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 Status
Claims 1-10, 20, 21-28 are pending.
Claims 1, 2, and 20 are amended.
Claims 11-19 are canceled.
Claims 21-28 are new.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 1-3, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Al-Mohizea (US 20100185116 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Al-Mohizea teaches “A device for targeted material excision from a tissue sample” (Title, Punch biopsy device); the device comprising:
“a support” (Fig. 7A, number 700);
“defining an opening” (Fig. 7A, upper portion of the handle end where the displacer is inserted)
“and providing a region below the opening for positioning a tissue sample” (Fig. 7A-7C, location opening where the protrusions or intrusions 708 are located)
“a tissue stabilizer receivable in the opening of the support, (Para [0047], the constraining design of indentations 708 hold the sample within the retaining portion 706);
“the tissue stabilizer being distinct from the support and defining a shape that complements a shape of the support defining the opening;” (Figs. 7A-7C and (Para [0047], the constraining design of indentations 708 hold the sample within the retaining portion 706);
“and a cutting tool assembly receivable in the tissue stabilizer,” (Fig. 7A-C, numbers 704,706, and 706-1 and 706-2);
“the cutting tool assembly including a hollow cutter having a bore,” (Para [0047], As a practitioner pulls the tissue biopsy device 700 out of the patient to remove the cored sample (see core 728 of FIGS. 7B and 7C),
“the cutting tool assembly being movable relative to the tissue stabilizer to cause the cutter to excise material from the tissue sample” (Para [0047], As a practitioner pulls the tissue biopsy device 700 out of the patient to remove the cored sample (see core 728 of FIGS. 7B and 7C), the constraining design of indentations 708 hold the sample within the retaining portion 706, while the practitioner twists and angles the device 700 to bring the base of the tissue closer to the cutting blade 704 to slice the base of the tissue sample with cutting edge 704 (or other cutting instrument).
“and retain the excised material within the bore when the tissue sample is positioned below the opening of the support.” (Para [0047], As a practitioner pulls the tissue biopsy device 700 out of the patient to remove the cored sample (see core 728 of FIGS. 7B and 7C),
Regarding claim 2, Al-Mohizea teaches all of claim 1 as above in addition to “wherein the cutting tool assembly includes a collet chuck configured to hold the hollow cutter in an orientation with an excise end of the cutter directed toward the tissue sample,” (Fig. 7A, numbers 706-1 and 706-2 and Para [0046], the tissue biopsy device includes a handle end 702 and a hollow circular cutting end 704 joined together by two arms extending at either side 706-1 and 706-2); “and further includes a chuck holder to couple to the collet chuck to facilitate manipulation of the cutting tool assembly by a user.” (Para [0050], To use the tissue removing component, and after the base of a cored tissue sample has been cut, a practitioner presses down on displacer end 720 (e.g., with a thumb or finger) to move the displacer 716 down and towards cutting edge 704. This movement causes the remote end of arm 716 to make contact with and press downwards on the top of a tissue sample in the tissue retaining portion, thereby pushing a cored tissue sample past indentation(s) 708 and out of the tissue retaining area.). Therefore, the displacer 716 is the collet chuck that facilitates the manipulation of the cutting tool.
Regarding claim 3, Al-Mohizea teaches all of claim 1 in addition to “wherein the support includes a base (Fig. 7A, top part of 700 where the spring 724 and channel 718 are attached); “and a support arm attached to the base and defining the opening of the support.” (Fig. 7A, numbers spring 724 and channel 718).
Regarding claim 5, Al-Mohizea all of claim 1 in addition to “further comprising a plunger receivable in the bore of the hollow cutter to expel material excised from the tissue sample.” (Fig. 7A, number 716 and Para [0050], This movement causes the remote end of arm 716 to make contact with and press downwards on the top of a tissue sample in the tissue retaining portion, thereby pushing a cored tissue sample past indentation(s) 708 and out of the tissue retaining area.).
Regarding claim 8, Al-Mohizea all of claim 1 in addition to, wherein the tissue stabilizer and the cutting tool assembly are separable parts or wherein the tissue stabilizer and the cutting tool assembly form one integrated module. (Figs. 7A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Mohizea (US 20100185116 A1) as applied to claim 3 above and further in view of Haberstich et. al. (CN 101099684 A).
