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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on May 5, 2026. As directed by the amendment: claims 1, 5-6 and 16 have been amended, claims 10, 13 and 15 have been cancelled, and claims 19-20 have been added. Thus, claims 1-9, 11-12, 14 and 16-20 are presently pending in this application. Applicant’s amendments are sufficient to overcome the claim objection of the previous action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed May 5, 2026, with respect to the rejection of newly amended claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §102 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Ross et al. (Ross) US 6,214,152 B1.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: it repeats subject matter that has been amended into claim 1 regarding “…the linear member includes a nickel-cobalt alloy…”, and should be deleted. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim16 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 16 depends from claim 15, wherein claim 15 is now cancelled. For purposes of examination, claim 16 is interpreted to depend from claim 1.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7-9, 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millet US 6,146,814 in view of Ross et al. (Ross) US 6,214,152 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Millet discloses a catheter (catheter 10, c 1 ln 47-48) and shown in Figs. 2-3) comprising: a hollow shaft (tubular section 12, c 1 ln 48-49); a linear member provided on an outer periphery of the hollow shaft (electroplated portion of the metal layer, c 1 ln 53-56, formed into metal stripes 22, c 2 ln 9); and a metallic film (electrolessly plated or sputtered conductive metal portion of the metal layer, c 1 ln 56-56, formed into metal stripes 22, c 2 ln 9) that is positioned between the outer periphery of the hollow shaft and the linear member and is joined to the outer periphery of the hollow shaft and the linear member (the process of making the catheter described by Millet in c 1 ln 46 to c 2 ln 32, though not identical, mirrors the process of manufacture set forth in applicants P0041-0042, wherein the electrolessly plated or sputtered conductive metal portion of the metal layer is positioned and joined as claimed).
Millet teaches a metal that is conductive, see c 1 ln 21 and c 1 ln 51, but does not specifically teach wherein the linear member includes a nickel-cobalt alloy.
However, Ross teaches electrically conductive leads, see abstract, that include a nickel-cobalt alloy (iron-nickel-cobalt alloys, c 2 ln 61 to c 3 ln 16).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the metal of the linear member of Millet with a nickel-cobalt alloy as taught by Ross as a simple substitution of one known conductive metal (Millet, provides an example metal of copper or a copper based alloy, c 1 ln 51-52) for another (Ross, iron-nickel-cobalt alloys) to achieve the predictable result of providing for an electrical conductor, see MPEP 2143. Millet contained a catheter which differed from the claimed catheter by the substitution of the electrically conductive metal of the linear member. The substituted metal and its function as an electrical conductor is known in the art as taught by Ross. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one conductive metal for another, and the results would have been predictable, the results being an electrically conductive metal.
Regarding claim 2, Millet in view of Ross teaches the catheter according to claim 1, wherein the linear member is wound around the outer periphery of the hollow shaft in a spiral manner (Millet, helical metal stripes 22, c 2 ln 8-9 and Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Millet in view of Ross teaches the catheter according to claim 2.
Millet does not teach wherein a height of the linear member is larger than a width of the linear member in a transverse cross-section of the linear member.
Millet teaches that metallic elements may be provided to reinforce the physical structure of the polymeric body, wherein the size, shape and distribution of metallic elements can substantially affect properties of the catheter such as ease with which the tube can be bent and resistance of the tube to kinking and collapse during use, c 1 ln 24-29. Therefore, the size and shape of the linear member is a result effective variable in that changing the size and shape of the linear member affects properties of the catheter including flexibility and resistance to kinking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the catheter of Millet in view of Ross as claimed as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 4, Millet in view of Ross teaches the catheter according to claim 3.
Millet does not teach wherein the width of the linear member is larger at an inner side of the linear member in a radial direction where the linear member is joined to the metallic film than at an outer side of the linear member in the radial direction.
However, Applicant teaches in P0042 that the claimed shape (trapezoidal) is a result of the manufacturing process wherein the outer side in the radial direction has a larger amount of melting. Millet teaches a similar process of manufacture wherein etchant is used to remove metal, c 2 ln 7-9. Therefore, because Millet teaches a similar manufacturing process, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed structure to result.
Additionally, Millet teaches that metallic elements may be provided to reinforce the physical structure of the polymeric body, wherein the size, shape and distribution of metallic elements can substantially affect properties of the catheter such as ease with which the tube can be bent and resistance of the tube to kinking and collapse during use, c 1 ln 24-29. Therefore, the size and shape of the linear member is a result effective variable in that changing the size and shape of the linear member affects properties of the catheter including flexibility and resistance to kinking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the catheter of Millet in view of Ross as claimed as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 7, Millet in view of Ross teaches the catheter according to claim 1.
Millet does not teach wherein the linear member is formed in a grid pattern on the outer periphery of the hollow shaft.
