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, 8 and 15 are currently 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 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teigen et al. (US 20200397957 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Teigen”, in view of Kilcran (US 20180104390 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Teigen teaches an aspiration system (vacuum system 40, see Abstract; Figures 2-12; all modifications, equivalents and alternatives are within the scope of the invention, see Paragraph [0105]) comprising:
a catheter (external unit 204 may be configured to connect directly to a hub or other proximal end of an aspiration catheter, see Paragraph [0061]) configured to be inserted within a vasculature of the subject (vascular aspiration catheter, see Paragraph [0060]);
a canister (vacuum console 42 having collection canister 44, see Figure 6-7A) coupled to the catheter (see Figure 7), the canister configured to receive fluid and undesirable intravascular material (UIM) from the catheter (the clot is drawn into the interior of the canister through a connector 110 which is attached to a proximal end of the catheter or other tubing, see Paragraph [0059]);
a pressure source (vacuum console 42 having pump 68, see Figure 3C) coupled to the catheter (see Figure 7A), the pressure source configured to generate a vacuum pressure through the catheter for aspirating the fluid and the UIM (see Paragraph [0051] and [0053]);
a sensor configured to sense a parameter associated with at least one of the catheter, the canister, or the pressure source (vacuum console 42 having a pressure sensor 64 to measure vacuum pressure in the canister through the pressure sensing connector 54, see Paragraph [0055]); and
a computer system coupled to the sensor (microprocessor controller 74 connected to the pressure sensor 64, see Paragraph [0053]; Figure 3C), the computer system comprising a processor and a memory, the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor (the controller 220 implements an algorithm that uses pressure sensor data to analyze the contents flowing through an aspiration catheter and characterizes it as unrestricted flow, restricted flow, or clogged, see Paragraph [0071]), cause the computer system to perform operations comprising:
causing the pressure source to initiate the vacuum pressure throughout the catheter (see Paragraph [0051] and [0053]),
receiving a measurement of the parameter from the sensor (by providing a first pressure sensor 224 in the base unit and a second, axially separated pressure sensor 246 in the external unit 240, the material flow rate through the connecting tube can be calculated based upon measured differential pressure by the controller; the controller may analyze the pressure differentials and flow rate to determine the contents flowing through the aspiration catheter, connective tubing, or both, see Paragraph [0066]),
aspirating the fluid and the undesirable intravascular material during a treatment (aspirating clot material, see Paragraph [0072]).
However, Teigen does not explicitly disclose determining whether the measurement violates a threshold associated with the parameter, aspirating the fluid and the undesirable intravascular material during a treatment, and controllably modulating an aspiration flow rate at a tip of the catheter during the treatment in response to a determination that the measurement violates the threshold, wherein the controllably modulating occurs while still aspirating the fluid and the undesirable intravascular material in the course of the treatment.
Kilcran a system for aspiration of fluid from the body (vacuum withdrawal system 10, see Figure 1; Abstract) comprising: determining whether a measurement violates a threshold associated with the parameter (vacuum levels exceed or drop below a certain range, see Paragraph [0029]), and controllably modulating an aspiration flow rate at a tip of the catheter during the treatment in response to a determination that the measurement violates the threshold (the microprocessor M may automatically shut-off the regulator device 15 when vacuum levels exceed or drop below a certain range, or alternatively, the microprocessor may hold the vacuum flow at the outer limits of the prescribed range; the microprocessor M may be programmed to automatically operate at differing flow levels over time, for example 66 mmHG for 5 minutes followed by 75 mmhg for 10 minutes, and may include a range of preset flows or a range of flows dictated by caregiver, see Paragraph [0029]; therefore comparing vacuum levels to a threshold level), wherein the controllably modulating occurs while still aspirating the fluid and the undesirable intravascular material in the course of the treatment (still hold the vacuum flow at the outer limits of the prescribed range, see Paragraph [0029]).
Teigen and Kilcran are analogous art because both teach an aspiration system for collecting bodily fluids.
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 computer system of Teigen and further including controllably modulating an aspiration flow rate at a tip of the catheter during the treatment in response to a determination that the measurement violates the threshold, as taught by Kilcran. Kilcran teaches regulating fluid flow through the vacuum line to an adjustable pressure level is beneficial because without a vacuum regulator it requires competing tasks of the caregiver to set the vacuum to the appropriate level. Setting the maximum vacuum level requires the caregiver to perform multiple activities at once, including occluding the line, turning the control knob, and monitoring the regulator gauge. To further complicate operation of the vacuum system, often a patient's treatment requires tapering maximum levels of vacuum pressure (see Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 2, Teigen teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1 and Teigen further teaches wherein the sensor is selected from the group consisting of a pressure sensor configured to sense the vacuum pressure, a weight sensor configured to sense a weight of the canister, a flow sensor configured to sense an amount of the aspiration, and a current sensor configured to sense a current drawn by the pressure source (The sensing unit may comprise any one or more of a variety of sensors, including differential pressure sensors, see Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 3, Teigen teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1 and Teigen further teaches a control element (aspiration valve 499 and pressure valve 496) coupled to at least one of the catheter, the canister, or the pressure source, the control element configured (see Figure 16) to control at least one of the catheter, the canister, or the pressure source to affect the aspiration flow rate at the tip of the catheter (valves are used to create the "negative pressure pulses" and the "positive pressure pulses", see Paragraph [0086]-[0087]);
wherein the operations further comprise modulating the aspiration flow rate at the tip of the catheter by controlling the control element (selectively open and close both aspiration valve 499 and pressure valve 496 to create pressure differentials within the catheter and/or aspiration tubing that result in pressure pulses of a desired amplitude and frequency, see Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding Claim 4, Teigen teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 3 and Teigen further teaches wherein the control element is selected from the group consisting of a valve configured to control the aspiration through tubing connecting the canister to the catheter, an air leak control element configured to modulate the vacuum pressure, a secondary pump configured to control the aspiration through the tubing, and a booster reservoir configured to modulate the vacuum pressure (aspiration valve 499 is positioned between a catheter and an aspiration source to modulate aspiration, see Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding Claim 5, Teigen teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1 and Kilcran further teaches wherein the determination that the measurement violates the threshold corresponds to a clog present in the system (pressure vacuum levels exceed or drop below a certain range, see Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding Claim 6, Teigen teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1 and Teigen further teaches wherein: the threshold comprises a target aspiration flow rate; and modulation of the aspiration flow rate causes an aspiration flow rate of the fluid and the UIM to align with the target aspiration flow rate (the present invention utilizes a correlation algorithm that determines whether a catheter has unrestricted flow, restricted flow, or is clogged, e.g. the catheter's state, based on a correlation between flow rate and such states, see Paragraph [0073]).
Regarding Claim 7, Teigen teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1 and Kilcran further teaches wherein modulation of the aspiration flow rate does not stop aspiration of the fluid or the UIM (still hold the vacuum flow at the outer limits of the prescribed range, see Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding Claim 8, Teigen teaches a computer-implemented method for removing undesirable intravascular material (UIM) from a subject using a system (a vacuum aspiration control system for use with a vacuum source and an aspiration catheter includes a connecting tube configured to connect the vacuum source with a lumen of an aspiration catheter, see Abstract), the system comprising a catheter (external unit 204 may be configured to connect directly to a hub or other proximal end of an aspiration catheter, see Paragraph [0061]) configured to be inserted within a vasculature of the subject (vascular aspiration catheter, see Paragraph [0060]), a canister coupled to the catheter (vacuum console 42 having collection canister 44, see Figure 6-7A), the canister configured to receive fluid and the UIM from the catheter (the clot is drawn into the interior of the canister through a connector 110 which is attached to a proximal end of the catheter or other tubing, see Paragraph [0059]), a pressure source (vacuum console 42 having pump 68, see Figure 3C) coupled to the catheter (see Figure 7A), the pressure source configured to generate a vacuum pressure through the catheter for aspirating the fluid and the UIM (see Paragraph [0051] and [0053]), and a sensor configured to sense a parameter associated with at least one of the catheter, the canister, or the pressure source (vacuum console 42 having a pressure sensor 64 to measure vacuum pressure in the canister through the pressure sensing connector 54, see Paragraph [0055]), the method comprising:
causing, by a computer system coupled to the pressure source and the sensor (microprocessor controller 74 connected to the pump 68 and pressure sensor 64, see Paragraph [0053]; Figure 3C), the pressure source to initiate the vacuum pressure throughout the catheter (generate vacuum pressure, see Paragraph [0051] and [0053]);
receiving, by the computer system, a measurement of the parameter from the sensor (by providing a first pressure sensor 224 in the base unit and a second, axially separated pressure sensor 246 in the external unit 240, the material flow rate through the connecting tube can be calculated based upon measured differential pressure by the controller; the controller may analyze the pressure differentials and flow rate to determine the contents flowing through the aspiration catheter, connective tubing, or both, see Paragraph [0066]), and
aspirating the fluid and the undesirable intravascular material during a treatment (aspirating clot material, see Paragraph [0072]).
However, Teigen does not explicitly disclose determining, by the computer system, whether the measurement violates a threshold associated with the parameter, and controllably modulating, by the computer system, an aspiration flow rate at a tip of the catheter during the treatment in response to a determination that the measurement violates the threshold, wherein the controllably modulating occurs while still aspirating the fluid and the undesirable intravascular material in the course of the treatment.
Kilcran a system for aspiration of fluid from the body (vacuum withdrawal system 10, see Figure 1; Abstract) comprising: determining whether a measurement violates a threshold associated with the parameter (vacuum levels exceed or drop below a certain range, see Paragraph [0029]), and controllably modulating an aspiration flow rate at a tip of the catheter during the treatment in response to a determination that the measurement violates the threshold (the microprocessor M may automatically shut-off the regulator device 15 when vacuum levels exceed or drop below a certain range, or alternatively, the microprocessor may hold the vacuum flow at the outer limits of the prescribed range; the microprocessor M may be programmed to automatically operate at differing flow levels over time, for example 66 mmHG for 5 minutes followed by 75 mmhg for 10 minutes, and may include a range of preset flows or a range of flows dictated by caregiver, see Paragraph [0029]; therefore comparing vacuum levels to a threshold level), wherein the controllably modulating occurs while still aspirating the fluid and the undesirable intravascular material in the course of the treatment (still hold the vacuum flow at the outer limits of the prescribed range, see Paragraph [0029]).
Teigen and Kilcran are analogous art because both teach an aspiration system for collecting bodily fluids.
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 computer system of Teigen and further including controllably modulating an aspiration flow rate at a tip of the catheter during the treatment in response to a determination that the measurement violates the threshold, as taught by Kilcran. Kilcran teaches regulating fluid flow through the vacuum line to an adjustable pressure level is beneficial because without a vacuum regulator it requires competing tasks of the caregiver to set the vacuum to the appropriate level. Setting the maximum vacuum level requires the caregiver to perform multiple activities at once, including occluding the line, turning the control knob, and monitoring the regulator gauge. To further complicate operation of the vacuum system, often a patient's treatment requires tapering maximum levels of vacuum pressure (see Paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 9, Teigen and Kilcran teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 8 and Teigen further teaches wherein the sensor is selected from the group consisting of a pressure sensor configured to sense the vacuum pressure, a weight sensor configured to sense a weight of the canister, a flow sensor configured to sense an amount of the aspiration, and a current sensor configured to sense a current drawn by the pressure source (The sensing unit may comprise any one or more of a variety of sensors, including differential pressure sensors, see Paragraph [0016]).
Regarding Claim 10, Teigen and Kilcran teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 8 and Teigen further teaches a control element (aspiration valve 499 and pressure valve 496) coupled to at least one of the catheter, the canister, or the pressure source, the control element configured (see Figure 16) to control at least one of the catheter, the canister, or the pressure source to affect the aspiration flow rate at the tip of the catheter (valves are used to create the "negative pressure pulses" and the "positive pressure pulses", see Paragraph [0086]-[0087]);
wherein modulating the aspiration flow rate comprises controlling, by the computer system, the control element (selectively open and close both aspiration valve 499 and pressure valve 496 to create pressure differentials within the catheter and/or aspiration tubing that result in pressure pulses of a desired amplitude and frequency, see Paragraph [0087])
Regarding Claim 11, Teigen and Kilcran teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 10 and Teigen further teaches wherein the control element is selected from the group consisting of a valve configured to control the aspiration through tubing connecting the canister to the catheter, an air leak control element configured to modulate the vacuum pressure, a secondary pump configured to control the aspiration through the tubing, and a booster reservoir configured to modulate the vacuum pressure (aspiration valve 499 is positioned between a catheter and an aspiration source to modulate aspiration, see Paragraph [0087]).
Regarding Claim 12, Teigen and Kilcran teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 8 and Kilcran further teaches wherein the determination that the measurement violates the threshold corresponds to a clog present in the system (pressure vacuum levels exceed or drop below a certain range, see Paragraph [0029]).
Regarding Claim 13, Teigen and Kilcran teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 1 and Teigen further teaches wherein: the threshold comprises a target aspiration flow rate; and modulating of the aspiration flow rate causes an aspiration flow rate of the fluid and the UIM to align with the target aspiration flow rate (the present invention utilizes a correlation algorithm that determines whether a catheter has unrestricted flow, restricted flow, or is clogged, e.g. the catheter's state, based on a correlation between flow rate and such states, see Paragraph [0073]).
Regarding Claim 14, Teigen and Kilcran teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 8 and Kilcran further teaches wherein modulation of the aspiration flow rate does not stop aspiration of the fluid or the UIM (still hold the vacuum flow at the outer limits of the prescribed range, see Paragraph [0029]).
Claims 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilcran (US 20180104390 A1) in view of Teigen (US 20200397957 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Kilcran teaches a system for aspiration of fluid from the body (vacuum withdrawal system 10, see Figure 1; Abstract) comprising:
an aspiration catheter (suction device 24 such as a cannula, catheter, tube or other device, see Paragraph [0020]);
a waste container coupled to the aspiration catheter (collection canister 20 coupled to cannula 24, see Figure 1), the waste container configured to receive the aspirated fluid from the body (a cannula, catheter, tube or other device, which is introduced into the patient 16 for withdrawing the fluids that are collected in the collection canister, see Paragraph [0020]);
a pump coupled to the catheter (vacuum source 14 coupled to suction device 24, see Figure 1), the pump configured to generate a negative pressure through the catheter (a vacuum regulator 12 that is attached upstream of the central vacuum source 14 to provide a regulated source of vacuum to the patient 16, see Paragraph [0019]; Figure 2);
a weight sensor configured to sense a parameter associated with the waste container (the weight of the exudate in the canister 20 is determined with a scale; the weight is communicated from the scale to the microprocessor M, see Paragraph [0036]);
a pressure sensor configured to sense the negative pressure (vacuum gauge 28 includes an electronic flow sensor 40 that is located upstream of the vacuum regulator 12 so that it reads the level of vacuum where the vacuum level is being applied to the patient 16, see Paragraph [0026]); and
a computer system coupled to the sensor (regulator device 15), the computer system comprising a processor and a memory (regulator device 15 includes a microprocessor M having a memory storage O, see Paragraph [0029]), the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, cause the computer system to perform operations comprising:
causing the pump to initiate the negative pressure (the vacuum regulator 12 comprises an electronic valve 36 that is movably retained within the housing 13 such that the valve can variably seal-off, open and partially open the housing line 34 to effect a change in the vacuum level at the patient 16, see Paragraph [0023]; it is understood that valve 36 is the only flow control means located between the pump and the patient, therefore when opened causes pump to initiate negative pressure),
receiving a first measurement of the parameter from the weight sensor (the weight of the exudate in the canister 20 is determined with a scale; the weight is communicated from the scale to the microprocessor M, see Paragraph [0036) and a second measurement of the negative pressure from the pressure sensor (regulator device 15 includes a microprocessor M having a memory storage O to store data the readings from the electronic flow sensor 40, see Paragraph [0029];vacuum gauge 28 includes an electronic flow sensor 40 that is located upstream of the vacuum regulator 12 so that it reads the level of vacuum where the vacuum level is being applied to the patient 16, see Paragraph [0026]),
determining whether at least one of the first measurement or the second measurement violates a threshold associated with the parameter or the negative pressure (vacuum levels exceed or drop below a certain range, see Paragraph [0029]), and
controllably modulating an aspiration flow rate at a tip of the catheter during the treatment in response to a determination that at least one of the first measurement or the second measurement violates the threshold (the microprocessor M may automatically shut-off the regulator device 15 when vacuum levels exceed or drop below a certain range, or alternatively, the microprocessor may hold the vacuum flow at the outer limits of the prescribed range; the microprocessor M may be programmed to automatically operate at differing flow levels over time, for example 66 mmHG for 5 minutes followed by 75 mmhg for 10 minutes, and may include a range of preset flows or a range of flows dictated by caregiver, see Paragraph [0029]; therefore comparing vacuum levels to a threshold level), wherein the controllably modulating occurs while still aspirating the fluid (still hold the vacuum flow at the outer limits of the prescribed range, see Paragraph [0029]).
However, Kilcran does not explicitly disclose aspirating the undesirable intravascular material during a treatment.
Teigen teaches an aspiration system (vacuum system 40, see Abstract; Figures 2-12; all modifications, equivalents and alternatives are within the scope of the invention, see Paragraph [0105]) for aspirating undesirable intravascular material during a treatment (controlling clot removal from a patient's vasculature by aspiration thrombectomy, see Paragraph [00002]).
Kilcran and Teigen are analogous art because both teaches an aspiration system for collecting fluids from a patient.
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 aspiration system of Kilcran and further include wherein the aspiration system was configured to be used for aspirating undesirable intravascular material during a treatment, as taught by Teigen. Teigen teaches it would be desirable to provide systems and methods which optimize system performance, and procedures for removal of occlusive material (see Paragraph [0009]).
Regarding Claim 16, Kilcran and Teigen teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 15 and Kilcran further wherein the weight sensor is configured to sense a weight of the waste container (the weight of the exudate in the canister 20 is determined with a scale; the weight is communicated from the scale to the microprocessor M, see Paragraph [0036]).
Regarding Claim 17, Kilcran and Teigen teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 16 and Kilcran further wherein: the system further comprises a control element coupled to at least one of the catheter, the waste container, or the pump (the vacuum regulator 12 comprises an electronic valve 36, see Paragraph [0023]; Figure 2);
wherein modulating the negative pressure at the catheter tip comprises controlling, by the computer system, the control element (electronic valve 36 that is movably retained within the housing 13 such that the valve can variably seal-off, open and partially open the housing line 34 to effect a change in the vacuum level at the patient 16, see Paragraph [0023]).
Regarding Claim 18, Kilcran and Teigen teach all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 17 and Kilcran further teaches wherein the control element is selected from the group consisting of a valve configured to control the aspiration through tubing connecting the canister to the catheter (electronic valve 36 such that the valve can variably seal-off, open and partially open the housing line 34, see Paragraph [0023]).
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kilcran and Teigen, as applied in claim 18, and in further view of Zelickson et al. (WO 2008073985 A2), hereinafter referred to as “Zelickson”.
Regarding Claim 19, Modified Kilcran teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 18. However, Modified Kilcran does not explicitly disclose wherein the aspiration catheter comprises an optical element configured to transmit laser energy.
Zelickson teaches a device and method for improving the surgical procedure of soft tissue removal by aspiration and more particularly to a device and method utilizing laser energy directed at the edge of the inlet port to more readily and safely facilitate the separating of soft tissue from a patient in vivo (see Abstract) comprising an aspiration catheter (aspiration cannula 112, see Figure 1) comprises an optical element configured to transmit laser energy (a laser energy source (not shown) coupled to a laser guide tube 36 and a laser energy transmission guide 115 to transmit laser energy across inlet port 20, see pg. 7 paragraph 1).
Modified Kilcran and Zelickson are analogous art because both deal with an aspiration catheter used in surgical procedures.
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 aspiration catheter of Modified Kilcran and further include an optical element configured to transmit laser energy, as taught by Zelickson. Zelickson teaches improving the surgical procedure of soft tissue removal by aspiration and more particularly to a device and method utilizing laser energy directed at the edge of the inlet port to more readily and safely facilitate the separating of soft tissue from a patient in vivo (see pg. 1 paragraph 1).
Regarding Claim 20, Modified Kilcran teaches all of the limitations as discussed above in claim 19 and Zelickson further teaches wherein the aspiration catheter is configured to simultaneously transmit laser energy and aspirate fluid (a pulse of laser energy timed with the aspirator suction can provide bursts of higher energy radiation at programmed, intermittent or event activated intervals, see pg. 15 paragraph 4).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15 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/ (3/21/2026)Examiner, Art Unit 3781
/PHILIP R WIEST/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3781
Prosecution Insights