Regarding claim 4, Al-Mohizea teaches all of claim 3 but does not explicitly teach “wherein the base is crescent shaped and configured to at least partially surround the tissue sample when the tissue sample is positioned below the opening of the support.”.
Haberstich teaches a needle core biopsy system in addition to “wherein the base is crescent shaped and configured to at least partially surround the tissue sample when the tissue sample is positioned below the opening of the support.” (Page 8, First in the second target guide 206 placed on the first rail 122 prior to the sleeve base 260 to adjustably target on the second rail 206, so as to set a predetermined puncture depth. in particular, the depth guide 290 by depth indicator of the crescent 292 is formed, the depth indicator 292 has one shape from the engaging top and bottom guide flanges 266, 268 of the side groove 296. set forwards inclined surface on side 298 of top and bottom groove 296 to engagement with the second target track 206 on the convex tooth surface 270, the target track 206 of the distal end insertion depth mark 292 to assemble.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Al-Mohizea to incorporate the teachings of Haberstich wherein the to have the base in a crescent shape. Doing so would increase precision and control of the tissues within the device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Mohizea (US 20100185116 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Eduard et. al. (JP 200950723 1A).
Regarding claim 6, Al-Mohizea all of claim 1 but does not teach “wherein the opening in the support is asymmetric and wherein the shape defined by the tissue stabilizer complements the asymmetric opening.”.
Eduard teaches a tissue processing apparatus in addition to “wherein the opening in the support is asymmetric and wherein the shape defined by the tissue stabilizer complements the asymmetric opening.” (Page 4, At least a portion of the tissue specimen processing apparatus comprising a first member having a support surface structure configured to cooperate with an orientation medium for attaching the tissue specimen to the support surface in a predetermined orientation; Has an asymmetric cross-section to determine the orientation state of the tissue specimen placed on the support surface.). Therefore, the orientation medium for attaching the tissue specimen is the tissue stabilizer and that along with the support are both asymmetric in shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Al-Mohizea to incorporate the teachings of Eduard wherein the support and the tissue stabilizer are asymmetric. Doing so allows the position to be predetermined orientation as the shape is not symmetric which minimizes the time it takes to align the parts together.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Mohizea (US 20100185116 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Goldenberg (US 20050054947 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Al-Mohizea teaches all of claim 1 as above but does not explicitly teach “wherein the tissue stabilizer includes an internal helical groove”.
Goldenberg teaches a biopsy needle that is particularly suited for shearing and collecting soft tissue specimens in addition to “wherein the tissue stabilizer includes an internal helical groove” (Para [0035] It will also be appreciated that an opposite arrangement that achieves the same result can be provided, namely, one in which the outer cannula 120 has one or more projections that travel in a helical groove associated with the housing. Thus, after the flange 121 is disengages, the outer cannula 120 moves axially forward and also begins to rotate since the pin or projections that are part of the cannula 120 ride within the helical groove, so as to cause rotation of the outer cannula as it is axially advanced.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Al-Mohizea to incorporate the teachings of Goldenberg wherein the to have the base in a wherein the tissue stabilizer includes an internal helical groove. Doing so decreases the damage to the tissue during movement of the cutting tool.
Al-Mohizea does not explicitly teach “the cutting tool assembly includes on its outer surface a protrusion, and wherein movement of the cutting tool assembly relative to the tissue stabilizer is guided by the protrusion traversing the internal helical groove.”.
Goldenberg teaches “the cutting tool assembly includes on its outer surface a protrusion, and wherein movement of the cutting tool assembly relative to the tissue stabilizer is guided by the protrusion traversing the internal helical groove.”. (Within Para [0035] as stated above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Al-Mohizea to incorporate the teachings of Goldenberg wherein cutting tool assembly includes on its outer surface a protrusion which assists in movement. Doing so decreases the damage to the tissue during movement of the cutting tool and allows the cutter to work with the helical groove.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Mohizea (US 20100185116 A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Anderson et. al (KR 102099349 B1) and Kilper (US 8268265 B2).
Regarding claim 9, Al-Mohizea teaches all of claim 1 as above but does not explicitly teach “in combination with a substrate, wherein the substrate enables holding of the tissue sample between layers of the substrate.”.
