DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 10/16/2025. As directed by the amendment: claim 77 has been amended. Thus, claims 77, 78, and 80 – 97 are presently pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 77, Applicant argued that Hamburger (U.S. 2008/0091140) and Gat (U.S. 2010/0268076) do not teach the newly amended claim. Specifically, Applicant argued that the combination of Hamburger and Gat does not disclose the limitation “wherein the infusion catheter and biologic in each kit of the plurality of kits are materially identical.”
However, Hamburger teaches a system having an infusion catheter (catheter 10, Figures 8 and 9) and a guide catheter (catheter sheath 43, Figures 8 and 9) for delivering of a biologic (agent to be dispensed as discussed in paragraph [0062]). Hamburger further teaches that the delivery system as disclosed may be provided in the form of kits (paragraph [0087]).
Gat teaches a system for delivering a medication to a vascular vessel similar to Hamburger and the current application, further including a treatment catheter (800, Figure 8a), a guide catheter (500, Figure 5a), and a biologic (sclerosant material, paragraph [0221]) wherein the treatment catheter, the guide catheter, and the sclerosant material are available as a kit sold as a commercial unit as discussed in paragraph [0221]. Gat further discloses that the kit can be any one of treatment catheters 800, 850 or 900 and any one of guide catheters 500, 550, 570, 580 along with sclerosant material (paragraph [0221], Figures 5a – 5d, and 8a – 9a). Therefore, in the combined system of Hamburger and Gat, a first kit can have a treatment catheter 800, a guide catheter 500, and sclerosant material (as disclosed by Gat) while a second kit can have a treatment catheter 800, a guide catheter 550 (Figure 5b) and sclerosant material (as disclosed by Gat). Examiner notes that the treatment catheter and biologic in each of the two kits as mentioned are materially identical (treatment catheter 800 and sclerosant material).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Gat (multiple kits having the same treatment catheter and different guide catheter) with the system of Hamburger in order to accommodate variations in each patient’s anatomy while performing a type of treatment (paragraph [0148]).
Regarding the discussion of paragraph [0148] of Gat in page 8, any of the catheter as discussed by Gat used on a patient can be understood as adapted to the patient’s anatomy. Since each patient has different needs and anatomy as discussed in paragraph [0148], each catheter for each patient would be adapted for that patient’s anatomy.
In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references as seen on page 9 of the Remarks, the Examiner recognizes that the references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya¸184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). References are evaluated by what they suggest to one versed in the art, rather than by their specific disclosures. In re Bozek, 163 USPQ 545 (CCPA 1969). In this case, Hamburger discloses a system that can be provided as kits where each kit includes a guide catheter and an infusion catheter for infusion of an agent while Gat discloses the idea of that each kits can have any one of a plurality of guide catheters, any one of a plurality of infusion catheters and the same biologic (sclerosant material). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed would be motivated to combine the features of Gat (choosing specific guide catheters and infusion catheter for each kit) with the in order to select the appropriate guide catheters to treat different patients since each patient have a different anatomy and medical needs (Gat, paragraph [0148]).
The Examiner further disagrees with the Applicant’s contention that there was no reasonable expectation of success as seen in page 10 because the Applicant’s contention fails to fairly evaluate the actual level of ordinary skill and knowledge possessed by those in the art. Specifically, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have the ability to recognize that Gat’s kits for treatment and the type of catheters being used could readily be modified such that it could be incorporated onto the kits as taught by Hamburger. In KSR decision the Supreme Court made two applicable statements that are relevant here. First, the Court stated that “[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Second, that Court noted that those of ordinary skill in the art of vehicle design realized that “[t]he interaction of multiple components means that changing one component often requires the others to be modified as well.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 424.
Additionally, the Federal Circuit in affirming an Examiner’s determination of obviousness held that it is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable, without change, to render obvious the invention under review. In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983). As applied here, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have the requisite common sense and creativity to realize how to pick guide catheters to accommodate the variation in each patient’s anatomy while having the same infusion catheter to infuse the same biologic to treat the same condition in different patients (i.e. simply changing the size or shape of the guide catheter).
