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 . Claims included in the prosecution are claims 21-30 and 32-43.
Applicants' arguments, filed 11/03/2025, have been fully considered. Rejections and/or objections not reiterated from previous office actions are hereby withdrawn. The following rejections and/or objections are either reiterated or newly applied. They constitute the complete set presently being applied to the instant application.
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.
1. Claims 21-30 and 35-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll et al. (US 2009/0117087, May 7, 2009) (hereinafter Carroll), as evidenced by Physics Experiments (Evaporation of Water and Ethanol Aug, 3, 2022) and Ansari et al. (US 2019/0117840, Apr. 25, 2019) (hereinafter Ansari).
Carroll discloses an ink composition useful for making scaffolds comprising (a) nanoparticles (e.g., from 0.1, 0.5 or 1 percent by weight up to 10, 20 or 50 percent by weigh); (b) polymer (e.g., from 1, 2 or 3 percent by weight up to 40, 50 or 60 percent by weight); (c) a solvent (e.g., from 1 or 5 percent by weight up to 60 or 80 percent by weight) (¶ [0047]-[0050]). Suitable nanoparticles include ceramics, such as hydroxyapatite (i.e., claimed bioactive ceramic particles). Suitable polymers include polycaprolactone (i.e., claimed biocompatible polymer binder) (i.e., claimed degradable polyester) (i.e., claimed elastomeric polymer) (i.e., claimed biodegradable polymer) (¶ [0041]). The nanoparticles may be coupled to other agents (e.g., proteins, peptides, antibodies) (i.e., claimed bioactive factor) depending upon the particular application thereof (¶ [0039]). The solvent may be any suitable solvent or combination thereof as is known in the art (¶ [0042]). Suitable solvents include water (¶ [0042]), DCM and DMF (Table A). The polymer is dissolved in the solvent (¶ [0100]). The nanoparticles are suspended in the composition (¶ [0056]). The composition preferably has a viscosity of from about 1 or 2 centipoise up to 60, 80, 100, or 200 centipoise or more (¶ [0056]).
Carroll differs from the instant claims insofar as not explicitly disclosing wherein the ink comprises at least 70 weight percent of the bioactive ceramic particles and 10 weight percent to 30 weight percent of the biocompatible polymer binder based on the total combined weight of the bioactive ceramic particles and the biocompatible polymer binder.
However, Carroll discloses wherein the ink comprises 0.1 to 50 percent by weight nanoparticles and 1 to 60 percent by weight polymer. The claimed amounts would have been obvious from the ranges disclosed by Carroll since the amounts of nanoparticles and polymer based on the total combined weight of nanoparticles and polymer derived from these ranges overlaps with the claimed amounts. For example, the composition may comprise 9 percent nanoparticles and 1 percent polymer such that the ink comprises 90% nanoparticles and 10% polymer based on the total combined weight of nanoparticles and polymer, which overlaps with the claimed amount. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 A.
In regards to instant claims 21 and 42 reciting a mixture of a solution and dispersion, the solution comprising a biocompatible polymer binder dissolved in a first solvent and the dispersion comprising a bioactive ceramic particle dispersed in a second solvent; since the solution and the dispersion are mixed together to form the ink, the ink produced does not have the solution and dispersion separated. Thus, the claimed invention is structurally an ink comprising a polymer, a ceramic particle, a first solvent, and a second solvent mixed together. Carroll discloses wherein the solvent may be a combination of solvents. Thus, Carroll discloses a first solvent and a second solvent. Since the polymer and the ceramic particle of Carroll are in an ink composition with a first solvent and a second solvent, the polymer and the ceramic particle would be dissolved or dispersed in one of the solvents.
In regards to instant claims 21 and 42 reciting wherein the bioactive ceramic particles are coated by the solubilized polymeric binder, since the first solvent, second solvent, polymer, and ceramic particles are all mixed together in Carroll, as discussed above, the polymer would be dissolved by one of the solvents and subsequently coated over the ceramic particles in the composition. The instant claims do not recite how much of the ceramic particles are coated. Therefore, even a small amount of dissolved polymer within the composition contacting the ceramic particles meets a coated ceramic particle.
In regards to instant claims 21 and 42 reciting a solvent system evaporable at room temperature, as evidenced by Physics Experiments, evaporation occurs at every temperature at which the given substance is liquid. Thus, since solvents are liquids at room temperature, the solvents of Carroll are evaporable at room temperature. The instant claims do not recite how much solvent has to evaporate within a particular time frame. Therefore, the solvents of Carroll meet the claim limitation since even a small amount of solvent evaporated after a lengthy time frame meets the claim limitation of evaporable at room temperature.
In regards to instant claims 21 and 42 reciting a viscous paste, Carroll discloses a viscosity of from about 1 or 2 centipoise up to 60, 80, 100, or 200 centipoise or more. As evidenced by Ansari, a paste may have a viscosity of between 100 cP and 30x106 cP (¶ [0039]). As such, the composition of Carroll is a paste.
In regards to instant claims 21, 39 and 42 reciting wherein the ink is maintained at room temperature through extrusion, forming one or more porous fibers comprising a microstructure comprising a continuous matrix of the biocompatible polymer binder with intra fiber pores in a range from about 1 µm to about 10 µm and the bioactive ceramic particles dispersed throughout the microstructure; the claimed invention is a solvent-based ink and not a porous fiber that is formed from extruding the solvent-based ink. Therefore, the recitation of extruding the ink at room temperature to form one or more porous fibers is merely a recitation of the intended use of the ink. The composition of Carroll comprises substantially the same components (e.g., hydroxyapatite, polycaprolactone, and solvent) in substantially the same amount as the claimed composition. Therefore, the composition of Carroll would be usable to form one or more porous fibers comprising a microstructure comprising a continuous matrix of the biocompatible polymer binder with intra fiber pores in a range from about 1 µm to about 10 µm and the bioactive ceramic particles dispersed throughout the microstructure through extrusion of the ink at room temperature whether the prior art discloses such use or not.
In regards to instant claim 22 reciting at least one bioactive factor dissolved in the first solvent of the solution, Carroll discloses wherein other agents (e.g., proteins, peptides, antibodies) are coupled to the nanoparticles. Carroll discloses wherein the ink may comprise 80 percent solvent. Thus, since the ink may comprise mostly of the solvent, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the other agents would be dissolved when the nanoparticles and the solvent are mixed to form the ink.
In regards to instant claim 29 reciting at least one bioactive factor without heat induced degradation by being maintained at room temperature, Carroll does not disclose wherein heat is used to formulate the ink. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the bioactive factors added to the ink of Carroll are maintained at room temperature.
In regards to instant claims 35-38, the claimed recitation “can be” is merely a functional recitation requiring the ability to fulfill that function; the claim does not require, however, that function to actually occur. Accordingly, since the ink of Carroll comprises substantially the same bioactive ceramic particle (e.g., hydroxyapatite) and in substantially the same amount as the claimed invention, and also comprise substantially the same biocompatible polymer binder (e.g., polycaprolactone) as the claimed invention, the ink of Carroll can be extruded as a continuous flexible or elastic fiber having a diameter in the range of about 200 µm through a 3D printer nozzle having a diameter equal to or greater than 100 µm or equal to or greater than 400 µm, wherein the elastic fiber can be elastically deformed by a compressive load and then return to its original shape upon loading like the claimed invention.
2. Claims 32 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll et al. (US 2009/0117087, May 7, 2009) (hereinafter Carroll) in view of Schwarz et al. (US 2003/0236513, Dec. 25, 2003) (hereinafter Schwarz) and Hughes et al. (US 2002/0103538, Aug. 1, 2002) (hereinafter Hughes).
The teachings of Carroll are discussed above. Carroll do not disclose wherein the ink comprises a mixture of dichloromethane, 2-butoxyethanol, and dibutylphthalate.
However, Schwarz discloses a method of making a therapeutic-agent-releasing medical device. The method comprising providing a solvent (¶ [0010]). Suitable solvents include one or more of dichloromethane and dibutyl phthalate (¶ [0062]).
Hughes discloses porous polymers for implanted devices (abstract). Solvents used to introduce porosity include 2-butoxyethanol (Table 1).
Generally, it is prima facie obvious to select a known material for incorporation into a composition, based on its recognized suitability for its intended use. See MPEP 2144.07. Carroll discloses wherein the solvent may be any suitable combination of solvents known in the art. Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated a mixture of dichloromethane, 2-butoxyethanol, and dibutylphthalate (i.e., claimed plasticizer) into the ink of Carroll since the ink comprises combinations of solvents known in the art and dichloromethane, 2-butoxyethanol, and dibutylphthalate are known solvents in the art as taught by Schwarz and Hughes.
3. Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll et al. (US 2009/0117087, May 7, 2009) (hereinafter Carroll) in view of Lewis et al. (US 2010/0096596, Apr. 22, 2010) (hereinafter Lewis).
The teachings of Carroll are discussed above. Carroll do not disclose wherein the hydroxyapatite particles (i.e., claimed bioactive ceramic particles) have a diameter in the range of 5 µm to 20 µm.
However, Lewis discloses a biphasic ink comprising a plurality of attractive particles, a plurality of repulsive particles, and carrier liquid (abstract). The attractive particles or repulsive particles may be ceramics (claim 12). Ceramics include hydroxyapatite (¶ [0065]). The particles have an average effective diameter of 1 nanometer to 100 microns (¶ [0079]).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have the diameter of the hydroxyapatite particles of Carroll be 1 nanometer to 100 microns since Carroll does not require a particular diameter and this is a known and effective alternate size for hydroxyapatite particles used in ink compositions as taught by Lewis.
4. Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Carroll et al. (US 2009/0117087, May 7, 2009) (hereinafter Carroll) in view of Benkhoff et al. (US 2007/0249484, Oct. 25, 2007) (hereinafter Benkhoff).
The teachings of Carroll are discussed above. Carroll do not disclose wherein the composition has a viscosity of approximately 25 Pas.
However, Benkhoff discloses a printing ink with a viscosity of 1 to 100 Pa·s (¶ [0255]).
Accordingly, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have formulated the ink of Carroll to have a viscosity of 1 to 100 Pa·s since Carroll discloses wherein the viscosity may be more than 200 centipoise and a viscosity of 1 to 100 Pa·s is a known and effective viscosity for ink compositions as taught by Benkhoff.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that the separate application of a first solvent to a polymer binder places the binder in a condition (i.e., solubilized polymeric binder) (i.e., the solution) that is not otherwise reached should the entire combination be mixed.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Applicant has not shown wherein this is true. Paragraphs [0060] and [0071] of the application does not provide an explanation. Since the first solvent, second solvent, polymer, and ceramic particles are all mixed together, the polymer would be dissolved by one of the solvents and subsequently coated over the ceramic particles in the composition. The instant claims do not recite how much of the ceramic particles are coated. Therefore, even a small amount of dissolved polymer within the composition contacting the ceramic particles meets a coated ceramic particle. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that under the presently claimed arrangement, the ceramic particles are coated to allow for a colloidal dispersion to increase the viability and printability of the ink with high particle loading. None of the cited references address this coated arrangement.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Applicant has not explained why coated ceramic particles cannot be achieved by mixing all the components together. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the cited references, alone or combined, do not support the claimed solvent system, or arrangement thereof in view of the amended claims.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. As discussed in the rejection, since the solution and the dispersion are mixed together to form the ink, the ink produced does not have the solution and dispersion separated. Thus, the claimed invention is structurally an ink comprising a polymer, a ceramic particle, a first solvent, and a second solvent mixed together. Carroll discloses wherein the solvent may be a combination of solvents. Thus, Carroll discloses a first solvent and a second solvent. Since the polymer and the ceramic particle of Carroll are in an ink composition with a first solvent and a second solvent, the polymer and the ceramic particle would be dissolved or dispersed in one of the solvents. Further, since the first solvent, second solvent, polymer, and ceramic particles are all mixed together in Carroll, the polymer would be dissolved by one of the solvents and subsequently coated over the ceramic particles in the composition. The instant claims do not recite how much of the ceramic particles are coated. Therefore, even a small amount of dissolved polymer within the composition contacting the ceramic particles meets a coated ceramic particle. As such, the claimed limitations are met and Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Carroll does not explain how its ink would otherwise support a scaffold structure in its liquid form at room temperature, let alone support a fiber as presently claimed.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Carroll discloses in claim 16 ink jet printing a scaffold. Carroll further discloses in paragraph [0096] printing fibers. Therefore, the composition of Carroll does support a scaffold structure, such as a fiber. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that in no instantance does Carroll teach an ink of the present composition that is maintained at room temperature through extrusion as recited as a property of said ink or an ink that is a viscous paste mixture with solvent system evaporable at room temperature, as presently claimed.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Carroll does teach a viscous paste mixture with solvent system evaporable at room temperature. Carroll discloses wherein the ink composition may have a viscosity from about 1 or 2 centipoise up to 60, 80, 100, or 200 centipoise or more. As evidenced by Ansari, a paste may have a viscosity of between 100 cP and 30x106 cP (¶ [0039]). As such, the composition of Carroll is a paste. As evidenced by Physics Experiments, evaporation occurs at every temperature at which the given substance is liquid. Thus, since solvents are liquids at room temperature, the solvents of Carroll are evaporable at room temperature. Moreover, as discussed in the rejection, in regards to instant claims 21 and 42 reciting wherein the ink is maintained at room temperature through extrusion, the claimed invention is a solvent-based ink and not a porous fiber that is formed from extruding the solvent-based ink. Therefore, the recitation of extruding the ink at room temperature to form one or more porous fibers is merely a recitation of the intended use of the ink. The composition of Carroll comprises substantially the same components (e.g., hydroxyapatite, polycaprolactone, and solvent) in substantially the same amount as the claimed composition. Therefore, the composition of Carroll would be usable to form one or more porous fibers through extrusion of the ink at room temperature whether the prior art discloses such use or not. Therefore, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive and the rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that it has not been cited any comparable form of printing at room temperature, only the mere possibility of such.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Applicant’s recitation of printing at room temperature is merely a recitation of the intended use of the claimed ink. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In the instant case, the composition of the prior art does not appear to be structurally different than the claimed invention. As discussed above, the composition of Carroll comprises substantially the same components (e.g., hydroxyapatite, polycaprolactone, and solvent) in substantially the same amount as the claimed composition. Therefore, the composition of Carroll would be usable to form one or more porous fibers through extrusion of the ink at room temperature whether the prior art discloses such use or not. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the ink of Carroll does not comprise substantially the same properties as the ink presently recited.
The Examiner does not fin Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Applicant has not explained why the ink of Carroll would not have substantially the same properties as the claimed ink. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Carroll does not teach incorporating at least one bioactive factor into the ink and only teaches applying such to the scaffold once formed. Therefore, Carroll does not teach an ink with at least one bioactive factor dissolved in the first solvent of the solution.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Carroll discloses in paragraph [0072] wherein nanoparticles can be formed of a polymer such as a biodegradable polymer that contain an active agent to be released into the scaffold. Carroll discloses in paragraphs [0047]-[0050] an ink comprising nanoparticles dispersed in a solvent. Thus, since nanoparticles are formed with an active agent and nanoparticles are dispersed in an ink with a solvent, Carroll does teach an ink with a least one bioactive factor (i.e., active agent) dissolved in a first solvent. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the statement “the ink optionally comprises live cells” is unsupported.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Paragraph [0051] of Carroll specifically discloses that the ink comprises (d) optionally, live cells. Thus, the ink itself may have live cells. Also, a prior art reference is evaluated for all that it reasonably suggests. Therefore, although there may be other embodiments within Carroll wherein live cells or active agents are not in the ink, this does not mean that one would not be motivated to have an ink comprise live cells or active agents especially when Carroll discloses such. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that Carroll only teaches a thermal inkjet process at 300°C. Carroll fails to support an ink formed at, and operable at, room temperature for forming a fiber.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Carroll discloses in paragraph [0057] wherein thermal ink-jet printing is preferred. Thus, thermal ink-jet printing is not required since it is merely preferred and the ink of Carroll may be printed without heat. As discussed in the rejection, the recitation of extruding the ink at room temperature to form one or more porous fibers is merely a recitation of the intended use of the ink. The composition of Carroll comprises substantially the same components (e.g., hydroxyapatite, polycaprolactone, and solvent) in substantially the same amount as the claimed composition. Therefore, the composition of Carroll would be usable to form one or more porous fibers through extrusion of the ink at room temperature. Applicant has not shown wherein the ink of Carroll would be incapable of forming a fiber at room temperature. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that it has not been cited any comparable form of printing at room temperature, only the mere possibility of such.
The Examiner submits that this argument has been addressed above and is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that the office fails to illustrate how or where the cited references teach the arrangement of a first solvent relative to a second solvent, the conditions under room temperature or, more generally, the solvents form a part of the underlying ink, as recited by claims 32-33.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. As discussed in the rejection, since the solution and the dispersion are mixed together to form the ink, the ink produced does not have the solution and dispersion separated. Thus, the claimed invention is structurally an ink comprising a polymer, a ceramic particle, a first solvent, and a second solvent mixed together. Carroll discloses wherein the solvent may be a combination of solvents. Thus, Carroll discloses a first solvent and a second solvent. Since the polymer and the ceramic particle of Carroll are in an ink composition with a first solvent and a second solvent, the polymer and the ceramic particle would be dissolved or dispersed in one of the solvents. Also, as discussed above, since solvents are liquids and liquids evaporate at all temperatures, the solvents of the prior art are evaporable at room temperature. Furthermore, as discussed in the rejection, Carroll discloses an ink comprising solvents. Thus, Carroll does disclose solvents forming a part of the ink. As such, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Applicant argues that there is no expectation of success of supplanting any of the identified solvents for the solvents of Schwarz or Hughes.
The Examiner does not find Applicant’s argument to be persuasive. Carroll discloses in paragraph [0042] wherein the solvent may be any suitable solvent or combination thereof known in the art and is not limited to the solvents disclosed in the paragraph. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have used the teachings of Schwarz and Hughes for known solvents for the composition of Carroll. Thus, Applicant’s argument is unpersuasive.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21-30 and 32-43 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-7, 10, 14, 16-20, 22, 23, 25 and 31-33 of U.S. Patent No. 11,654,214. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the conflicting claims recite a more specific version of the instant claims (i.e., the conflicting claims recite specific use of the ink) and thus read on the instant claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has not addressed this rejection. Therefore, the rejection is maintained.
Conclusion
Claims 21-30 and 32-43 are rejected.
No claims are allowed.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 TRACY LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5115. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9 am - 5 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, Ali Soroush can be reached at 571-272-9925. 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.
/TRACY LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1614