Anderson teaches methods and apparatus for tissue grafting and copying in addition to layers which include a substrate and tissues within (Pages 16, 17, and Fig. 13 B and Like the tissue 100 stabilization described above, the substrate 1030 is positioned on the donor tissue 100 while the harvested tubes 510 and 1010 are inserted between the tissue 100 and the slat 1315. In addition, the substrate 1310 can facilitate the placement of the tube 510.).
Kilper teaches tissues within layers of adhesive film within (Column 1 lines 46-48, Most of the techniques developed for taking up the cut-out tissue are based on the application of layers of adhesive film.).
Provided the claims require the tissues to be between layers of a substrate, , Al-Mohizea does not teach such arrangement. However, it would have been within the ordinary skills of an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Al-Mohizea by having such arrangement, since Anderson teaches a substrate with tissue deposited on it and within Kilper it is known in the art that tissues are within layers of films which are substrates. It would have been a matter of an obvious engineering choice, to better stabilize the tissues as taught within Anderson and having an adhesive film as taught within Kilper would further stabilize the tissues.
Regarding claim 10, modified Al-Mohizea teaches all of claim 9 as above but does not explicitly teach “wherein the layers of the substrate include a sheet of transparent film, a porous under-pad, and a silicone cushion.”
However, it would have been within the ordinary skills of an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Al-Mohizea by having the film be transparent, since Rebellino teaches the housing is transparent in order to visualize the tissue sample within (Para [000123], In the present example, outer housing (510) is generally transparent to promote visibility of tissue samples during sample collection.).
It would have been a matter of an obvious engineering choice, have the substate be a transparent film in order to visualize the tissues as taught within Al-Mohizea and Kilper teaches within (Column 1 lines 46-48, above) that the substate is film layers.
Claims 20-22, 24, 27, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Al-Mohizea (US 20100185116 A1) and further in view of Anderson et. al (KR 102099349 B1) and Kilper (US 8268265 B2).
Regarding claim 20, Al-Mohizea teaches “A system for targeted material excision from a tissue sample,” (Para [0005], Systems and methods for a scoop blade biopsy device are described.).
Al-Mohizea does not explicitly teach “the system comprising: a substrate for holding a tissue sample between layers of the substrate”.
Anderson teaches methods and apparatus for tissue grafting and copying in addition to layers which include a substrate and tissues within (Pages 16, 17, and Fig. 13 B and Like the tissue 100 stabilization described above, the substrate 1030 is positioned on the donor tissue 100 while the harvested tubes 510 and 1010 are inserted between the tissue 100 and the slat 1315. In addition, the substrate 1310 can facilitate the placement of the tube 510.).
Kilper teaches tissues within layers of adhesive film within (Column 1 lines 46-48, Most of the techniques developed for taking up the cut-out tissue are based on the application of layers of adhesive film.).
Provided the claims require the tissues to be between layers of a substrate, Al-Mohizea does not teach such arrangement.
However, it would have been within the ordinary skills of an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Al-Mohizea by having such arrangement, since Anderson teaches a substrate with tissue deposited on it and within Kilper it is known in the art that tissues are within layers of films which are substrates. It would have been a matter of an obvious engineering choice, to better stabilize the tissues as taught within Anderson and having an adhesive film as taught within Kilper would further stabilize the tissues.
