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 Arguments
Applicant’s argument on Page 7 regarding the objection to the specification has been fully considered. However, the trade names still require the proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as TM, SM, or ® following the terms. The objection to the specification is maintained.
Applicant’s argument on Page 7 regarding the objections to Claims 4, 13, 16-18, 26, and 29-31 has been fully considered. The objections to Claims 4, 13, 16-18, 26, and 29-31 are withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant does not explicitly address the claim interpretation of Claim 8, however, the interpretation is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s argument on Page 7 regarding the rejection of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) has been fully considered. The rejection of Claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) and 112(b) is withdrawn in view of the amendments.
Applicant’s argument on Page 7 regarding the rejection of Claims 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
On Page 7, applicant argues that “none of the aforementioned monitoring features in Silberg teach or suggest cumulating the monitored frequencies of the acoustic response or acquiring a cumulative acoustic response.” However, Silberg teaches that the power and frequency may be used that is known to cause cavitation/microstreaming (e.g., as detected by an increased harmonic response),” as in [0079]. Because the system of Silberg recognizes the increased harmonic response, the responses are suggested as cumulative, since the increase needs to come from a response collected prior to the increase. Moreover, Silberg teaches regulating the amount of cavitation, which is induced by ultrasound parameters that are adjusted in response to acoustic feedback from the subject, in [0028]. Additionally, Silberg teaches sensing the measurement of acoustic reaction of the subject, which includes harmonic and broad band responses, as in [0082], and further controlling the processor in a manner, based on the response of acoustic reaction and/or microstreaming and/or cavitation, to increase or decrease the ultrasound power and/or frequency, as in [0084].
Applicant’s argument on Pages 7-8 regarding the rejection of Claims 6 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has been fully considered but is not persuasive.
On Pages 7-8, applicant argues that Silberg does not teach or suggest integrating the acoustic response over the monitored time period [and instead] the acoustic response is continuously monitored and the readings are compared to a baseline. However, the limitation “integrating” is interpreted as combining and/or considering two (or more) things (interpreted as the acoustic response at points in time) over a period of time as a whole. In this instance, Silberg teaches continuously monitoring the amount of cavitation and the ultrasound energy and/or frequency and/or rate of administration of solution in order to maintain a desired level of cavitation, where because the ultrasound energy (and the acoustic response) is monitored over a period of time ([0084], [0098]), the integration is interpreted as the at least two points of the acoustic response over the period of time, and considering them as a whole to produce the cavitation result and/or operate within safety thresholds desired in Silberg.
Therefore, the rejections of Claims 1, 6, 19, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Silberg are maintained.
Regarding the rejection of all remaining corresponding claims, applicant’s argument submitted on Page 7 relies on the supposed deficiencies with respect to the rejection of parent Claims 1 and 19. Applicant’s argument is moot for the same reasons detailed above.
Specification
The use of the terms PythonTM, JavaTM, IntelTM, and IBMTM, which are trade names or marks used in commerce, have been noted in this application. The terms should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore the terms should be properly capitalized wherever they appear or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the terms.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-16, 18-29, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Silberg (US 20160015953).
Regarding Claim 1, Silberg teaches a system for temporarily altering a tissue characteristic at a target region, ([0026] “Systems […] according to some embodiments herein can be configured for administering a solution comprising therapeutic agent to a subject and applying ultrasound energy during and/or after administration in order to efficiently disperse the therapeutic agent in the target tissue, even if the target tissue has low blood supply. Without being limited by any theory, it is contemplated that the dispersion of therapeutic agent can be a function of the amount of ultrasound energy-induced cavitation in solution”), the system comprising:
a) an ultrasound transducer ([0029] “ultrasound applicator 140” and [0073] “the ultrasound applicator comprises an ultrasound transducer.”); and
b) a controller, ([0029] “controller 170”), configured to:
i) cause the transducer to transmit acoustic energy to the target region at a transmission frequency ([0029] “a controller 170 for controlling the operation of the ultrasound generator 160 and/or ultrasound applicator 140,” Claim 1 “an ultrasound transducer configured to deliver ultrasound energy,” Claim 11 “the ultrasound transducer is configured to deliver ultrasound at an applied frequency”);
ii) acquire a cumulative harmonic response from at least the target region ([0012] “The sensor may be configured to monitor a harmonic […] response of the target tissue generated in response to the applied ultrasound.”); and
iii) operate the transducer based at least in part on the acquired cumulative harmonic response ([0010] “The controller may be further configured to adjust the ultrasound delivery depending on the monitored acoustic response of the target tissue” and [0084] “the sensor is in data communication with a processor that controls the amount of induced microstreaming and/or cavitation in response to the acoustic reaction detected by the sensor. […] the processor is configured to adjust ultrasound parameters (frequency and/or power) in response to the amount of microstreaming and/or cavitation detected. For example, the processor can increase ultrasound power and/or frequency to increase the amount of microstreaming and/or cavitation, or can decrease the ultrasound power and/or frequency to decrease the amount of microstreaming and/or cavitation.”).