In particular, if the Examiner was to give weight to Applicant’s contention that there was no reasonable expectation of success, the Examiner would in a sense have to determine that those of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention were mere automatons; however, as discussed above such an approach has been rejected by the Supreme Court. Accordingly, the Examiner declines to take this approach. Instead the Examiner finds that those of ordinary skill in the art had ordinary creativity, such that they were able to combine familiar elements that were being used for their known purpose in a predictable manner. Thus, the Examiner has determined that a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention had a reasonable expectation of success in simply using (and/or substituting) one known combination used in a treatment kit for another treatment kit. In particular, such a modification would have yielded predictable results and accordingly provided a reasonable expectation of success, since there is nothing of record to provide any credible basis for why the above modification would be uniquely challenging or beyond the skill of those in the art. Specifically, a person who had ordinary creativity would have been able to realize how to make kits to treat a type of condition while using different guide catheters to accommodate the variation in anatomy of different patients in a predictable manner and thus would have had a reasonable expectation of success.
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.
Claim(s) 77, 78, 80 – 88, and 94 – 96 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamburger (U.S. 2008/0091140) in view of Gat (U.S. 2010/0268076).
Regarding claim 77, Hamburger teaches a system for providing consistent intracoronary administration of a biologic to a plurality of subjects having diverse coronary anatomies (paragraph [0074] discusses the coronary artery as an exemplary insertion point) using multiple types of guide catheters and a single type of biologic-compatible infusion catheter, the system comprising:
a first guide catheter (catheter sheath 43, Figure 9, paragraphs [0073] and [0075]) having proximal and distal ends as shown in Figure 9, wherein the first guide catheter is adapted for the coronary anatomy of a first subject selected from a plurality of subjects comprising diverse coronary anatomies (paragraph [0074] discusses accessing a patient coronary artery);
and (b) a plurality of kits (the various embodiments may be provided in form of kits as discussed in paragraph [0087]), each kit comprising:
a container comprising the biologic (reservoir syringe 60 hold the biologic to fill the dispensing syringe 62 that may be compressed to urge agent into the lumen of member 10 as shown in Figure 10 and discussed in paragraph [0077],
and (ii) an infusion catheter (10, Figures 1 – 7, paragraph [0059]) having proximal and distal ends, wherein the infusion catheter is for use in the intracoronary administration of the biologic to a subject (deliver agent to a cardiac artery as discussed in paragraph [0067]),
wherein a contact surface of the infusion catheter comprises a material compatible with the biologic (specifically the member 10 will be compatible with the agent to be dispensed, and the interior surface 26 of the member may optionally be coated with suitable materials for this purpose as discussed in paragraph [0062]),
and wherein during administration of the biologic to the first subject:
the distal end of the first guide catheter (catheter 43) is capable of being inserted into a coronary artery or vein of the first subject (specifically a guiding catheter 43 with a wire may then be advanced along the blood vessel up to the coronary artery as discussed in paragraph [0073]),
and the infusion catheter is capable of being advanced longitudinally within the lumen of the first guide catheter such that the distal end of the infusion catheter is flush with or extends beyond the distal end of the first guide catheter (paragraphs [0075] and [0076] disclose that the member 10 may be advanced through the catheter to the location of a target vascular occlusion and then advanced through the occlusion to a position where it may be used to dispense the desired agent downstream of the occlusion);
a second guide catheter having proximal and distal ends (similar to catheter sheath 43 as discussed above, Figure 9, paragraphs [0073] and [0075]); Examiner notes that since paragraph [0087] discloses that the various embodiments as disclosed by Hamburger may be provided in the form of kits, a second kit would have the catheter sheath 43 and catheter 10 as shown in Figures 1 – 7 for example;
wherein the coronary anatomy of the second subject is different than the coronary anatomy of first subject; Examiner notes that different subjects would have different specific anatomy at the target site; Further, see discussion of a wide range of catheter designs will be well known to those skilled in the art and those skilled in the art will be readily able to select appropriate designs and to adapt both procedures and designs for the carrying out of various embodiments in paragraph [0051];
wherein during administration of the biologic to the second subject:
the distal end of the second guide catheter (catheter 43 of another kit as discussed above) is capable of being inserted into a coronary artery or vein of the second subject, (specifically a guiding catheter 43 with a wire may then be advanced along the blood vessel up to the coronary artery as discussed in paragraph [0073]),
and the infusion catheter of a second kit of the plurality of kits is capable of being advanced longitudinally within the lumen of the second guide catheter such that the distal end of the infusion catheter is flush with or extends beyond the distal end of the second guide catheter (paragraphs [0075] and [0076] disclose that the member 10 may be advanced through the catheter to the location of a target vascular occlusion and then advanced through the occlusion to a position where it may be used to dispense the desired agent downstream of the occlusion).
