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 action is entered in response to Applicant's amendment and reply of 12/16/25. The claims 1, 3-21 are pending. The claims 1, 10, 11, and 12 are amended. Claim 21 is new. Claim 2 has been cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 12/16/25 with respect to the drawing objection have been considered but are not persuasive. Applicant argues, the claimed “modulated iris” as recited in claims 10, 11, and 13, is a common structure that is well known by a skilled artisan and provides a description in the specification. Examiner disagrees, as stated in the MPEP 608.02(d), any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. Where the modulated iris is not a common structure known in the art and the operation of the modulated iris cannot be determined based on the description in the specification.
Applicant’s amendment with respect to rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) have been considered and the rejection has been overcome.
Applicant’s amendment has not overcome the double patenting rejection. Where amended claim 1 is unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11596771 in view of Bolduc (US2007/0073389).
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/16/25 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US2022/0323216) in view of Bolduc (US2007/0073389) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant has amended claim 1 to include previously recited limitations of claim 2. Applicant argues, the second bearing 142 in Wu and the retaining nut 141 in Wu do not stop the proximal inner tube 126 of the inner tube assembly 12. Examiner respectfully disagrees, when second bearing 142 is fixedly connected to the proximal inner tube 126, proximal inner tube 126 is restricted from moving in the axial direction, and the axial position of the screw rod 144 is fixed as stated in paragraph [0070]. Where, this restriction is interpreted as the stopping of the proximal inner tube 126. Therefore, the rejection has been maintained.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “modulated iris” as recited in claims 10, 11, and 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “locking element” in claims 1, 3, 10, 12-16, 18, 19 The claim limitation is interpreted as either “clips” or “fork” or “modulated irises” stated in paragraph [0070] of the specification and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “first coupling member” in claim 4. The claim limitation is interpreted as a “lock wire” stated in paragraph [0063] of the specification and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “second locking element” in claim 5, 6, 11, 20. The claim limitation is interpreted as “clips” or “fork” or “modulated irises” stated in paragraph [0070] of the specification and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “second coupling member” in claim 6. The claim limitation is interpreted as a “loop” stated in paragraph [0063] of the specification and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an implant coupling member” in claim 8. The claim limitation is interpreted as a “loop” or “arrowhead” stated in paragraph [0062] of the specification and equivalents thereof.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a spring loaded mechanism” in claims 10-12. The claim limitation is interpreted as a “locking elements… configured as clips…spring loaded” stated in paragraph [0070] of the specification and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of U.S. Patent No. 11596771 in view of Bolduc (US2007/0073389).
Patent ‘771 discloses all limitations of claim 1, except for removing an implant subassembly from a first packaging and removing a handle assembly from a second packaging. Bolduc teaches an endovascular system where various tools and devices comprising the system can be consolidated for use in a multiple piece functional kit 40 ([0052]). Where the kit 40 comprises an assemblage of individual packages comprising a sterile, wrapped, peel-pen assembly ([0053]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to have the implant subassembly and the handle subassembly, in a first and second package, respectively, and removing the assemblies from the packaging as taught by Bolduc in order to supply the components in a sterile condition to the user for the procedure ([0059] of Bolduc).
Instant Application
Patent US11596771
1. A method of assembling an implant subassembly and a handle subassembly, the method comprising:
(a) removing an implant subassembly from a first packaging, the implant subassembly comprising a proximal end and an implant in a collapsed state within a cartridge;
(b) removing a handle subassembly from a second packaging, the handle subassembly including a locking element, a handle and an elongate handle tubular member in operable communication with a handle actuator, wherein actuation of the handle actuator causes axial movement of the elongate handle tubular member;
(c) advancing the proximal end of the implant subassembly into a distal end of the elongate handle tubular member, through the elongate handle tubular member and into the handle of the handle subassembly until the implant subassembly engages with an implant subassembly stopper in the handle thereby stopping the proximal end of the implant subassembly (see claim 2); and
(d) locking the proximal end of the implant subassembly in place within the handle relative to the handle subassembly with the locking element engaging with the proximal end of the implant subassembly.
1. An implant and delivery system adapted to be coupled during a medical procedure that delivers the implant, comprising:
an implant subassembly including:
a cartridge and an implant disposed in a collapsed state within the cartridge, the implant having an implant proximal end,
an implant elongate flexible tubular member with a distal end adjacent the implant proximal end, and
an implant coupling mechanism including first and second coupling members that extend through the implant flexible tubular member, the first and second coupling members coupled to the implant proximal end in a first state and positioned and configured to release the implant proximal end when in a second state; and
a handle subassembly including:
a handle comprising an outer housing and a handle actuator,
a handle elongate tubular member in operable communication with the handle actuator, wherein actuation of the handle actuator causes axial movement of the elongate tubular member,
the handle elongate tubular member having a lumen sized to receive therein the proximal end of the implant subassembly, the implant flexible tubular member, and the first and second coupling members, and
the handle further comprising an implant subassembly locking mechanism that is positioned and adapted to lock a proximal end of the implant subassembly within the handle after the implant subassembly is moved proximally through the handle elongate tubular member and into the handle during a medical procedure to implant the implant.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the handle assembly includes an implant subassembly stopper at least partially disposed within the handle, the implant subassembly stopper positioned within the handle to stop the proximal end of the implant subassembly from further proximal movement within the handle.
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 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1, 3-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu (US2022/0323216) in view of Bolduc (US2007/0073389).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a method of assembling an implant subassembly (12) and a handle subassembly (11/13), the method comprising:
(a) the implant subassembly comprising a proximal end and an implant in a collapsed state within a cartridge (sleeve is interpreted as the claimed cartridge that covers the implant, see [0067]);
(b) the handle subassembly including a locking element (retaining nut 141 fastened to the inner tube 126 by a screwed connection [0069], where this threaded connection is an equivalent structure to the “locking element” interpreted under 112(f) by being a locking feature that surrounds the structure to be engaged similar to a modulated iris), a handle (13) and an elongate handle tubular member (11) in operable communication with a handle actuator (screw rod 144, [0064]), wherein actuation of the handle actuator causes axial movement of the elongate handle tubular member ([0064]));
(c) advancing the proximal end of the implant subassembly into a distal end of the elongate handle tubular member ([0068]), through the elongate handle tubular member and into the handle of the handle subassembly ([0068, see Fig. 2) until the implant subassembly engages with an implant subassembly stopper (second bearing 142) in the handle thereby stopping the proximal end the implant subassembly (when second bearing 142 is fixedly connected to the proximal inner tube 126, proximal inner tube 126 is restricted from moving in the axial direction, and the axial position of the screw rod 144 is fixed, [0070]); and
(d) locking the proximal end of the implant subassembly in place within the handle relative to the handle subassembly with the locking element engaging with the proximal end of the implant subassembly ([0068]).
Wu is silent regarding a removing an implant subassembly from a first packaging, and removing the handle subassembly from a second packaging. Wu teaches the implant subassembly separate from the handle subassembly ([0069]). Bolduc teaches an endovascular system where various tools and devices comprising the system can be consolidated for use in a multiple piece functional kit 40 ([0052]). Where the kit 40 comprises an assemblage of individual packages comprising a sterile, wrapped, peel-pen assembly ([0053]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have the implant subassembly and the handle subassembly, in a first and second package, respectively, and removing the assemblies from the packaging as taught by Bolduc in order to supply the components in a sterile condition to the user for the procedure ([0059] of Bolduc).
Regarding claim 3, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 1, Wu further discloses wherein the step (d) comprises moving the locking element into a locked position relative to the proximal end of the implant subassembly (locked by the threaded connection, [0069]).
Regarding claim 4, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious he method of Claim 3, Wu further discloses wherein moving the locking element into a locked position relative to proximal end of the implant subassembly comprises moving the locking element into engagement with a detachable component of the implant subassembly (detachable component is interpreted as the second bearing 142, [0069]), the detachable component secured to a first coupling member (retaining nut 141, [0069]) of the implant subassembly (the components are connected, [0069]), the first coupling member part of a coupling mechanism that is coupled to the implant in a first state, the first coupling member moveable relative to the implant to release the implant ([0069]).
Regarding claim 5, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 4, Wu further discloses wherein locking the proximal end of the implant subassembly relative to the handle subassembly step (d) comprises moving a second locking element (stopper 116) into engagement with the proximal end of the implant subassembly (stopper prevents circumferential rotation of the inner tube 126 and is therefore interpreted as locking it, [0065]; where the stopper 116 is an equivalent structure to second locking element interpreted as a modulated iris under 112(f) by being a cylindrical locking structure).
Regarding claim 6, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 5, Wu further discloses wherein moving the second locking element comprises moving the second locking element into engagement with a static component of the implant subassembly (outer wall of the inner tube 126, [0065]), the static component coupled to a second coupling member (one of the bearings, [0074]) of the coupling mechanism, the second locking element and the second coupling member not movable axially after being locked in place relative to the handle (one the components are connected and not actuated they are interpreted as locked in place, [0074]).
Regarding claim 7, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 3, Wu further discloses wherein locking the proximal end of the implant subassembly comprises actuating a handle lock actuator (rotation of the housing 13 is interpreted as actuating a handle lock actuator).
Regarding claim 8, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 1, Wu further discloses further comprising delivering the implant to a target location ([0062]), and releasing the implant, the releasing step comprising actuating a handle actuator to move a detachable component of the proximal end of the implant subassembly ([0062]), the proximal end of the implant subassembly secured to an implant coupling member (sheath tube 111 sleeved over inner tube, [0067]).
Regarding claim 9, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 1, Wu further discloses wherein the advancing step further comprises advancing an elongate implant tubular member (elongate portion of the inner tube 126) through the elongate handle tubular member (see Fig. 6), the elongate implant tubular member having a distal end that is adjacent an implant proximal end (see Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 10, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 1; yet, does not explicitly disclose wherein the locking element comprises a clip, a spring, a fork, or a modulated iris. Wu instead teaches the locking element being a threaded connection ([0069]). It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the locking element comprise a clip, a spring loaded mechanism, a fork, or a modulated iris, since applicant has not disclosed that having locking elements be one of the listed structures provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose, it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs as stated in the instant specification Paragraph [0070], and a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the locking element of Wu/Bolduc would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification.
Regarding claim 11, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 5; yet, does not explicitly disclose wherein the second locking element comprises a clip, a spring loaded mechanism, a fork, or a modulated iris. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have the second locking element comprise a clip, a spring loaded mechanism, a fork, or a modulated iris, since applicant has not disclosed that having locking elements be one of the listed structures provides an advantage, solves any stated problem, or is used for any particular purpose, it appears that the device would perform equally well with other designs as stated in the instant specification Paragraph [0070], and a person having ordinary skill in the art, being faced with modifying the locking element of Wu/Bolduc would have a reasonable expectation of success in making such a modification.
Regarding claim 12, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 10, the modified invention discloses wherein the locking element comprises the spring loaded mechanism and does not need a locking actuator to lock the proximal end of the implant subassembly (since it would have been obvious to have the lock comprise a spring loaded mechanism as an obvious alternative, it is capable of not requiring the need of a locking actuator).
Regarding claim 13, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 10, the modified invention discloses wherein the locking element comprises the modulated iris and is configured to close radially around the proximal end of the implant subassembly (it would have been obvious to have the lock comprise a modulated iris, therefore, the modified invention would be capable of closing around the proximal end of the implant subassembly).
Regarding claim 14, Wu/Bolduc make obvious the method of Claim 13, the modified invention discloses wherein the closing of the locking element radially around the proximal end of the implant subassembly is triggered automatically by the proximal end of implant subassembly passing through the handle (the locking element as modified would be capable of automatically closing around the proximal end of the implant subassembly).
Regarding claim 15, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 13, the modified invention discloses wherein the locking element does not need a locking actuator to lock the proximal end of the implant subassembly (since it would have been obvious to have the lock comprise a modulated iris as an obvious alternative, it is capable of not requiring the need of a locking actuator).
Regarding claim 16, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 7, Wu further discloses wherein actuating the handle lock actuator comprises moving the locking element radially inward toward the proximal end of the implant subassembly (the locking element is interpreted as moving radially inward toward the proximal end by the rotations of the threads extending inwardly).
Regarding claim 17, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 7, Wu further discloses wherein actuating the handle lock actuator comprises depressing a handle button (Luer connector 125 is interpreted as a handle button by snapping onto the housing 13, [0071], capable of being used as an actuator by assisting with rotating of the housing).
Regarding claim 18, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 1, Wu further discloses wherein the implant subassembly comprises one or more depressions on the outer surface that engages with the locking element (threads on the inner tube 126 that engage with threads of retaining nut 141, [0069]).
Regarding claim 19, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 1, Wu further discloses wherein the locking element interfaces with a threaded member that is in threaded engagement with the handle actuator ([0069]), wherein the actuation of handle actuator causes axial movement of the threaded member and the locking element, thereby moving the implant subassembly ([0069]).
Regarding claim 20, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 6, Wu further discloses wherein the second locking element does not engage with a threaded member that is in threaded engagement with the handle actuator ([0065]), wherein the actuation of the handle actuator does not move the second locking element ([0065]).
Regarding claim 21, Wu/Bolduc makes obvious the method of Claim 1, Wu further discloses wherein the implant subassembly comprises an implant flexible tube (the inner tube assembly 12 is flexible by navigating through the body) with a distal end adjacent the implant proximal end. (implant is sleeve on distal end of inner tube 12, [0060], [0067]).
Conclusion
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 MIKAIL A MANNAN whose telephone number is (571)270-1879. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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, Thomas Barrett can be reached on (571)272-4746. 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.
/M.A.M/Examiner, Art Unit 3774
/SARAH W ALEMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3774