Regarding Claim 2, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the cumulative harmonic response is acquired at one or more positive integer multiples of the transmission frequency ([0106] “higher harmonic strengths may be of interest (e.g., 2 f, 3 f, out to 10 f or the like) and measured by a spectrum analyzer.” A harmonic response has a frequency with a positive integral multiple of the fundamental frequency of the transmission signal.).
Regarding Claim 3, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the cumulative harmonic response is acquired at one or more positive off-integer multiples of the transmission frequency ([0106] “A subharmonic at ½ the input frequency may be measured”).
Regarding Claim 4, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches a filter for filtering acoustic signals measured from at least one of the target region or its surrounding regions to obtain the cumulative harmonic response ([0012] “the controller may be configured to apply a filter to block an input frequency.”).
Regarding Claim 5, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 4, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the filter is configured to select at least one of a harmonic, an ultraharmonic or a sub-harmonic response to the transmitted acoustic energy ([0102] “The signal filter may be configured to filter some frequencies from a return signal based on the user inputted parameters,” [0106] “the power and frequency may be gradually increased until a desired strength of harmonic, subharmonic, […] response is achieved,” and [0108] “FIG. 6C illustrates an acoustic response of bulk water with a power that is five times greater than in FIG. 6B. Here, the subharmonic (f/2) and ultraharmonics (3 f/2, 5 f/2, etc.) are strong as is the broad band noise from internal cavitation.”).
Regarding Claim 6, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the controller is further configured to compute the cumulative harmonic response by integrating a received acoustic signal from at least the target region over a predetermined time period ([0010] “The controller may be configured to monitor the dispersal of the injected solution with the therapeutic agent dissolved therein based on the acoustic response of the target tissue monitored by the sensor” and [0112] “therapeutic agent is administered for a specified period of time at the desired level of cavitation so as to achieve a desired concentration of therapeutic agent in the target tissue.”).
Regarding Claim 7, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the controller is further configured to cause generation of microbubbles in the target region ([0006] “The system can comprise a computing unit for regulating an amount of induced cavitation in fluid after delivery of the fluid to the subject”).
Regarding Claim 8, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the controller is further configured to cause microbubbles to be introduced into at least one of the target region or its surrounding regions ([0028] “cavitation and/or microstreaming is induced in a fluid in the subject” and [0029] “The system 100 can further comprise a gas partial pressure controller for controlling a partial pressure of solubilized gas in the fluid. The gas partial pressure controller can comprise one or both of a vacuum 110 and inert gas source 115 in gas communication with solution in the container 105. The system 100 can further comprise a pump 120 in fluid communication with the container 105, and a tissue interface 130 in fluid communication with the pump 120, so that the pump 120 can direct solution from the container 105 to the tissue interface 130 for optional delivery to a subject”).
Regarding Claim 9, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein temporarily altering a tissue characteristic comprises disrupting target tissue ([0006] “a system for delivering a therapeutic agent to a target tissue in a subject is provided. The system can comprise a container configured to hold a fluid comprising the therapeutic agent. The system can comprise a cannula administering the fluid to a vicinity of the target tissue, wherein the cannula is in fluid communication with the container. The system can comprise an ultrasound applicator configured to broadcast energy”).
Regarding Claim 10, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 9, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the target tissue is the blood-brain barrier (BBB) and the disruption alters a permeability of the BBB ([0045] “the target tissue may comprise brain tissue or cancerous brain tissue”).