However, Hamburger does not specify that the infusion catheter and biologic in each kit of the plurality of kits are materially identical, wherein the second guide catheter is adapted for the coronary anatomy of a second subject selected from a plurality of subjects comprising diverse coronary anatomies, and that the second guide catheter is adapted for a coronary anatomy different from the first guide catheter.
Gat teaches a system for delivering a medication to a vascular vessel similar to Hamburger and the current application, further including a treatment catheter (800, Figure 8a), a guide catheter (570, Figure 5c), and a biologic (sclerosant material, paragraph [0221]) wherein the treatment catheter, the guide catheter, and the sclerosant material are available as a kit sold as a commercial unit as discussed in paragraph [0221]. Gat further discloses that the kit can be any one of treatment catheters 800, 850 or 900 and any one of guide catheters 500, 550, 570, 580 along with sclerosant material (paragraph [0221], Figures 5a – 5d, and 8a – 9a). Therefore, in the combined system of Hamburger and Gat, a first kit can have a treatment catheter 800, a guide catheter 500, and sclerosant material (as disclosed by Gat) while a second kit can have a treatment catheter 800, a guide catheter 550 (Figure 5b) and sclerosant material (as disclosed by Gat). Examiner notes that the treatment catheter and biologic in each of the two kits as mentioned are materially identical (treatment catheter 800 and sclerosant material).
Gat also teaches that wherein the second guide catheter is adapted for the coronary anatomy of a second subject selected from a plurality of subjects comprising diverse coronary anatomies, and that the second guide catheter is adapted for a coronary anatomy different from the first guide catheter (see discussions of accommodating variations in each patient’s anatomy in paragraph [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Gat (multiple kits having the same treatment catheter and different guide catheter) with the system of Hamburger in order to accommodate variations in each patient’s anatomy while performing a type of treatment (paragraph [0148]).
Regarding claim 78, Hamburger and Gat teach claim 77 as seen above.
However, Hamburger does not specify that that the infusion catheter of each kit of the plurality of kits is adapted for insertion into any one of a plurality of different guide catheters; and wherein each guide catheter of the plurality is adapted for a different coronary anatomy of a subject.
Gat teaches a system for delivering a medication to a vascular vessel similar to Hamburger and the current application, further including that that the infusion catheter of each kit of the plurality of kits is adapted for insertion into any one of a plurality of different guide catheters (treatment catheter 800 can be used with any of guide catheter 570 or 580 as discussed in paragraph [0196]); and wherein each guide catheter of the plurality is adapted for a different coronary anatomy of a subject (see discussions of accommodating variations in each patient’s anatomy in paragraph [0148]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Gat (multiple kits having the same treatment catheter and different guide catheter) with the combined system of Hamburger and Gat in order to accommodate variations in each patient’s anatomy while performing a type of treatment (paragraph [0148]).
Regarding claim 80, Hamburger teaches that the coronary anatomy of the first and/or second subject is selected from the group consisting of: non-obstructive or nonocclusive; occluded right coronary artery; occluded left anterior descending artery; occluded left circumflex artery; left dominant circulation; short or non-existent left main coronary artery, with right dominance; and short or non-existent left main coronary artery, with left dominance (paragraph [0099] discusses occlusion in the distal left anterior descending)
Regarding claim 81, Hamburger teaches that the first guide catheter is adapted for delivery of the distal end of the infusion catheter to a left coronary artery, a right coronary artery, a left anterior descending artery, a left circumflex artery, a saphenous vein graft, or a left internal mammary artery graft (paragraph [0074] discloses the access point to be the coronary artery).
Regarding claim 82, Hamburger and Gat teach claim 77 as seen above.
Hamburger further teaches that a wide range of catheter designs will be well known to those skilled in the art and those skilled in the art will be readily able to select appropriate designs and to adapt both procedures and designs for the carrying out of various embodiments (paragraph [0051]).
However, Hamburger and Gat do not specify that the first and/or second guide catheter is selected from the group consisting of diagnostic catheter, guide angiographic catheter for selective arterial engagement, guide angiographic catheter for selective venous engagement, and guide angiographic catheter for selective bypass graft engagement.
It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to have the first and/or second guide catheter is selected from the group consisting of diagnostic catheter, guide angiographic catheter for selective arterial engagement, guide angiographic catheter for selective venous engagement, and guide angiographic catheter for selective bypass graft engagement, since such a modification is the result of choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions (different kind of guide catheter).
Regarding claim 83, Hamburger teaches that each infusion catheter of the plurality of kits has an external diameter in the range from about 0.5 French to about 10 French, and wherein the lumen at the distal end of each of the infusion catheters of the plurality of kits has a diameter in the range from about 0.010 inches to about 0.040 inches (measurements as discussed in paragraph [0002] for the guide catheter and paragraph [0055] for the infusion member).
Regarding claim 84, Hamburger teaches a delivery device (dispensing syringe 62 as shown in Figure 10 and discussed in paragraph [0077]) selected from the group consisting of a syringe, a stopcock, a manifold, an infusion pump, sterile tubing, and an infusion line, wherein a surface of the delivery device that contacts the biologic during administration is adapted for specific use with the biologic (since syringe 62 is described to be used for an agent as discussed in paragraph [0077]).
Regarding claim 85, Hamburger teaches that a surface material of the lumen of the guide catheter has not been determined to be compatible with the biologic. Examiner notes that the claim only recites that a surface material of a lumen has not been determined to be compatible with the biologic and therefore the lumen of the guide catheter can be made of any material since any material is a material that has not been determined to be compatible with the biologic until testing or determination has been conducted.
Regarding claim 86, Hamburger teaches that the first and/or second guide catheter lacks government- approval for specific use with the biologic since Hamburger does not mention any government-approval for the guide catheter.
Regarding claim 87, Hamburger and Gat teach claim 77 as seen above.
Hamburger further teaches that the infusion catheter is compatible with the agent to be dispensed (paragraph [0062]). Further, the bind rate between the biologic and the infusion catheter is a result effective variable since a change in the bind rate would result in change in the volume and concentration of the biologic being delivered.
However, Hamburger and Gat do not specify that the contact surface of the infusion catheter and/or delivery device(s) bind less than 1% of a dose of the biologic.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to make a contact surface of the infusion catheter and/or delivery device(s) bind less than 1% of a dose of the biologic, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Regarding claim 88, Hamburger and Gat teach claim 77 as seen above.
Hamburger further teaches that the infusion catheter is compatible with the agent to be dispensed (paragraph [0062]). Further, the degradation rate between the biologic and the infusion catheter is a result effective variable since a change in the degradation rate would result in change in the volume and concentration of the biologic being delivered.
However, Hamburger and Gat do not specify that the contact surface of the infusion catheter and/or delivery device(s) degrades less than 1% of a dose of the biologic.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to make a contact surface of the infusion catheter and/or delivery device(s) degrades less than 1% of a dose of the biologic, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05(II)
Regarding claims 94 – 96, Hamburger and Gat teach claim 77 as seen above.
Hamburger further teaches that the agent can be any species which is able to prevent, mitigate, reduce, or control reperfusion injury and particular agents may be used in combinations with other agents or with other components (paragraph [0048]).
However, Hamburger and Gat do not specify that the biologic comprises about 50 ml dose comprising a buffer, sodium chloride, L-histidine, magnesium chloride, polysorbate 20, and water (claim 94); the biologic comprises saline (claim 95); and the biologic is lyophilized (claim 96).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to make the biologic comprises about 50 ml dose comprising a buffer, sodium chloride, L-histidine, magnesium chloride, polysorbate 20, and water (claim 94); the biologic comprises saline (claim 95); and the biologic is lyophilized (claim 96), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. MPEP (2144.06)
Claim(s) 89 – 91 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamburger (U.S. 2008/0091140) in view of Gat (U.S. 2010/0268076), and in view of Crank (U.S. 2008/0140045).
Regarding claim 89, Hamburger and Gat teach claim 77 as seen above.
Hamburger further teaches that the agent can be any species which is able to prevent, mitigate, reduce, or control reperfusion injury and particular agents may be used in combinations with other agents or with other components (paragraph [0048]).
However, Hamburger does not specify that the biologic is selected from the group of an antibody or antigen binding fragment thereof, a vaccine, blood, a blood component, a somatic cell, a tissue, a protein, a recombinant protein, a nucleic acid, a vector for gene therapy, and a viral vector.
Crank teaches a system for fluid delivery similar to Hamburger, Gat, and the current application, further including that the biologic is a vector for gene therapy (paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Crank with the combined system of Hamburger and Gat because the substitution of one known element for another (the biologic as disclosed by Crank for the biologic as disclosed by Hamburger) would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 90, Hamburger and Gat teach claim 77 as seen above.