Further taught by Al-Mohizea “and a device for targeted material excision,” (Title, Punch biopsy device); “the device including: a support” ((Fig. 7A, number 700) “defining an opening” (Fig. 7A, lower opening portion of 700) “and providing a region below the opening for positioning the tissue sample held by the substrate;” Fig. 7A-7C, location opening where the protrusions or intrusions 708 are located) “a tissue stabilizer receivable in the opening of the support, the tissue stabilizer being distinct from the support and defining a shape that complements a shape of the support defining the opening;” (Figs. 7A-7C and (Para [0047], the constraining design of indentations 708 hold the sample within the retaining portion 706); “and a cutting tool assembly receivable in the tissue stabilize” (Fig. 7A-C, numbers 704,706, and 706-1 and 706-2); “the cutting tool assembly including a hollow cutter having a bore,” (Para [0047], As a practitioner pulls the tissue biopsy device 700 out of the patient to remove the cored sample (see core 728 of FIGS. 7B and 7C), “the cutting tool assembly being movable relative to the tissue stabilizer to cause the cutter to excise material from the tissue sample” (Para [0047], As a practitioner pulls the tissue biopsy device 700 out of the patient to remove the cored sample (see core 728 of FIGS. 7B and 7C), the constraining design of indentations 708 hold the sample within the retaining portion 706, while the practitioner twists and angles the device 700 to bring the base of the tissue closer to the cutting blade 704 to slice the base of the tissue sample with cutting edge 704 (or other cutting instrument) “and retain the excised material within the bore when the tissue sample is positioned below the opening of the support.” (Para [0047], As a practitioner pulls the tissue biopsy device 700 out of the patient to remove the cored sample (see core 728 of FIGS. 7B and 7C),
Regarding claim 21, modified Al-Mohizea teaches all of claim 20 as above in addition to “wherein the cutting tool assembly includes a collet chuck configured to hold the hollow cutter in an orientation with an excise end of the cutter directed toward the tissue sample, (Fig. 7A, numbers 706-1 and 706-2 and Para [0046], the tissue biopsy device includes a handle end 702 and a hollow circular cutting end 704 joined together by two arms extending at either side 706-1 and 706-2); “and further includes a chuck holder to couple to the collet chuck to facilitate manipulation of the cutting tool assembly by a user.” (Para [0050], To use the tissue removing component, and after the base of a cored tissue sample has been cut, a practitioner presses down on displacer end 720 (e.g., with a thumb or finger) to move the displacer 716 down and towards cutting edge 704. This movement causes the remote end of arm 716 to make contact with and press downwards on the top of a tissue sample in the tissue retaining portion, thereby pushing a cored tissue sample past indentation(s) 708 and out of the tissue retaining area.). Therefore, the displacer 716 is the collet chuck that facilitates the manipulation of the cutting tool.
Regarding claim 22, modified Al-Mohizea teaches all of claim 20 as above in addition to “wherein the support includes a base” (Fig. 7A, top part of 700 where the spring 724 and channel 718 are attached); “and a support arm attached to the base and defining the opening of the support.” (Fig. 7A, numbers spring 724 and channel 718).
Regarding claim 24, modified Al-Mohizea teaches all of claim 20 as above in addition to “further comprising a plunger receivable in the bore of the hollow cutter to expel material excised from the tissue sample.” (Fig. 7A, number 716 and Para [0050], This movement causes the remote end of arm 716 to make contact with and press downwards on the top of a tissue sample in the tissue retaining portion, thereby pushing a cored tissue sample past indentation(s) 708 and out of the tissue retaining area.).
Regarding claim 27, modified Al-Mohizea teaches all of claim 20 as above in addition to “wherein the tissue stabilizer and the cutting tool assembly are separable parts or wherein the tissue stabilizer and the cutting tool assembly form one integrated module.” (Fig. 7A).
Regarding claim 28, modified Al-Mohizea teaches all of claim 20 as above but does not teach “wherein the layers of the substrate include a sheet of transparent film, a porous under-pad, and a silicone cushion.”
However, it would have been within the ordinary skills of an artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the invention of Al-Mohizea by having the film be transparent, since Rebellino teaches the housing is transparent in order to visualize the tissue sample within (Para [000123], In the present example, outer housing (510) is generally transparent to promote visibility of tissue samples during sample collection.).
It would have been a matter of an obvious engineering choice, have the substate be a transparent film in order to visualize the tissues as taught within Al-Mohizea and Kilper teaches within (Column 1 lines 46-48, above) that the substate is film layers.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable as being unpatentable over Al-Mohizea (US 20100185116 A1) and further in view of Anderson et. al (KR 102099349 B1) and Kilper (US 8268265 B2) as applied to claim 22 above and further in view of Haberstich et. al. (CN 101099684 A).
Regarding claim 23, modified Al-Mohizea teaches all of claim 22 but does not teach “wherein the base is crescent shaped and configured to at least partially surround the tissue sample when the tissue sample is positioned below the opening of the support.