Regarding Claim 11, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the controller is configured to control a parameter of the transmitted acoustic energy based at least in part on spectral components of the cumulative harmonic response ([0018] “The controller may be further configured to adjust the ultrasound delivery depending on the monitored acoustic response of the gas dissolved in the injected solution” and [0083] “a spectrum analyzer may be used”).
Regarding Claim 12, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 11, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the parameter is at least one of power, frequency, pulse duration or pulse repetition frequency ([0079] “the ultrasound applicator and/or ultrasound generator are in communication with a processor. The processor can control the duty cycle of the ultrasound applicator, for example by controlling the frequency, energy, and/or pulse parameters of the ultrasound energy administered.”).
Regarding Claim 13, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 11, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the parameter of the transmitted acoustic energy based at least in part on cumulative harmonic response data from within a defined interval ([0079] “the processor adjusts the ultrasound duty cycle in response to feedback from a sensor as described herein. In some embodiments, the processor adjusts the ultrasound duty cycle in response to the sensor in real time. […] a power and/or frequency may be gradually increased until cavitation/microstreaming is detected. At that point, the power and/or frequency may be held constant until cavitation/microstreaming is no longer detected. In other embodiments, a power and frequency may be used that is known to cause cavitation/microstreaming (e.g., as detected by an increased harmonic response). The response may be monitored during the application to determine the extent of dispersion. If a duration of the dispersion is shorter than expected, a sound level may be increased to see if a desired harmonic response is returned” and [0084] “delivery of solution comprising therapeutic agent to the subject continues for a set amount of time at a desired microstreaming and/or cavitation level so as to achieve a therapeutically effective concentration of therapeutic agent in the subject.”).
Regarding Claim 14, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 13, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the defined interval is within a current sonication (Fig. 4, reproduced below).
PNG
media_image1.png
504
300
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Silberg
Regarding Claim 15, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 13, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the defined interval includes data from at least one previous sonication (Fig. 5, reproduced below, where the parameters are changed based on the monitored acoustic response, which is the previous sonication).
PNG
media_image2.png
690
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Silberg
Regarding Claim 16, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 11, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the parameter to select for a harmonic frequency band while maintaining at least one of cumulative broadband emission or cumulative ultra-harmonics below corresponding safety thresholds ([0082] “a range of frequencies can be receivable from the subject, including both broad band and harmonic and subharmonic frequencies” and [0106] “the power and frequency may be gradually increased until a desired strength of harmonic, subharmonic, and/or broad band response is achieved.” Where one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret that the broadband emission or cumulative ultra-harmonics are maintained below corresponding safety thresholds in order not to harm the patient.).
Regarding Claim 18, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 11, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the controller in configured to control the parameter to increase a ratio between (i) at least one of cumulative harmonics or cumulative ultra-harmonics and (ii) cumulative broadband emission ([0012] “The sensor may be configured to monitor a harmonic, subharmonic, and/or broad band response of the target tissue generated in response to the applied ultrasound. […] The sensor may be configured to monitor a harmonic, subharmonic, and/or broad band response of an interaction between the injected solution and the target tissue generated in response to the applied ultrasound. […] The ultrasound transducer may be configured to deliver ultrasound at an applied frequency and wherein the sensor is configured to monitor target tissue acoustic responses at frequencies other than the applied frequency.”).
Regarding Claim 19, Silberg teaches a method of applying ultrasound sonication from a transducer to temporarily alter a tissue characteristic at a target region, ([0026] “methods according to some embodiments herein can be configured for administering a solution comprising therapeutic agent to a subject and applying ultrasound energy during and/or after administration in order to efficiently disperse the therapeutic agent in the target tissue, even if the target tissue has low blood supply. Without being limited by any theory, it is contemplated that the dispersion of therapeutic agent can be a function of the amount of ultrasound energy-induced cavitation in solution”), the method comprising:
a) causing an ultrasound transducer to transmit acoustic energy to the target region at a transmission frequency ([0029] “a controller 170 for controlling the operation of the ultrasound generator 160 and/or ultrasound applicator 140,” Claim 1 “an ultrasound transducer configured to deliver ultrasound energy,” Claim 11 “the ultrasound transducer is configured to deliver ultrasound at an applied frequency”);
b) acquiring a cumulative harmonic response from at least the target region ([0012] “The sensor may be configured to monitor a harmonic […] response of the target tissue generated in response to the applied ultrasound.”); and
c) operating the transducer based at least in part on the acquired cumulative harmonic response ([0010] “The controller may be further configured to adjust the ultrasound delivery depending on the monitored acoustic response of the target tissue.”).