Millet teaches that metallic elements may be provided to reinforce the physical structure of the polymeric body, wherein the size, shape and distribution of metallic elements can substantially affect properties of the catheter such as ease with which the tube can be bent and resistance of the tube to kinking and collapse during use, c 1 ln 24-29. Therefore, the size and shape of the linear member is a result effective variable in that changing the size and shape of the linear member affects properties of the catheter including flexibility and resistance to kinking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the catheter of Millet in view of Ross as claimed as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 8, Millet in view of Ross teaches the catheter according to claim 1.
Millet does not teach wherein a height of the linear member is larger than a width of the linear member in a transverse cross-section of the linear member.
Millet teaches that metallic elements may be provided to reinforce the physical structure of the polymeric body, wherein the size, shape and distribution of metallic elements can substantially affect properties of the catheter such as ease with which the tube can be bent and resistance of the tube to kinking and collapse during use, c 1 ln 24-29. Therefore, the size and shape of the linear member is a result effective variable in that changing the size and shape of the linear member affects properties of the catheter including flexibility and resistance to kinking. Therefore, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the catheter of Millet in view of Ross as claimed as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 9, Millet in view of Ross teaches the catheter according to claim 8.
Millet does not teach wherein the width of the linear member is larger at an inner side of the linear member in a radial direction where the linear member is joined to the metallic film than at an outer side of the linear member in the radial direction.
However, Applicant teaches in P0042 that the claimed shape (trapezoidal) is a result of the manufacturing process wherein the outer side in the radial direction has a larger amount of melting. Millet teaches a similar process of manufacture wherein etchant is used to remove metal, c 2 ln 7-9. Therefore, because Millet teaches a similar manufacturing process, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed structure to result.
Additionally, Millet teaches that metallic elements may be provided to reinforce the physical structure of the polymeric body, wherein the size, shape and distribution of metallic elements can substantially affect properties of the catheter such as ease with which the tube can be bent and resistance of the tube to kinking and collapse during use, c 1 ln 24-29. Therefore, the size and shape of the linear member is a result effective variable in that changing the size and shape of the linear member affects properties of the catheter including flexibility and resistance to kinking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the catheter of Millet in view of Ross as claimed as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 12, Millet in view of Ross teaches the catheter according to claim 1.
Millet does not teach wherein a width of the linear member is larger at an inner side of the linear member in a radial direction where the linear member is joined to the metallic film than at an outer side of the linear member in the radial direction.
However, Applicant teaches in P0042 that the claimed shape (trapezoidal) is a result of the manufacturing process wherein the outer side in the radial direction has a larger amount of melting. Millet teaches a similar process of manufacture wherein etchant is used to remove metal, c 2 ln 7-9. Therefore, because Millet teaches a similar manufacturing process, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed structure to result.
Additionally, Millet teaches that metallic elements may be provided to reinforce the physical structure of the polymeric body, wherein the size, shape and distribution of metallic elements can substantially affect properties of the catheter such as ease with which the tube can be bent and resistance of the tube to kinking and collapse during use, c 1 ln 24-29. Therefore, the size and shape of the linear member is a result effective variable in that changing the size and shape of the linear member affects properties of the catheter including flexibility and resistance to kinking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the catheter of Millet in view of Ross as claimed as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding claim 18, Millet in view of Ross teaches the catheter according to claim 12.
Millet does not teach wherein the width of the linear member gradually decreases from the inner side of the linear member to the outer side of the linear member.
However, Applicant teaches in P0042 that the claimed shape (trapezoidal) is a result of the manufacturing process wherein the outer side in the radial direction has a larger amount of melting. Millet teaches a similar process of manufacture wherein etchant is used to remove metal, c 2 ln 7-9. Therefore, because Millet teaches a similar manufacturing process, one of ordinary skill in the art would expect the claimed structure to result.
Additionally, Millet teaches that metallic elements may be provided to reinforce the physical structure of the polymeric body, wherein the size, shape and distribution of metallic elements can substantially affect properties of the catheter such as ease with which the tube can be bent and resistance of the tube to kinking and collapse during use, c 1 ln 24-29. Therefore, the size and shape of the linear member is a result effective variable in that changing the size and shape of the linear member affects properties of the catheter including flexibility and resistance to kinking. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the catheter of Millet in view of Ross as claimed as a matter of routine optimization, since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millet in view of Ross in view of Migliuolo et al. (Migliuolo) US 2006/0235314 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Millet in view of Ross teaches the catheter according to claim 1, wherein the linear member includes a nickel-cobalt alloy (Ross, see above).
Millet teaches the metallic film/exterior surface electrolessly plated or sputtered with a conductive metal c 1 ln 53-54, but does not explicitly teach wherein the metallic film includes silver.