Haberstich teaches a needle core biopsy system in addition to “wherein the base is crescent shaped and configured to at least partially surround the tissue sample when the tissue sample is positioned below the opening of the support.” (Page 8, First in the second target guide 206 placed on the first rail 122 prior to the sleeve base 260 to adjustably target on the second rail 206, so as to set a predetermined puncture depth. in particular, the depth guide 290 by depth indicator of the crescent 292 is formed, the depth indicator 292 has one shape from the engaging top and bottom guide flanges 266, 268 of the side groove 296. set forwards inclined surface on side 298 of top and bottom groove 296 to engagement with the second target track 206 on the convex tooth surface 270, the target track 206 of the distal end insertion depth mark 292 to assemble.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Al-Mohizea to incorporate the teachings of Haberstich wherein the to have the base in a crescent shape. Doing so would increase precision and control of the tissues within the device.
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as being unpatentable over Al-Mohizea (US 20100185116 A1) and further in view of Anderson et. al (KR 102099349 B1) and Kilper (US 8268265 B2) as applied to claim 20 above and further in view of Eduard et. al. (JP 2009507231 A).
Regarding claim 25, Al-Mohizea all of claim 20 but does not teach “wherein the opening in the support is asymmetric and wherein the shape defined by the tissue stabilizer complements the asymmetric opening.”.
Eduard teaches a tissue processing apparatus in addition to “wherein the opening in the support is asymmetric and wherein the shape defined by the tissue stabilizer complements the asymmetric opening” (Page 4, At least a portion of the tissue specimen processing apparatus comprising a first member having a support surface structure configured to cooperate with an orientation medium for attaching the tissue specimen to the support surface in a predetermined orientation; Has an asymmetric cross-section to determine the orientation state of the tissue specimen placed on the support surface.). Therefore, the orientation medium for attaching the tissue specimen is the tissue stabilizer and that along with the support are both asymmetric in shape.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Al-Mohizea to incorporate the teachings of Eduard wherein the support and the tissue stabilizer are asymmetric. Doing so allows the position to be predetermined orientation as the shape is not symmetric which minimizes the time it takes to align the parts together.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as being unpatentable over Al-Mohizea (US 20100185116 A1) and further in view of Anderson et. al (KR 102099349 B1) and Kilper (US 8268265 B2) as applied to claim 20 above and further in view of Goldenberg (US 20050054947 A1).
Regarding claim 26, modified Al-Mohizea teaches all of claim 20 but does not teach “wherein the tissue stabilizer includes an internal helical groove, (Para [0035] It will also be appreciated that an opposite arrangement that achieves the same result can be provided, namely, one in which the outer cannula 120 has one or more projections that travel in a helical groove associated with the housing. Thus, after the flange 121 is disengages, the outer cannula 120 moves axially forward and also begins to rotate since the pin or projections that are part of the cannula 120 ride within the helical groove, so as to cause rotation of the outer cannula as it is axially advanced.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Al-Mohizea to incorporate the teachings of Goldenberg wherein the to have the base in a wherein the tissue stabilizer includes an internal helical groove. Doing so decreases the damage to the tissue during movement of the cutting tool.
Al-Mohizea does not explicitly teach “the cutting tool assembly includes on its outer surface a protrusion, and wherein movement of the cutting tool assembly relative to the tissue stabilizer is guided by the protrusion traversing the internal helical groove.” (Within Para [0035] as stated above).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Al-Mohizea to incorporate the teachings of Goldenberg wherein cutting tool assembly includes on its outer surface a protrusion which assists in movement. Doing so decreases the damage to the tissue during movement of the cutting tool and allows the cutter to work with the helical groove.
Response to Amendments
Claim Amendments
Applicant’s amendments to independent claims 1 and 20 to include subject matter regarding requiring: “the tissue stabilizer being distinct from the support” overcomes the rejections set forth in the non-final office action dated 3/19/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant arguments and remarks filed on 7/14/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) and claims 4, 7, 9, 10, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of claim amendments to claims 1 and 20.
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 VELVET E HERON whose telephone number is 571-272-1557. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am – 4:30 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, Charles Capozzi can be reached on (571) 270-3638. 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.
/V.E.H./Examiner, Art Unit 1798
/CHARLES CAPOZZI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1798
Prosecution Insights