Hamburger further teaches that the agent can be any species which is able to prevent, mitigate, reduce, or control reperfusion injury and particular agents may be used in combinations with other agents or with other components (paragraph [0048]).
However, Hamburger and Gat do not specify that the biologic comprises a vector for gene therapy.
Crank teaches a system for fluid delivery similar to Hamburger, Gat, and the current application, further including that the biologic is a vector for gene therapy (paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Crank with the combined system of Hamburger and Gat because the substitution of one known element for another (the biologic as disclosed by Crank for the biologic as disclosed by Hamburger) would have yielded predictable results.
Regarding claim 91, Hamburger and Gat teach claim 77 as seen above.
Hamburger further teaches that the agent can be any species which is able to prevent, mitigate, reduce, or control reperfusion injury and particular agents may be used in combinations with other agents or with other components (paragraph [0048]).
However, Hamburger and Gat do not specify that the biologic comprises an adeno- associated virus (AAV) vector.
Crank teaches a system for fluid delivery similar to Hamburger, Gat, and the current application, further including the biologic comprises an adeno- associated virus (AAV) vector (paragraph [0044]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Crank with the combined system of Hamburger and gat because the substitution of one known element for another (the biologic as disclosed by Crank for the biologic as disclosed by Hamburger) would have yielded predictable results.
Claim(s) 92 and 93 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamburger (U.S. 2008/0091140) in view of Gat (U.S. 2010/0268076), and in view of Hublot (Sarcoplasmic reticulum and calcium cycling targeting by gene therapy) as submitted by Applicant in the IDS dated 10/11/2023.
Regarding claims 92 and 93, Hamburger and Gat teach claim 77 as seen above.
Hamburger further teaches that the agent can be any species which is able to prevent, mitigate, reduce, or control reperfusion injury and particular agents may be used in combinations with other agents or with other components (paragraph [0048]).
However, Hamburger and Gat do not specify that the biologic comprises a therapeutic polynucleotide encoding a sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum ATPase 2a (SERCA2a) protein (claim 92); the biologic comprises less than or equal to about 2.5 X 1014 DNase resistant particles (DRP) adeno-associated virus serotype 1 (AAV1) vector encoding sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum ATPase 2a (SERCA2a) protein (claim 93).
Hulot teaches a device for fluid delivery similar to Hamburger, Gat, and the current application, further including that the biologic comprises a therapeutic polynucleotide encoding a sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum ATPase 2a (SERCA2a) protein (page 598 Col. 1 lines 13 - 18); (claim 92)
the biologic comprises less than or equal to about 2.5 X 1014 DNase resistant particles (DRP) adeno-associated virus serotype 1 (AAV1) vector encoding sarcoplasmic/endoplasmic reticulum ATPase 2a (SERCA2a) protein (page 598 Col. 1 lines 13 – 18); (claim 93)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Hulot (use specific therapeutic agents to treat specific patients as disclosed by Hulot) with the combined system of Hamburger and Gat in order to reduce mortality associated with heart failure (abstract).
Claim(s) 97 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamburger (U.S. 2008/0091140) in view of Gat (U.S. 2010/0268076), and in view of Zsebo (U.S. 2009/0209631).
Regarding claim 97, Hamburger and Gat teach claim 77 as seen above.
Hamburger further teaches that the agent can be any species which is able to prevent, mitigate, reduce, or control reperfusion injury and particular agents may be used in combinations with other agents or with other components (paragraph [0048]).
However, Hamburger and Gat do not specify that the system further comprising a vasodilator.
Zsebo teaches a device for fluid delivery similar to Hamburger, Gat, and the current application, further including the system further comprising a vasodilator (paragraph [0063] discusses administering a vasodilator with the therapeutic agent).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to combine the features of Zsebo (administering a vasodilator with a therapeutic agent) with the combined system of Hamburger and Gat in order to enhance transduction efficiency of the therapeutic agent (paragraph [0063]).
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 ANH T BUI whose telephone number is (571)270-1028. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 8 - 5.
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, Chelsea Stinson can be reached at (571) 270-1744. 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.
ANH T. BUI
Examiner
Art Unit 3783
/Anh Bui/ Examiner, Art Unit 3783
/CHELSEA E STINSON/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3783