However, Migliuolo teaches a medical device wherein sputterable conductors include silver, P0080.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the film of Millet to silver as taught by Migliuolo as a simple substitution of one known metal (Millet, a metal with examples provided to include copper or a copper-based alloy) for another (Migliuolo, silver) to obtain predictable results of a conductive metal, see MPEP 2143, wherein Millet teaches that a conductive metal may then be electroplated, Millet c 1 ln 53-55. Millet contained a catheter which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of the material of the metallic film to include silver. Silver as a metallic film that may be deposited by sputtering and its function as a metal that can then be electroplated is well known in the art as demonstrated by Migliuolo P0080. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known metallic film for silver, and the results would have been predictable because silver is a known metallic material that is conductive.
Claims 6, 11, 14 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millet in view of Ross in view of Kanemasa et al. (Kanemasa) US 2016/0051796 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Millet in view of Ross teaches the catheter according to claim 1.
Millet teaches that the catheter body 10 is a polymer layer in c 2 ln 43.
Millet does not teach wherein the hollow shaft comprises: an inner layer made of PTFE; and an intermediate layer that is provided on an outer periphery of the inner layer and is made of PAE.
However, Kanemasa teaches a catheter comprising: an inner layer made of PTFE (inner layer 22 made of PTFE, P0059); and an intermediate layer (layer 34 of outer layer 38, P0061 and shown in Fig. 2 to include layers 34 and 36) that is provided on an outer periphery of the inner layer and is made of PAE (PAE, P0061).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the catheter of Millet with a PTFE liner for the purpose of supplying a medicinal solution or reducing sliding resistance within the lumen as taught by Kanemasa P0059, and to modify the polymer layer of Millet with PAE for the purpose of proving a specific type of polymer material for a catheter having a PTFE liner.
Regarding claim 11, Millet in view of Ross teaches the catheter according to claim 8.
Millet teaches that the catheter body 10 is a polymer layer in c 2 ln 43.
Millet does not teach wherein the hollow shaft comprises: an inner layer made of PTFE; and an intermediate layer that is provided on an outer periphery of the inner layer and is made of PAE.
However, Kanemasa teaches a catheter comprising: an inner layer made of PTFE (inner layer 22 made of PTFE, P0059); and an intermediate layer (layer 34 of outer layer 38, P0061 and shown in Fig. 2 to include layers 34 and 36) that is provided on an outer periphery of the inner layer and is made of PAE (PAE, P0061).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the catheter of Millet with a PTFE liner for the purpose of supplying a medicinal solution or reducing sliding resistance within the lumen as taught by Kanemasa P0059, and to modify the polymer layer of Millet with PAE for the purpose of proving a specific type of polymer material for a catheter having a PTFE liner.
Regarding claim 14, Millet in view of Ross teaches the catheter according to claim 12.
Millet does not teach wherein the hollow shaft comprises: an inner layer made of PTFE; and an intermediate layer that is provided on an outer periphery of the inner layer and is made of PAE.
However, Kanemasa teaches a catheter comprising: an inner layer made of PTFE (inner layer 22 made of PTFE, P0059); and an intermediate layer (layer 34 of outer layer 38, P0061 and shown in Fig. 2 to include layers 34 and 36) that is provided on an outer periphery of the inner layer and is made of PAE (PAE, P0061).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the catheter of Millet with a PTFE liner for the purpose of supplying a medicinal solution or reducing sliding resistance within the lumen as taught by Kanemasa P0059, and to modify the polymer layer of Millet with PAE for the purpose of proving a specific type of polymer material for a catheter having a PTFE liner.
Regarding claim 16, Millet in view of Ross teaches the catheter according to claim 1.
Millet teaches that the catheter body 10 is a polymer layer in c 2 ln 43.
Millet does not teach wherein the hollow shaft comprises: an inner layer made of PTFE; and an intermediate layer that is provided on an outer periphery of the inner layer and is made of PAE.
However, Kanemasa teaches a catheter comprising: an inner layer made of PTFE (inner layer 22 made of PTFE, P0059); and an intermediate layer (layer 34 of outer layer 38, P0061 and shown in Fig. 2 to include layers 34 and 36) that is provided on an outer periphery of the inner layer and is made of PAE (PAE, P0061).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the catheter of Millet with a PTFE liner for the purpose of supplying a medicinal solution or reducing sliding resistance within the lumen as taught by Kanemasa P0059, and to modify the polymer layer of Millet with PAE for the purpose of proving a specific type of polymer material for a catheter having a PTFE liner.
Regarding claim 17, Millet in view of Ross teaches the catheter according to claim 1.
Millet does not teach wherein the hollow shaft comprises: an inner layer made of PTFE; and an intermediate layer that is provided on an outer periphery of the inner layer and is made of PAE.
However, Kanemasa teaches a catheter comprising: an inner layer made of PTFE (inner layer 22 made of PTFE, P0059); and an intermediate layer (layer 34 of outer layer 38, P0061 and shown in Fig. 2 to include layers 34 and 36) that is provided on an outer periphery of the inner layer and is made of PAE (PAE, P0061).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the catheter of Millet with a PTFE liner for the purpose of supplying a medicinal solution or reducing sliding resistance within the lumen as taught by Kanemasa P0059, and to modify the polymer layer of Millet with PAE for the purpose of proving a specific type of polymer material for a catheter having a PTFE liner.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millet in view of Ross in view of Whitebook et al. (Whitebook) US 2002/0095198 A1.
Regarding claim 20, Millet in view of Ross teaches the catheter according to claim 1.
Millet teaches the metallic film/exterior surface electrolessly plated or sputtered with a conductive metal c 1 ln 53-54, but does not explicitly teach wherein the metallic film includes stainless steel.
However, Whitebook teaches a catheter wherein stainless steel is applied as a thin film to a non-conductive substrate by sputtering, P0056.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the material of the film of Millet with stainless steel as taught by Whitebook as a simple substitution of one known metal (Millet, a metal with examples that include copper or a copper-based alloy) for another (Whitebook, stainless steel) to obtain predictable results of a conductive metal, see MPEP 21043, wherein Millet teaches that a conductive metal may then be electroplated, Millet c 1 ln 53-55. Millet contained a catheter which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of the material of the metallic film from a non-specific metal with examples including copper or a copper-based alloy to a specific metal stainless steel. Stainless steel as a metallic film that may be deposited by sputtering and its function as a metal that can then be electroplated is well known in the art as demonstrated by Whitebook P0056. One of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known metallic film for stainless steel, and the results would have been predictable because stainless steel is a known metallic material that can be sputtered, is conductive, and can be electroplated because it is a metal.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Millet in view of Ingalls et al. (Ingalls) US 2016/0121077 A1.
Regarding claim 19, Millet discloses a catheter (catheter 10, c 1 ln 47-48) comprising: a hollow shaft (tubular section 12, c 1 ln 48-49); a linear member provided on an outer periphery of the hollow shaft (electroplated portion of the metal layer, c 1 ln 53-56, formed into metal stripes 22, c 2 ln 9); and a metallic film (electrolessly plated or sputtered conductive metal portion of the metal layer, c 1 ln 56-56, formed into metal stripes 22, c 2 ln 9) that is positioned between the outer periphery of the hollow shaft and the linear member and is joined to the outer periphery of the hollow shaft and the linear member (the process of making the catheter described by Millet in c 1 ln 46 to c 2 ln 32, though not identical, mirrors the process of manufacture set forth in applicants P0041-0042, wherein the electrolessly plated or sputtered conductive metal portion of the metal layer is positioned and joined as claimed), wherein the linear member includes: a first linear member (helical metal stripes, c 2 ln 8-9 and shown in Fig. 2) wound helically around the outer periphery of the hollow shaft along an axial direction of the catheter and inclined to one side with respect to an axis of the catheter.
Millet teaches that metallic elements/stripes may may have varying helical pitch, varying width or both along the length of the tube, and may serve as electrical connectors and/or physical reinforcements for the tube wall, see abstract, c 1 ln 23-29, c 2 ln 33-41, and c 2 ln 58-59.
Millet does not teach explicitly teach a second linear member different from the first linear member, the second linear member being wound helically around the outer periphery of the hollow shaft along the axial direction of the catheter and inclined to the other side with respect to the axis of the catheter, and wherein the first linear member and the second linear member intersect each other at a plurality of locations and are integrally formed at the intersecting portions.
However, Ingalls teaches a braid plating for torsional stiffness (P0027 and Fig. 5) having a first linear member (braid wire 32 wound clockwise, P0027 and Fig. 5) wound helically around the outer periphery of the hollow shaft along an axial direction of the catheter and inclined to one side with respect to an axis of the catheter, and a second linear member (braid wire 32 wound counter-clockwise, P0027 and Fig. 5) different from the first linear member, the second linear member being wound helically around the outer periphery of the hollow shaft along the axial direction of the catheter and inclined to the other side with respect to the axis of the catheter, and wherein the first linear member and the second linear member intersect each other at a plurality of locations (points of contact 36, P0027) and are integrally formed at the intersecting portions (via plating 34, P0027).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the structure of the linear member of Millet from helical stripes to a braid pattern for the purpose of increasing the ability of the linear member to transmit torque with connected points of contact as well as to retain flexibility via the unattached lengths of the braid while permitting the use of a small diameter braiding element, Ingalls P0027.
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 JOHN A DOUBRAVA whose telephone number is (408)918-7561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5 Pacific Time.
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, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at 571-272-3383. 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.
/J.A.D./Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/James D Ponton/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Prosecution Insights