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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim 25 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites “the protuberances” on line 4 and depends from claim 24. However, claim 24 introduces two sets of “protuberances” – one on line 4 (that are “spaced apart from one another in the circumferential direction”) and one on line 6 (that are “spaced apart from one another in the width direction”) – and, therefore, the phrase “the protuberances” in claim 25 lacks proper antecedent basis since it is unclear if claim 25 is intended to refer to the “protuberances” of line 4 of claim 24, the “protuberances” of line 6 of claim 24, or both the “protuberances” of lines 4 and 6 of claim 24. Based on the disclosure, it appears that the “protuberances” of lines 4 and 6 of claim 24 are the same. Therefore, for the sake of examination, the “protuberances” of claim 25 are interpreted as being those that are spaced apart from one another in both the circumferential direction and the width direction. Accordingly, it is suggested to amend claim 24 to recite “a plurality of protuberances spaced apart from one another in the circumferential direction of the at least one radiopaque markerand spaced apart from one another in the width direction of the at least one radiopaque marker”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hewitt et al. (PG PUB 2004/0153049).
Re claim 1, Hewitt discloses a catheter (Fig 4; the distal end of the catheter 400 is better shown in Fig 9,9B (Para 29) and, therefore, all reference characters cited below refer to Fig 9,9B unless otherwise noted ) comprising: a shaft 400 possessing a distal end (to the right in Fig 4) and a proximal end (to the left in Fig 4), the shaft including a lumen (within liner 10, as seen in Fig 9B) surrounded by an inner surface (formed by the inner surface of liner 10, as seen in Fig 9B) of the shaft, the lumen extending from the distal end of the shaft to the proximal end of the shaft (Para 30), the shaft also possessing an outer surface (the outer surface of jacket 30, as seen in Fig 9B) opposite the inner surface (as seen in Fig 9B); the shaft comprising: a reinforcement body 20 including a plurality of wires (Para 39) that are disposed at least at a part of the shaft between the inner surface of the shaft and the outer surface of the shaft (as seen in Fig 9B), the plurality of wires being braided in a tubular shape (“braid 20”, Para 29); and at least one radiopaque marker 51 (Para 28) disposed between the reinforcement body and the outer surface of the shaft (as seen in Fig 9B), the at least one radiopaque marker possessing a thickness (as seen in Fig 9B; although the value of the thickness is not explicitly disclosed, it possesses a thickness > 0 since it has a measurement that extends in the radial direction); a difference between an outer diameter of the shaft in a portion where the at least one radiopaque marker is disposed (labeled as “portion A” in annotated Fig A below) and an outer diameter of the shaft in a portion axially adjacent to the at least one radiopaque marker in an axial direction of the shaft (labeled as “portion B” in annotated Fig A below) constituting an outer diameter difference (as se in Fig 9, the outer diameter of the portion A is larger than the outer diameter of portion B), and a difference between an inner diameter of the shaft in the portion axially adjacent to the at least one radiopaque marker in the axial direction of the shaft and an inner diameter of the shaft in the portion where the at least one radiopaque marker is disposed constituting an inner diameter difference (Para 58 sets froth that the inner diameter of liner 10 is a constant diameter (of 0.17 inch) and, therefore, the inner diameter difference is equal to zero); the outer diameter of the shaft in the portion where the at least one radiopaque marker is disposed being greater than the outer diameter of the shaft in the portion axially adjacent to the at least one radiopaque marker in the axial direction of the shaft (as seen in Fig 9); and at least one of the outer diameter difference and the inner diameter difference being smaller than twice the thickness of the at least one radiopaque marker (as set forth above, the inner diameter difference is equal to zero and the thickness is greater than zero; and zero is less than twice a value greater than zero).
PNG
media_image1.png
381
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Re claim 5, Hewitt discloses that the shaft comprises an inner layer 10 and an outer layer 30 (as seen in Fig 9B; Para 29).
Re claim 9, Hewitt discloses that the outer layer includes an outer surface that is the same as the outer surface of the shaft (as seen in Fig 9,9B).
Re claim 10, Hewitt discloses that the at least one radiopaque marker is positioned radially outwardly of the inner layer (as seen in Fig 9,9B).
Re claim 11, Hewitt discloses that the at least one radiopaque marker is positioned radially outwardly of the inner layer (as seen in Fig 9,9B).
Re claim 12, Hewitt discloses that the plurality of wires braided in the tubular shape form a tubular reinforcement body (Para 39) possessing a proximal end (to the left in Fig 9) and a distal end (to the right in Fig 9), the at least one radiopaque marker possessing a proximal end (to the left in Fig 9) and a distal end (to the right in Fig 9), the proximal end of the tubular reinforcement body extending proximally beyond the proximal end of the at least one radiopaque marker (as seen in Fig 9), and the distal end of the tubular reinforcement body extending distally beyond the distal end of the at least one radiopaque marker (as seen in Fig 9).
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.
Claims 2-4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewitt et al. (PG PUB 2004/0153049) in view of Brown (PG PUB 2012/0046575).
Re claims 2-4 and 13, Hewitt discloses that the shaft possess a central axis (extending horizontally in Fig 9) and that the at least one radiopaque marker possess an outer surface (as seen in Fig 9,9B), but Hewitt does not explicitly disclose that the at least one radiopaque marker has a non-circular shape in a cross-section perpendicular to the central axis of the shaft (as required by claim 2), that the outer surface of the at least one radiopaque marker includes a plurality of ridges and grooves that alternate with one another in a circumferential direction of the at least one radiopaque marker (as required by claim 3), that the outer surface of the at least one radiopaque marker includes a plurality of concave portions and convex portions extending across a width-wise extent of the at least one radiopaque marker and extending along a circumferential extent of the at least one radiopaque marker (as required by claim 4), or that the at least one radiopaque marker includes at least one convex portion on at least an inner surface side of the at least one radiopaque marker (as required by claim 13). Brown, however, teaches providing a radiopaque marker 34 (Fig 2; Para 41) that is formed by a flat ribbon wire 50 that is twisted along its length and then wound into a helix with a number of turns 48 (Para 30); as a result of this twisting and helix, the radiopaque marker has a non-circular shape in a cross-section perpendicular to a central axis (as seen in Fig 3, the wire being flat and twisted results in a plurality of peaks and valleys that is described in Para 38 as “undulating”), the outer surface of the radiopaque marker includes a plurality of ridges and grooves (labeled in Fig B below) that alternate with one another in a circumferential direction of the at least one radiopaque marker (as seen in Fig 2,3, wherein Para 38 describes the outer surface as “undulating”), the outer surface of the radiopaque marker includes a plurality of concave portions and convex portions (labeled in Fig B below) extending across a width-wise extent of the at least one radiopaque marker and extending along a circumferential extent of the at least one radiopaque marker (as seen in Fig 2 since each turn 48 includes concave and convex portions; wherein Para 38 describes the outer surface as “undulating”), and that the radiopaque marker includes at least one convex portion (labeled in Fig B below) on at least an inner surface side of the at least one radiopaque marker (as seen in Fig 3). Brown teaches that providing the radiopaque marker with such a configuration results in the marker being more physically perceptible to the physician so that the catheter can be controlled more easily when crossing lesions during a procedure (Para 38). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hewitt’s radiopaque marker to be one that is formed by a flat ribbon wire that is twisted along its length and wound into a helix with a number of turns (resulting in a non-circular shape in cross-section, an outer surface with a plurality of ridges and grooves and concave and convex portions, and an inner surface with at least one convex portion), as taught by Brown, for the purpose of increasing the physical perceptibility of the marker to the physician so that the catheter can be controlled more easily when crossing lesions during a procedure (Para 38).
PNG
media_image2.png
530
586
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hewitt et al. (PG PUB 2004/0153049) in view of Fujiwara et al. (JP 2012-249811 A)1.
Re claim 24, Hewitt discloses that the at least one radiopaque marker extends around the reinforcement body in a circumferential direction (as seen in Fig 9B) and also extends axially in a width direction (as seen in Fig 9), but does not disclose that the at least one radiopaque marker including a plurality of protuberances spaced apart from one another in the circumferential direction of the at least one radiopaque marker and in the width direction of the at least one radiopaque marker (as required by claim 24) or that the at least one radiopaque marker includes a plurality of depressions spaced apart from each other in both the circumferential direction and the width direction and positioned between adjacent ones of the protuberances (as required by claim 25). Fujiwara, however, teaches a reinforcement body 43 (Fig 4) including a plurality of braided wires 43a (Fig 4; Para 40) and a radiopaque marker 45 (Fig 4) disposed above the reinforcement body and shaped to the reinforcement body (as seen in Fig 4(c),4(d)) wherein the marker includes a plurality of protuberances (peaks 45c that extend radially outward, as seen in Fig 4(d)) spaced apart from another in the circumferential direction (as seen in Fig 4(d) and in the width direction (as seen in Fig 4(a)) and a plurality of depressions (peaks 45c that extend radially inward, as seen in Fig 4(d)) spaced apart from each other in the circumferential direction (as seen in Fig 4(d)) and in the width direction (as seen in Fig 4(a)) and positioned between adjacent ones of the protuberances (as seen in Fig 4(a) and 4(d)); Fujiwara teaches that having such a configuration ensures that the marker is not displaced from the reinforcement body when it experiences external force when the catheter is used (Para 63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Hewitt to include the marker such that it is shaped to the reinforcement body to provide protuberances and depressions, as taught by Fujiwara, for the purpose of ensuring external force applied to the radiopaque marker when the catheter is in use does not cause the radiopaque marker to become displaced from the reinforcement body (Para 63).
Claims 15-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurosawa et al. (WO 2017/104465)2 in view of Fujiwara et al. (JP 2012-249811 A).
Re claim 15, Kurosawa discloses a catheter 1 (Fig 1) comprising: a shaft 2 (Fig 1,2; it is noted that all reference characters cited below refer to Fig 2 unless otherwise noted) possessing a distal end (to the left in Fig 1) and a proximal end (to the right in Fig 1), the shaft including a lumen 5 extending axially from the distal end of the shaft to the proximal end of the shaft (as seen in Fig 1); the shaft comprising: a reinforcement body 20 including a plurality of wires 21 that are disposed at least at a part of the shaft between an inner surface (formed by the radially-inward facing surface of layer 10) of the shaft and an outer surface (formed by the radially-outward facing surface of layer 40) of the shaft (as seen in Fig 2), the plurality of wires being braided in a tubular shape (Para 29); and at least one radiopaque marker 30 disposed between the reinforcement body and the outer surface of the shaft (as seen in Fig 2), the at least one radiopaque marker extending around the reinforcement body in a circumferential direction (Para 31) and also extending axially in a width direction (as seen in Fig 2); and a difference between a maximum outer diameter of the at least one radiopaque marker and a maximum outer diameter of the reinforcement body in a portion axially adjacent to the at least one radiopaque marker in an axial direction of the shaft is smaller than twice a thickness of the at least one radiopaque marker (as seen in Fig 2 and described in Para 48, the maximum outer diameter of the marker 30 and the maximum outer diameter of the reinforcement body 20 in a portion axially adjacent to the marker are substantially the same, resulting in the difference being zero; since the marker has a thickness greater than zero, the difference is less than twice the thickness). Kurosawa does not disclose that the at least one radiopaque marker includes a plurality of protuberances that are spaced apart from one another in both the circumferential direction of the at least one radiopaque marker and the width direction of the at least one radiopaque marker.
Fujiwara, however, teaches a reinforcement body 43 (Fig 4) including a plurality of braided wires 43a (Fig 4; Para 40) and a radiopaque marker 45 (Fig 4) disposed above the reinforcement body and shaped to the reinforcement body (as seen in Fig 4(c),4(d)) wherein the marker includes a plurality of protuberances (peaks 45c that extend radially outward, as seen in Fig 4(d)) spaced apart from another in the circumferential direction (as seen in Fig 4(d) and in the width direction (as seen in Fig 4(a)); Fujiwara teaches that having such a configuration ensures that the marker is not displaced from the reinforcement body when it experiences external force when the catheter is used (Para 63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Kurosawa to include the marker such that it is shaped to the reinforcement body to provide protuberances, as taught by Fujiwara, for the purpose of ensuring external force applied to the radiopaque marker when the catheter is in use does not cause the radiopaque marker to become displaced from the reinforcement body (Para 63).
Re claim 16, Kurosawa discloses that the plurality of wires braided in the tubular shape form a tubular reinforcement body possessing a proximal end (to the right in Fig 1) and a distal end (to the left in Fig 1), the at least one radiopaque marker possessing a proximal end (to the right in Fig 2) and a distal end (to the left in Fig 2), the proximal end of the tubular reinforcement body extending proximally beyond the proximal end of the at least one radiopaque marker (as seen in Fig 2), and the distal end of the tubular reinforcement body extending distally beyond the distal end of the at least one radiopaque marker (as seen in Fig 2).
Re claim 17, Kurosawa as modified by Fujiwara in the rejection of claim 15 above discloses all the claimed features with Fujiwara teaching that the at least one radiopaque marker includes at least one convex portion (peaks 45c that extend radially inward, as seen in Fig 4(d)) on at least an inner surface side of the at least one radiopaque marker (as seen in Fig 4(d)). The motivation cited in the rejection of claim 15 above also applies to this claim.
Re claim 19, Kurosawa discloses that the shaft comprises an inner layer 10 and an outer layer 40, the at least one radiopaque marker being located radially outwardly of the inner layer (as seen in Fig 2).
