumping arrangement is primarily designed to support blood circulation for a person or patient with an impaired cardiac function, such as a patient waiting for a donor (see page 1, lines 12-16).
PNG
media_image3.png
273
320
media_image3.png
Greyscale
BJOERK successfully discloses that: The advantages mainly deemed to be significant to a pumping arrangement have the distinguishing features of the present invention, hereby creating conditions for the creation of a pumping arrangement made from simple parts with a few moving parts and offering very reliable operation. Further, the invention provides a pumping arrangement, which can be well adapted to serve as a blood circulation support for a patient with an impaired inherent cardiac function (see page 10, lines 10-16). Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that applying an idea of using one or a plurality of co-ordinated vanes inside the casing, which are devised to pump by a rotary movement a liquid from a casing inlet to a casing outlet, as taught by BJOERK, to another rotary pump would improve efficiency and/or would contribute to improving slidability and/or would to prevent the crushing blood corpuscles, as motivated by BJOERK on page 10, lines 5-7.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using one or a plurality of co-ordinated vanes inside the casing, which are devised to pump by a rotary movement a liquid from a casing inlet to a casing outlet, as taught by BJOERK, with the valveless pump of Furuhama would improve efficiency and/or would contribute to improving slidability and/or would be further designed to prevent the crushing blood corpuscles, as motivated by BJOERK on page 10, lines 5-7.
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been surely appraised that the valveless pump and/or mechanical circulatory support device would be further comprising the vane gap and/or cylinder gap would be further sufficient to further allow for the blood to further flow through the gap without inducing blood damage due to shear stress, such as hemolysis and/or platelet activation, as instantly claimed.
Furthermore, it should be noted that claim 1 recites “a valveless pump for pulsatile fluid blood flow” and/or claim 35 recites “a mechanical circulatory support device comprising a pump for pulsatile fluid flow” as a part of preamble.
With respect to the preamble, it should be noted that the preamble of the claims does not provide enough patentable weight because it has been held that a preamble is denied the effect of a limitation where the claim is drawn to a structure and a portion of the claim following the preamble is a self-contained description of the structure not depending for completeness upon the introductory clause.
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Furuhama and BJOERK substantially disclose the valveless pump, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, as best seen immediately below, Furuhama evidently demonstrates as how the vane 30 being a one-piece vane, wherein the vane comprises two rounded ends and/or how the vane has two ends, wherein each end is rounded, as instantly claimed.
PNG
media_image1.png
474
638
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
374
346
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5-6, Furuhama and BJOERK substantially disclose the valveless pump, as claimed and detailed above.
Although the combination of Furuhama and BJOERK discloses the majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention, it does not explicitly disclose specifics regarding a motor and/or it is silent as to the fact that the motor is an electric motor, an electromagnetic motor, a passive magnetic motor, or an active magnetic motor, hydraulic motor, or acoustic motor.
Nonetheless, BJOERK explicitly teaches that: The rotating means are driven by an integrated, brushless electric motor. A plurality of permanent magnets is arranged in a circle around the impeller, which forms the motor's rotor. The motor's stator consists of circular windings, made from electrically conductive wire, inside the pump casing and concentrically arranged with the motor. When electromagnetic force is applied to the stator, magnetic conditions allowing the rotating means and the impeller to rotate are created between the stator and the rotor. During operation the rotating means moves back and forth along the shaft between surfaces depending on the heart's pulsation. This bi-stable operation of the pump allows fresh blood to pass through the bearing in a continuous fashion, thereby minimizing the probability of thrombosis which could develop through the pump's operation (see page 3 lines 19-32).
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using a motor, as taught by BJOERK, to the valveless pump of Furuhama/ BJOERK, in order to further provide improvements that would be further include adding stability to the design, as stated in in Paragraph [0011].
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been reasonably appraised that
the valveless pump would be further comprising a motor operably connected to the vane and/or would be further comprising an electric motor, an electromagnetic motor, a passive magnetic motor, or an active magnetic motor, hydraulic motor, or acoustic motor, operably connected to the vane. as instantly claimed.
9. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhama in view of BJOERK, and further in view of Reynaud (Patent No.: US 4,133,617).
Regarding claim 4, Furuhama and BJOERK substantially disclose the valveless pump, as claimed and detailed above.
Additionally, in column 3 lines 42-48, Furuhama expressly states that: The vane 30 is slightly shorter than an inner diameter of the inner surface of the center housing 10, so that there remains a small clearance between each tip of the vane and the inner surface of the housing 10.
The combination of Furuhama and BJOERK is still silent as to the fact that the vane gap is in a range of about 10 pm to 5 mm long. Nevertheless, Reynaud in the same field of endeavor teaches another vane pump, wherein, as stated in column 1 lines 65-68, the drum is formed with a diametrically extended groove therethrough, and a plate or vane is slidably guided in the groove extending in an axial direction between the end faces of the housing and transversely across the interior of the same.
Reynaud, in column 3 lines 10-17, explicitly teaches as how: A plate or vane is slidably guided in the groove 14 formed in the rotatable drum 12 and the plate extends in axial direction between the end faces 4' and 6', and transversely across the interior of the housing 2. Plate 20 has a pair of opposite-edge portions 20', 20", each contacting the guide surface 8' with a line contact so as to be in substantial sealing contact therewith.
Reynaud, in column 6 lines 7-16, successfully teaches as how: As seen in FIG. 6, this creates a gap between the upper end of the plate 20 and the depression D to allow a small amount of liquid to remain in the depression D, while the enlarged rotary drum 12 serves to engage the outer peripheral edge of the depression D to maintain the liquid seal. This particular arrangement provides tighter tolerances between the parts; assures a liquid seal past the point of the fluid outlet; cuts the noise factor due to lack of pressure; and provides less drag on the moving surfaces.
PNG
media_image5.png
408
504
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Reynaud, in column 6 lines 7-16, successfully teaches as how: As seen in FIG. 6, this creates a gap between the upper end of the plate 20 and the depression D to allow a small amount of liquid to remain in the depression D, while the enlarged rotary drum 12 serves to engage the outer peripheral edge of the depression D to maintain the liquid seal. This particular arrangement provides tighter tolerances between the parts; assures a liquid seal past the point of the fluid outlet; cuts the noise factor due to lack of pressure; and provides less drag on the moving surfaces.
Certainly, Reynaud gives graphical comparison of the different curves and/or even specifically discloses calculations being made to determine different gaps between the vane edge and inner guide cylinder 8’.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using
a gap and/or tolerance differences, as taught by Reynaud, in the valveless pump of Furuhama/ BJOERK, in order to provides tighter tolerances between the parts, as motivated by Reynaud in column 6 lines 12-15.
Regarding the claimed limitations “the gap is about 10 μm to 5 mm long, as measured from a proximal vane end to the peripheral wall”, it has been held that
“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), MPEP 2144.05 II.
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have modified Furuhama/BJOERK /Reynaud such that the vane gap is in a range of about 10 pm to 5 mm long, as measured from a proximal vane end to the peripheral wall of the housing because such a modification would have been considered a mere design optimization which fails to patentably distinguish over the prior art.
10. Claims 7-8, 10 and 49-50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furuhama in view of BJOERK, and further in view of Weatherbee (Pub. No.: US 2005/0234287 A1).
Regarding claims 7-8 and 10, Furuhama and BJOERK substantially disclose the valveless pump, as claimed and detailed above.
Although the combination of Furuhama and BJOERK discloses the vast majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention, it is still silent as to the structural specifics of the motor and/or motor arrangement. Nonetheless, vane pumps having the claimed structure are well-known in the art, as taught by Weatherbee.
Weatherbee in the same field of endeavor teaches another rotary pump and/or vane pump and/or pulsatile blood pumping system.
Weatherbee explicitly discloses as how “an electrical motor turns input shaft 32, the motor may either be attached locally to pump 10, or the motor may optionally be located remotely from pump 10, and connected to input shaft 32 via a rotary coupling or cable. Such remote operation may be desirable when there are space constraints, (e.g., in a small child) or to relocate the heat that may be generated by the motor remotely from pump 10” (see Paragraph [0124]).
Further, in Paragraph [0125], Weatherbee successfully teaches that: As an alternative to the use of an external motor, the movement of vanes 52 and/or 54 can be powered electromagnetically. In this aspect, vanes 52 and/or 54 have, for example, permanent magnets imbedded in or on them in a way that does not interfere with the biocompatibility or hemocompatibility of pump 10. The vanes modified in this way are then moved via, for example, an electromagnetic field that is applied from within or external to the housing. This field is then sequenced in progressive locations in such a way as to maintain motion of vanes 52, 54 and therefore the pumping action of pump 10. In this aspect, input shaft 32 may be passive rather than a transferring member of the motive power, and may penetrate only the interior wall of housing 12 and end prior to penetrating the exterior surface of housing 12. Such a configuration may be advantageous in terms of compactness, which is desirable from the standpoint of implantation, as well as advantageous in reduction of the number of moving parts and simplification of manufacture, both of which are desirable in terms of reliability and cost.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of using a motor, as taught by Weatherbee, to the valveless pump of Furuhama/ BJOERK, in order to further provide improvements that would be further include adding stability to the design, as motivated by Weatherbee in Paragraph [0011].
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been surely appraised that the valveless pump would be further comprising a motor operably connected to the vane and/or would be further comprising a motor operably connected to the rotary cylinder wherein a central axis of the rotary cylinder being offset from the central axis of the central circular opening and/or the slot would be further running from one side of a peripheral wall of the rotary cylinder to an opposite side of the peripheral wall of the rotary cylinder and through the central axis of the rotary cylinder and would be further having a shape that conforms to a shape of the single vane, as instantly claimed.
Regarding claims 49 and 50, Furuhama and BJOERK substantially disclose the valveless pump, as claimed and detailed above.
Although the combination of Furuhama and BJOERK discloses the majority of the Applicant’s claimed invention, it is still silent as to the fact that the valveless pump provides a shear stress of less than 70 dynes/cm2 on the blood and/or mechanical circulatory support device is being a ventricular assist device or a total artificial heart.
Nevertheless, Weatherbee in the same field of endeavor teaches a pulsatile blood pumping system that, as stated in Abstract, supports living organisms based on a spherical multi vane and multi chamber pump with an oscillating motion that delivers pulsatile flow. The blood pumping system includes a number of design elements that address the particular needs and compatibility issues (both biological and hemological) of a blood pumping system.
However, most importantly in Weatherbee is his idea to utilize a variety of alterations to the vane shape, each of which reduces shear forces on the fluid (see Paragraphs [0059]-[0062]). Figure 28 explicitly illustrates an example of such a vane shape, reducing shear forces on the fluid.
PNG
media_image6.png
668
644
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Weatherbee, in Paragraph [0119], successfully teaches that: To reduce the shear forces just mentioned, it is necessary to modify one or more surfaces of the vane from the standard shape taught in the prior art, which will be characterized generally as an "orange section', with two main planar faces that generally mate with faces on opposing vanes. In the aspects of sheer reduction hereafter mentioned involving alteration of the vanes, said alteration is generally a modification on (or of) at least one of the said Vane faces. A first aspect of the instant invention that reduces the above-mentioned shear forces provides vane shapes. Such that the distance between proximal primary vane and secondary vane at locations nearer the port are greater than the distance between proximal primary vane and secondary vane at locations further from the port.
Then, in Paragraph [0128], Weatherbee especially details that: the device provides at least one pair of simultaneous intake and discharge streams. In an optional embodiment when this device is used as a heart assist device or ventricular assist device, electronic sensors and control circuitry is used to time the pump rotation so that flow pulsations delivered by pump 10 coincide, with or without peak-to-peak offset, flow pulsations of one or both of the heart ventricles of the recipient. Still further, the shape of a transient flow curve corresponding to any chamber of pump 10 may be modified by appropriately placing a flow element with capacitive (e.g., elastic properties) and/or resistive characteristics in communication with said chamber. It is apparent without further explanation, that this embodiment providing a pump capable for being used as an artificial heart or heart assist device may also include any combination of features of the above- and below-mentioned embodiments to reduce shear stresses on the blood being pumped through the machine, vary the ratio of flow rates between chambers, flush components and/or provide tight tolerances between moving parts.
In fact, a valveless, ultra-low shear VAD generating under 70 dynes/cm2 or 7Pa would necessarily represent an emerging design.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of reducing shear stresses on the blood and/or using as a heart assist device or ventricular assist device, as taught by Weatherbee, with the valveless pump of Furuhama/ BJOERK, in order to further provide improvements that would be further include adding stability to the design, as motivated by Weatherbee in Paragraph [0011].
Although Furuhama in view of BJOERK in view of Weatherbee fails to teach the exact limitation of having a shear stress of less than 70 dynes/cm2 on the blood, as stated in claim 49, it has been held in re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 05 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955), that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation," (see MPEP 2144.05 (II)(A)).
Thus modified, one skilled in the art would have been surely appraised that the valveless pump would be further providing a shear stress of less than 70 dynes/cm2 on the blood and/or the mechanical circulatory support device would be further designed as a ventricular assist device or a total artificial heart, as instantly claimed.
Response to Arguments
11. Applicant's arguments filed on 12/12/2025 have been considered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to the combination of the references being used in the current rejection. Further, the Examiner notes that the newly applied references address the applicant’s arguments related to the previously applied references as set forth in the above rejections.
Conclusion
12. 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LILYA PEKARSKAYA whose telephone number is (571)272-1158. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday, 9:00-5:00 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached on 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CHARLES G FREAY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/L.P/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights