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 the Applicant’s arguments
The previous rejection is withdrawn. Applicant’s amendments are entered. Applicant’s remarks are also entered into the record. A new search was made necessitated by the applicant’s amendments.
A new reference was found. A new rejection is made herein.
Applicant’s arguments are now moot in view of the new rejection of the claims.
Claim 1 and 10 are amended to recite and Weinberger is silent but Atom High Tech Co. Ltd teaches “…and configured to be used in a Type A package or a Type B package, under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safety Standards, Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 2012 Edition”. (see abstract and claims 1-4 where the device includes an type A packing device for transporting imported radiopharmaceuticals is characterized in that: from inside to outside, comprises: the protective container comprises an imported radiopharmaceutical protective container, an auxiliary shielding device, an internal buffer layer and an outer packaging shell; the shape of the auxiliary shielding device is matched with that of the radiopharmaceutical protective container, the auxiliary shielding device completely wraps the imported radiopharmaceutical protective container, and an internal buffer layer is arranged between the auxiliary shielding device and the outer packaging shell; the auxiliary shielding device is divided into an inner layer and an outer layer, the outer layer is a stainless steel shell, the inner layer is a lead shielding layer, and the two layers are fixedly attached and installed”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of ATOM HIGH TECH CO. LTD with the disclosure of WEINBERGER with a reasonable expectation of success since the packaging disclosed can include a package that is a type A package that can satisfy the requirements for shipping of the radioactive material safety. The package has a radiopharmaceutical protective container and the auxiliary shielding device, the internal buffer layer and the outer packaging shell; the shape of the auxiliary shielding device is matched with that of the radiopharmaceutical protective container, the radiopharmaceutical protective container is completely wrapped, and an internal buffer layer is arranged between the auxiliary shielding device and the outer packaging shell; with the auxiliary shielding device is divided into an inner layer and an outer layer, the outer layer is a stainless steel shell, the inner layer is a lead shielding layer, and the two layers are fixedly attached and installed. This can provide a safe operation and a protective layer around the device safe for transport. See paragraph 1-10 and claims 1-5 and the abstract.
The applicant has not amended claim 19. The applicant argues that no portion of claim 19 is within the cited reference. There is no radiation source and no shielding device. The office has cited to the abstract; figures paragraphs 90,93-094 paragraph 276 and Table 4 and 59, 93, 128, 154-162 where the isotopes can also be used. The office also cites to paragraph 101-109 where the device is shield and then removed for exposure in the extended position and then removed and retracted.
First, the reference clearly states in paragraph 93 that HF 175 is an alternative. This is a radiation source that is used and is the same as in claim 19.
Second, the radiation shield is also clearly disclosed. In paragraph 44, this can be a movable radiation shield. It can be moved between a protecting configuration and a non protecting configuration to irradiate the area of interest. This is well known in the art. Doing this when it is active or in the stored position is intended use. The applicant cannot argue intended use which has little patentable weight and forms no structural limitations to the claim. If there are structural limitations for the packaging the applicant should claim them.
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.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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. The claims recite a source of radioactive material. This appears to be an apparatus claim that is configured to be used in a type a or type b structure. This appears to be “configured to be used” however there are not further steps and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to discern the metes and bounds of the apparatus claim that is configured to be used in a packaging structure. There is no structure and intended use forms little patentable weight if any.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2001/037046 A1 to WEINBERGER filed in 2001 and in view of Chinese Patent Pub. No.: CN210575138U to Atom High Tech Company LTD filed in 2019 (hereinafter “Atom High Tech”).
Weinberger discloses “...1. (Original) A gamma radiography source comprising an encapsulated quantity of at least 10 Ci of Hafnium-175 (Hf-175). (See paragraph 186, 17 and abstract; figures paragraphs 90,93-094 paragraph 276 and Table 4)
Claim 1 and 10 are amended to recite and Weinberger is silent but Atom High Tech Co. Ltd teaches “…and configured to be used in a Type A package or a Type B package, under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safety Standards, Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 2012 Edition”. (see abstract and claims 1-4 where the device includes an type A packing device for transporting imported radiopharmaceuticals is characterized in that: from inside to outside, comprises: the protective container comprises an imported radiopharmaceutical protective container, an auxiliary shielding device, an internal buffer layer and an outer packaging shell; the shape of the auxiliary shielding device is matched with that of the radiopharmaceutical protective container, the auxiliary shielding device completely wraps the imported radiopharmaceutical protective container, and an internal buffer layer is arranged between the auxiliary shielding device and the outer packaging shell; the auxiliary shielding device is divided into an inner layer and an outer layer, the outer layer is a stainless steel shell, the inner layer is a lead shielding layer, and the two layers are fixedly attached and installed”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of ATOM HIGH TECH CO. LTD with the disclosure of WEINBERGER with a reasonable expectation of success since the packaging disclosed can include a package that is a type A package that can satisfy the requirements for shipping of the radioactive material safety. The package has a radiopharmaceutical protective container and the auxiliary shielding device, the internal buffer layer and the outer packaging shell; the shape of the auxiliary shielding device is matched with that of the radiopharmaceutical protective container, the radiopharmaceutical protective container is completely wrapped, and an internal buffer layer is arranged between the auxiliary shielding device and the outer packaging shell; with the auxiliary shielding device is divided into an inner layer and an outer layer, the outer layer is a stainless steel shell, the inner layer is a lead shielding layer, and the two layers are fixedly attached and installed. This can provide a safe operation and a protective layer around the device safe for transport. See paragraph 1-10 and claims 1-5 and the abstract.
PNG
media_image1.png
396
962
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Weinberger discloses “...2. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 1, wherein the quantity of Hf-175 comprises a plurality of stacked disks of at least one of metallic Hf-175, an alloy of Hf-175, or a compound containing Hf-175. (See paragraph 129 and 291-293 where the radiation source is shown as disks in FIG. 8 and elements 8d-8f and see abstract; figures paragraphs 90,93-094 paragraph 276, 34-40 and Table 4)”.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Weinberger and in view of United States Patent No.: US11116992B2 to Shilton filed in 2019 and in view of Atom Tech.
Weinberger discloses “...3. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 1, wherein the quantity of Hf-175 comprises a plurality of stacked disks (See paragraph 291-293 where the radiation source is shown as disks in FIG. 8 and elements 8d-8f and see abstract; figures paragraphs 90,93-094 paragraph 276 and Table 4 and 36-39 where the radiation material can be bonded together and then to a plastic material)”.
Shilton teaches “...of at least one of a refractory material including Hf-175, a composite material including Hf-175, or a cermet including Hf-175”. (see claims 1-20 where an alloy can be provided or as a composite material)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of WEINBERGER with the teachings of SHILTON with a reasonable expectation of success since SHILITON teaches that a gamma radiation source can be provided in a composite or as an alloy. This can be mechanically compressed together or as an alloy which can provide a higher activation yield or that can provide a ductile property. See col. 1, line 2 to Col. 2, line 60.
Shilton teaches “...4. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 1, further comprising a material which emits complementary gamma emissions to the quantity of Hf-175”. (see object of the invention where 1. developing a deformable and/or compressible low density iridium alloy containing 30-85% (volume percentage) Iridium, preferably in the range of 30-70%, more preferably in the range of 40-60%. 2. the alloying constituents ideally or typically should not irradiate to produce other radionuclides that generate interfering gamma rays. 3. the alloying constituents ideally or typically should not have excessively high density or high neutron activation cross-section, which could decrease the activation yield or decrease the source-output yield of Iridium-192. 4. the alloying constituents ideally or typically should produce an alloy that is workable in that the alloy needs to be sufficiently ductile/deformable/compressible whereas pure iridium and most of its alloys are brittle and unworkable; the alloy ideally or typically should preferably have a lower melting point than pure iridium (a melting point less than 2000 degrees Centigrade would be desirable to lower processing costs and simplify thermal technologies); and the alloy ideally or typically should be substantially physicochemically inert (i.e., it does not oxidize/corrode/decompose under conditions of manufacture or use).)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of WEINBERGER with the teachings of SHILTON with a reasonable expectation of success since SHILITON teaches that a gamma radiation source can be provided in a composite or as an alloy. This can be mechanically compressed together or as an alloy which can provide a higher activation yield or that can provide a ductile property. See col. 1, line 2 to Col. 2, line 60.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2001/037046 A1 to WEINBERGER filed in 2001 and in view of Atom Tech.
Weinberger discloses “..5. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 1, wherein the quantity of Hf-175 is formed as at least one of stacked disks, microspheres, pressed pellets, coiled wires, annuli, or profiled disks. (see paragraph 93 where it can be coiled wire or pellet)”.
Weinberger discloses “..6. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 1, wherein the quantity of Hafnium-175 is between 10-500 Ci.” (see paragraph 239-248).
Weinberger discloses “..7. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 6, wherein the quantity of Hafnium-175 is between 10-81 Ci. (see paragraph 239-248).
Weinberger discloses 8. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 7, wherein the quantity of Hafnium-175 is between 40-81 Ci.” (see paragraph 239-248 and 186 where each seed is 20 mCi activity and 2-3 are envisioned)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of Weinberger and in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2019/0295736 A1 to Vose and in view of Atom Tech.
Vose teaches “...9. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 1, wherein the quantity of Hf-175 is encapsulated in a welded metallic capsule. (see paragraph 29)”.
PNG
media_image2.png
688
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the disclosure of WEINBERGER with the teachings of VOSE with a reasonable expectation of success since VOSE teaches that a gamma radiation source can be provided in a bead configuration within an encapsulated material. This can provide a high output without increasing the dimension and focal dimension. t is envisioned that embodiments of the present disclosure could increase Iridium-192 output efficiency, perhaps in the range of 11-17 percent, particularly if sources could be made using 50 to 65 percent dense iridium with spherical geometry. This could further result in a reduction of 11 to 17 percent in Iridium-192 source content and annual consumption. Additionally, the softer output spectrum combined with near-spherical focal dimension could result in image quality approaching that of enriched Iridium-192 sources. It is further envisioned that this could potentially lead to an increased activation yield of 7-11 percent and as much as an overall 18-28 percent efficiency gain. See paragraph 1-9.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2001/037046 A1 to WEINBERGER filed in 2001 and in view of Atom Tech.
Weinberger discloses “...10. (Original) A gamma radiography source comprising a quantity of at least 10 Ci of Hf- 175 formed by neutron-irradiating enriched (see paragraph 244-246) Hafnium-174 (Hf-174)”. (See abstract; figures paragraphs 90,93-094 paragraph 276 and Table 4)
Claim 1 and 10 are amended to recite and Weinberger is silent but Atom High Tech Co. Ltd teaches “…and configured to be used in a Type A package or a Type B package, under the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Safety Standards, Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 2012 Edition”. (see abstract and claims 1-4 where the device includes an type A packing device for transporting imported radiopharmaceuticals is characterized in that: from inside to outside, comprises: the protective container comprises an imported radiopharmaceutical protective container, an auxiliary shielding device, an internal buffer layer and an outer packaging shell; the shape of the auxiliary shielding device is matched with that of the radiopharmaceutical protective container, the auxiliary shielding device completely wraps the imported radiopharmaceutical protective container, and an internal buffer layer is arranged between the auxiliary shielding device and the outer packaging shell; the auxiliary shielding device is divided into an inner layer and an outer layer, the outer layer is a stainless steel shell, the inner layer is a lead shielding layer, and the two layers are fixedly attached and installed”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of ATOM HIGH TECH CO. LTD with the disclosure of WEINBERGER with a reasonable expectation of success since the packaging disclosed can include a package that is a type A package that can satisfy the requirements for shipping of the radioactive material safety. The package has a radiopharmaceutical protective container and the auxiliary shielding device, the internal buffer layer and the outer packaging shell; the shape of the auxiliary shielding device is matched with that of the radiopharmaceutical protective container, the radiopharmaceutical protective container is completely wrapped, and an internal buffer layer is arranged between the auxiliary shielding device and the outer packaging shell; with the auxiliary shielding device is divided into an inner layer and an outer layer, the outer layer is a stainless steel shell, the inner layer is a lead shielding layer, and the two layers are fixedly attached and installed. This can provide a safe operation and a protective layer around the device safe for transport. See paragraph 1-10 and claims 1-5 and the abstract.
Weinberger discloses “...11. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 10, wherein the quantity of Hf-174 comprises a plurality of stacked disks of at least one of neutron-irradiated, enriched metallic Hf-174 or a neutron-irradiated, enriched alloy of Hf-174. . (See paragraph 291-293 where the radiation source is shown as disks on either side in FIG. 8 and elements 8d-8f and see abstract; figures paragraphs 90,93-094 paragraph 276 and Table 4)”.
Weinberger discloses “...12. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 10, wherein the quantity of Hf-174 comprises a plurality of stacked disks of at least one of a neutron-irradiated, (See paragraph 244-246 and 291-293 where the radiation source is shown as disks in FIG. 8 and elements 8d-8f and see abstract; figures paragraphs 90,93-094 paragraph 276 and Table 4)”.
Shilton teaches “...enriched refractory material including Hf-174, a neutron-irradiated, enriched composite material including Hf-174, a neutron-irradiated, enriched cermet including Hf-174, or a neutron- irradiated, enriched compound including Hf-174”. (see claims 1-20 where an alloy can be provided or as a composite material)
Shilton teaches “...13. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 10, further comprising a material which emits complementary gamma emissions to the quantity of neutron-irradiated, enriched Hf-174. (see object of the invention where 1. developing a deformable and/or compressible low density iridium alloy containing 30-85% (volume percentage) Iridium, preferably in the range of 30-70%, more preferably in the range of 40-60%. 2. the alloying constituents ideally or typically should not irradiate to produce other radionuclides that generate interfering gamma rays. 3. the alloying constituents ideally or typically should not have excessively high density or high neutron activation cross-section, which could decrease the activation yield or decrease the source-output yield of Iridium-192. 4. the alloying constituents ideally or typically should produce an alloy that is workable in that the alloy needs to be sufficiently ductile/deformable/compressible whereas pure iridium and most of its alloys are brittle and unworkable; the alloy ideally or typically should preferably have a lower melting point than pure iridium (a melting point less than 2000 degrees Centigrade would be desirable to lower processing costs and simplify thermal technologies); and the alloy ideally or typically should be substantially physicochemically inert (i.e., it does not oxidize/corrode/decompose under conditions of manufacture or use).)
Claims 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. sec. 103 as being unpatentable as obvious in view of United States Patent Application Pub. No.: US 2001/037046 A1 to WEINBERGER filed in 2001 and in view of Atom Tech Co. Ltd.
Weinberger discloses “.. 14. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 10, wherein the quantity of neutron-irradiated, enriched Hf-174 is formed as at least one of stacked disks, microspheres, pressed pellets, coiled wires, annuli, or profiled disks. (see paragraph 93 where it can be coiled wire or pellet)”.
Weinberger discloses “..15. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 10, wherein the quantity of neutron-irradiated, enriched Hf-174 comprises at least one of stacked disks, microspheres, pressed pellets, coiled wires, annuli, or profiled disks, which are encapsulated in a sealed capsule. (see paragraph 93 where it can be coiled wire or pellet)”.
Weinberger discloses “..16. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 10, wherein the quantity of neutron-irradiated, enriched Hf-174 is enriched to at least 40% Hf-174, and Hf-180 in the gamma radiography source is less than 5%.” (see paragraph 239-248).
The office takes official notice that an isotope can be HF 180. See Ukraine Patent Pub. UA159178U.
Weinberger discloses “17. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 10, wherein the quantity of neutron-irradiated, enriched Hf-174 is enriched to at least 40% Hf-174, and Hf-180 in the gamma radiography source is less than 2%. (see paragraph 239-248 and 59, 93, 128, 154-162 where the isotopes can also be used).
Weinberger discloses “18. (Original) The gamma radiography source as defined in claim 10, wherein the quantity of neutron-irradiated, enriched Hf-174 is enriched to at least 40% Hf-174, and Hf-180 in the gamma radiography source is less than 0.5%. (see paragraph 239-248 and 59, 93, 128, 154-162 where the isotopes can also be used)).
Weinberger discloses “19. (Original) A gamma radiation exposure device, comprising:
a gamma radiation source comprising a quantity of Hf-175; and (See abstract; figures paragraphs 90,93-094 paragraph 276 and Table 4 and 59, 93, 128, 154-162 where the isotopes can also be used))
a shielding device configured to attenuate gamma radiation emitted by the gamma radiation source while the gamma radiation source is in a stored position, and configured to allow the gamma radiation source to be moved to an exposed position for gamma radiation exposure”. (see paragraph 101-109 where the device is shield and then removed for exposure in the extended position and then removed and retracted)
Weinberger discloses “20. (Original) The gamma radiation exposure device as defined in claim 19, wherein the shielding device meets the requirements of a Type A package under the International Atomic Energy Agency Safety Standards, Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material, 2012 Edition. (see paragraph 300-304 where a lead is provided to protect the doctor and staff)”.
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 JEAN PAUL CASS whose telephone number is (571)270-1934. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 7 am to 7 pm; Saturday 10 am to 12 noon.
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, Scott A. Browne can be reached at 571-270-0151. 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.
/JEAN PAUL CASS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3666
Prosecution Insights