Claims 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorn et al. (PG PUB 2010/0286756) in view of Tao et al. (PG PUB 2012/0142995).
Re claim 20, Dorn discloses a catheter (Fig 1) comprising: a shaft 14 possessing an open distal end (to the left in Fig 1) and an open proximal end (to the right in Fig 1), the shaft 14 (Fig 1,2A; it is noted that all reference characters cited below refer to Fig 2A unless otherwise noted) including a lumen (the space within which 10,28 and 40 reside in Fig 2A) surrounded by an inner surface (radially-inward facing surface of sleeve 14) of the shaft, the lumen extending from the open distal end of the shaft to the open proximal end of the shaft (as seen in Fig 1), the shaft also possessing an outer surface (formed by the radially-outward facing surface of sleeve 14) opposite the inner surface (as seen in Fig 2A); the shaft comprising: a reinforcement body (seen in Fig 2A but not labeled; described in Para 17 as “a fiber reinforcement such as a braided metal mesh”) including a plurality of wires braided in a tubular shape so that the reinforcement body is a tubular reinforcement body possessing opposite axial ends (as seen in Fig 2A), the tubular reinforcement body being located radially between the inner surface of the shaft and the outer surface of the shaft (as seen in Fig 2A), the tubular reinforcement body including an axially extending smaller diameter portion (the portion located directly beneath marker 26B in Fig 2A) positioned axially between two axially extending portions (the portions located immediately adjacent marker 26B in Fig 2A) of the tubular reinforcement body that are immediately axially adjacent the smaller diameter portion (as seen in Fig 2A), an outer diameter of the smaller diameter portion of the tubular reinforcement body being less than an outer diameter of the two axially extending portions of the tubular reinforcement body that are immediately axially adjacent the smaller diameter portion (as seen in Fig 2A); and at least one radiopaque marker 26B (Para 42) disposed radially outward of the reinforcement body (as seen in Fig 2A), the at least one radiopaque marker being located in axially overlapping relation to the smaller diameter portion of the tubular reinforcement body (as seen in Fig 2A), the at least one radiopaque marker possessing a thickness (as seen in Fig 2A); a difference between an inner diameter of the shaft in a portion (labeled as portion B in Fig C below) axially adjacent to the at least one radiopaque marker in the axial direction of the shaft and an inner diameter of the shaft in a portion (labeled as portion A in Fig C below) where the at least one radiopaque marker is disposed constituting an inner diameter difference (as seen in Fig C below, portion A has a constant inner diameter while portion B has an inner diameter that increases as it extends longitudinally away from portion A until it flatlines at a constant maximum inner diameter; for this rejection, the “inner diameter” of portion B is taken at the point immediately adjacent to where portion A converts to portion B (as labeled in Fig C below)); the inner diameter of the shaft in the portion axially adjacent to the at least one radiopaque marker in the axial direction of the shaft being greater than the inner diameter of the shaft in the portion where the at least one radiopaque marker is disposed (as seen in Fig 2A); and the inner diameter difference being smaller than twice the thickness of the at least one radiopaque marker (as seen in Fig C below, the difference between the constant inner diameter of portion A and the location of the “inner diameter” of portion B is less than the thickness of the marker 26B; therefore, the inner diameter difference is less than twice the thickness). Dorn does not disclose that the at least one radiopaque marker lies radially below the outer surface of the shaft such that it is disposed between the reinforcement body and the outer surface of the shaft and that a difference between an outer diameter of the shaft in the portion where the at least one radiopaque marker is disposed and an outer diameter of the shaft in the portion axially adjacent to the at least one radiopaque marker in an axial direction of the shaft constitutes an outer diameter difference.
Tao, however, teaches a catheter 200 (Fig 5D; it is noted that all reference characters cited below refer to Fig 5D unless otherwise noted) comprising a shaft with an inner surface 203, an outer surface (formed by the radially-outward surface of wall 201 + the radially-outward surface of sleeve 506), a reinforcement body 202, and a radiopaque marker 505 (Para 59), such that the marker is disposed between the reinforcement body and the outer surface of the shaft (as seen in Fig 5D) and such that a difference between an outer diameter of the shaft in a portion where the at least one marker is disposed (labeled as portion A in Fig D below and comparable to the portion A of Dorn since both portions extend only the length of the marker) and an outer diameter of the shaft in a portion axially adjacent to the at least one marker in an axial direction of the shaft (labeled as portion B in Fig D below and comparable to the portion B of Dorn since both portions extend immediately from portion A and extend significantly past portion A) constitutes an outer diameter difference (as seen in in Fig D below, portion A has a constant outer diameter while portion B has an outer diameter that maintains the outer diameter of portion A as it extends longitudinally away from portion A until it decreases and eventually flatlines at a constant minimum outer diameter; for this rejection, the “outer diameter” of portion B is taken at the point immediately adjacent to the start of the taper (as labeled in Fig D below)). Tao teaches that disposing the radiopaque marker below the outer surface of the catheter ensures that no sharp edges that the radiopaque marker has will be exposed (Para 66). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Dorn to include the shaft with an outer surface that extends over the radiopaque marker, as taught by Tao, for the purpose of ensuring that no sharp edges that the radiopaque marker has will be exposed (Para 66).
PNG
media_image3.png
735
727
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
536
672
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Re claim 21, Dorn as modified by Tao in the rejection of claim 20 above discloses all the claimed features with Tao teaching that the outer diameter of the shaft in the portion where the at least one radiopaque marker is disposed is greater than the outer diameter of the shaft in the portion axially adjacent to the at least one radiopaque marker in the axial direction of the shaft (as seen in Fig D above and explained in the rejection of claim 20 above, the “outer diameter” of portion B is at the location where the outer surface of 506 begins to taper inward), the outer diameter difference being smaller than twice the thickness of the at least one radiopaque marker (as seen in Fig D above, the difference between the constant outer diameter of portion A and the location of the “outer diameter” of portion B is less than the thickness of the marker 505; therefore, the outer diameter difference is less than twice the thickness).
Re claim 22, Dorn discloses that a difference between a maximum outer diameter of the at least one radiopaque marker and a maximum outer diameter of the reinforcement body in a portion axially adjacent to the at least one radiopaque marker in the axial direction of the shaft is smaller than twice a thickness of the at least one radiopaque marker (as seen in Fig 2A, the maximum outer diameter of the marker 26B is substantially similar to the maximum outer diameter of the reinforcement body; therefore, the difference between these two diameters is smaller than twice the thickness of the marker 26B).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dorn et al. (PG PUB 2010/0286756)/Tao et al. (PG PUB 2012/0142995) in view of Fujiwara et al. (JP 2012-249811 A).
Re claim 23, Dorn discloses that the at least one radiopaque marker extends around the reinforcement body in a circumferential direction and also extends axially in a width direction (as seen in Fig 2A) but Dorn/Tao does not disclose that the at least one radiopaque marker includes a plurality of protuberances that are spaced apart from one another in both the circumferential direction of the at least one radiopaque marker and the width direction of the at least one radiopaque marker. Fujiwara, however, teaches a reinforcement body 43 (Fig 4) including a plurality of braided wires 43a (Fig 4; Para 40) and a radiopaque marker 45 (Fig 4) disposed above the reinforcement body and shaped to the reinforcement body (as seen in Fig 4(c),4(d)) wherein the marker includes a plurality of protuberances (peaks 45c that extend radially outward, as seen in Fig 4(d)) spaced apart from another in the circumferential direction (as seen in Fig 4(d) and in the width direction (as seen in Fig 4(a)); Fujiwara teaches that having such a configuration ensures that the marker is not displaced from the reinforcement body when it experiences external force when the catheter is used (Para 63). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Dorn/Tao to include the marker such that it is shaped to the reinforcement body to provide protuberances, as taught by Fujiwara, for the purpose of ensuring external force applied to the radiopaque marker when the catheter is in use does not cause the radiopaque marker to become displaced from the reinforcement body (Para 63).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 11/6/2025 have been fully considered.
The arguments directed to the rejections of claims 1 are moot in view of the currently rejections since they no longer utilize the Kurosawa and Fujiwara references as primary references. Although the previously-cited Fujiwara reference is being used to teach the subject matter of new claims 23-25, Fujiwara was not argued regarding this subject matter.
The arguments directed to the rejection of claim 15 are not persuasive because they simply state that the amendments overcome the Kurosawa reference without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the reference (as required by 37 CFR 1.111(b)).
The arguments directed to the rejection of claim 20 are moot in view of the current rejections since they no longer utilize the Kurosawa reference.
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 KAMI A BOSWORTH whose telephone number is (571)270-5414. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 8 am - 4 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, Kevin Sirmons can be reached at (571)272-4965. 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.
/KAMI A BOSWORTH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
1 A copy of this reference was provided with the 12/1/2022 IDS and an English translation was provided with the 8/6/2025 Non-Final Rejection.
2 A copy of this reference and an English translation was provided with the 8/6/2025 Non-Final Rejection.