Regarding Claim 20, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 19, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the harmonic response is acquired at one or more positive integer multiples of the transmission frequency ([0106] “higher harmonic strengths may be of interest (e.g., 2 f, 3 f, out to 10 f or the like) and measured by a spectrum analyzer.” A harmonic response has a frequency with a positive integral multiple of the fundamental frequency of the transmission signal.).
Regarding Claim 21, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 19, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the harmonic response is acquired at one or more positive off-integer multiples of the transmission frequency ([0106] “A subharmonic at ½ the input frequency may be measured”).
Regarding Claim 22, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 19, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the cumulative harmonic response is acquired by integrating a received acoustic signal from at least the target region over a predetermined time period ([0010] “The controller may be configured to monitor the dispersal of the injected solution with the therapeutic agent dissolved therein based on the acoustic response of the target tissue monitored by the sensor” and [0112] “therapeutic agent is administered for a specified period of time at the desired level of cavitation so as to achieve a desired concentration of therapeutic agent in the target tissue.”).
Regarding Claim 23, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 19, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches generating of microbubbles in the target region ([0006] “The system can comprise a computing unit for regulating an amount of induced cavitation in fluid after delivery of the fluid to the subject”).
Regarding Claim 24, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 19, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches the step of controlling a parameter of the transmitted acoustic energy based at least in part on spectral components of the cumulative harmonic response ([0018] “The controller may be further configured to adjust the ultrasound delivery depending on the monitored acoustic response of the gas dissolved in the injected solution” and [0083] “a spectrum analyzer may be used”).
Regarding Claim 25, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 24, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the parameter is at least one of power, frequency, pulse duration or pulse repetition frequency ([0079] “the ultrasound applicator and/or ultrasound generator are in communication with a processor. The processor can control the duty cycle of the ultrasound applicator, for example by controlling the frequency, energy, and/or pulse parameters of the ultrasound energy administered.”).
Regarding Claim 26, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 24, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches the step of controlling the parameter of the transmitted acoustic energy based at least in part on cumulative harmonic response data from within a defined interval ([0079] “the processor adjusts the ultrasound duty cycle in response to feedback from a sensor as described herein. In some embodiments, the processor adjusts the ultrasound duty cycle in response to the sensor in real time. […] a power and/or frequency may be gradually increased until cavitation/microstreaming is detected. At that point, the power and/or frequency may be held constant until cavitation/microstreaming is no longer detected. In other embodiments, a power and frequency may be used that is known to cause cavitation/microstreaming (e.g., as detected by an increased harmonic response). The response may be monitored during the application to determine the extent of dispersion. If a duration of the dispersion is shorter than expected, a sound level may be increased to see if a desired harmonic response is returned” and [0084] “delivery of solution comprising therapeutic agent to the subject continues for a set amount of time at a desired microstreaming and/or cavitation level so as to achieve a therapeutically effective concentration of therapeutic agent in the subject.”).
Regarding Claim 27, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 26, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the defined interval is within a current sonication (Fig. 4, reproduced above).
Regarding Claim 28, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 27, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the defined interval includes data from at least one previous sonication (Fig. 5, reproduced above, where the parameters are changed based on the monitored acoustic response, which is the previous sonication).
Regarding Claim 29, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 24, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches the step of controlling a parameter to select for a harmonic frequency band while maintaining at least one of cumulative broadband emission or cumulative ultra-harmonics below corresponding safety thresholds ([0082] “a range of frequencies can be receivable from the subject, including both broad band and harmonic and subharmonic frequencies” and [0106] “the power and frequency may be gradually increased until a desired strength of harmonic, subharmonic, and/or broad band response is achieved.” Where one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret that the broadband emission or cumulative ultra-harmonics are maintained below corresponding safety thresholds in order not to harm the patient.).
PNG
media_image2.png
690
352
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Silberg
Regarding Claim 29, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 24, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the parameter to select for a harmonic frequency band while maintaining at least one of cumulative broadband emission or cumulative ultra-harmonics below corresponding safety thresholds ([0082] “a range of frequencies can be receivable from the subject, including both broad band and harmonic and subharmonic frequencies” and [0106] “the power and frequency may be gradually increased until a desired strength of harmonic, subharmonic, and/or broad band response is achieved.” Where one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret that the broadband emission or cumulative ultra-harmonics are maintained below corresponding safety thresholds in order not to harm the patient.).
Regarding Claim 31, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 24, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches the step of controlling the parameter to increase a ratio between (i) at least one of cumulative harmonics or cumulative ultra-harmonics and (ii) cumulative broadband emission ([0012] “The sensor may be configured to monitor a harmonic, subharmonic, and/or broad band response of the target tissue generated in response to the applied ultrasound. […] The sensor may be configured to monitor a harmonic, subharmonic, and/or broad band response of an interaction between the injected solution and the target tissue generated in response to the applied ultrasound. […] The ultrasound transducer may be configured to deliver ultrasound at an applied frequency and wherein the sensor is configured to monitor target tissue acoustic responses at frequencies other than the applied frequency.”).
Regarding Claim 32, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 19, as discussed above. Furthermore, Silberg teaches introducing microbubbles into at least one of the target region or its surrounding regions ([0006] “The system can comprise a computing unit for regulating an amount of induced cavitation in fluid after delivery of the fluid to the subject,” where one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that induced cavitation introduces microbubbles.).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 17 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Silberg (US 20160015953) in view of Geva et al. (WO 2016151595).
Regarding Claim 17, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 1, as discussed above. However, Silberg does not explicitly teach wherein the controller is configured to control the parameter to increase a ratio between cumulative harmonics and cumulative ultra-harmonics.
In an analogous ultrasonic drug delivery field of endeavor, Geva teaches a system for temporarily altering a tissue characteristic at a target region, ([0059] “The disclosed device, kit and method are based on the application of ultrasound to the bladder tissue and/or to a therapeutic agent adjacent to the bladder internal surface. Ultrasound may increase permeability through thermal and/or cavitation mechanisms.”), wherein the controller is configured to control the parameter to increase a ratio between cumulative harmonics and cumulative ultra-harmonics ([00165] “when sub-harmonics, high harmonics and ultraharmonics frequencies are detected, control unit 997 computes a control signal to maintain the acoustic energy at constant level and continue treatment for a certain time duration. Alternatively, control unit 997 computes a control signal to continue to increase the acoustic energy until levels of the subharmonic or high harmonics, or their ratio, achieve predefined values.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Silberg and Geva because the combination improves signal to noise ratio while also ensuring optimal power consumption.
Regarding Claim 30, Silberg teaches all limitations of Claim 24, as discussed above. However, Silberg does not explicitly teach the step of controlling the parameter to increase a ratio between cumulative harmonics and cumulative ultra-harmonics.
In an analogous ultrasonic drug delivery field of endeavor, Geva teaches a method of applying ultrasound sonication from a transducer to temporarily alter a tissue characteristic at a target region, ([0059] “The disclosed device, kit and method are based on the application of ultrasound to the bladder tissue and/or to a therapeutic agent adjacent to the bladder internal surface. Ultrasound may increase permeability through thermal and/or cavitation mechanisms.”), comprising the step of controlling the parameter to increase a ratio between cumulative harmonics and cumulative ultra-harmonics ([00165] “when sub-harmonics, high harmonics and ultraharmonics frequencies are detected, control unit 997 computes a control signal to maintain the acoustic energy at constant level and continue treatment for a certain time duration. Alternatively, control unit 997 computes a control signal to continue to increase the acoustic energy until levels of the subharmonic or high harmonics, or their ratio, achieve predefined values.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of applicant’s filing to combine the teachings of Silberg and Geva for the same reasons as Claim 17 above.
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 MARIA CHRISTINA TALTY whose telephone number is (571)272-8022. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5:30 EST.
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, Mike Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MARIA CHRISTINA TALTY/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights